Where I disagree with you

Post #114,840 by Silverlock 8/21/03 9:52:23 PM Reply	Where I disagree with you I don't mind if religious groups meet, ON THEIR OWN TIME, on public property. Good explanatory sentance. I'll rephrase it and you'll see where we disagree. I don't mind if religious groups meet, ON THEIR OWN DIME, on private property. If it's not clear yet to everyone, my position is this-- worship how you will. Just don't use my tax money to support it. I pay for the schools, the courthouses, the senate buildings, etc. You don't get to use them for worship of anything. God, Jehova, Papa Doc, Earth spirit or The Great A'Tuan. If you want to twist my desire not to pay for your worship into some form of discrimination, you have a successfull future in TV evangelism waiting for you. Well, maybe not. But I'm sure they'll welcome any donation you want to make to further the cause of being able to prey in the buildings I pay for. ----------------------------------------- [link\|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html\|?W] Where were you in 72? [link\|http://www.blah3.com/graymatter/archives/00000420.html\|Fair and Balanced] sig
Post #114,875 by bluke 8/22/03 3:35:10 AM Reply	Discrimination Given your position is there a problem with the following. What if I said I don't want my tax money going to any black organizations (for example the NAACP can't use the school auditorium for a meeting), they want to organize do it on their own dime, do you support that? How is it any different from a religious group?
Post #114,917 by Silverlock 8/22/03 11:54:00 AM Reply	you answer your own question How is it any different from a religious group? Errmmm...., possibly because it's not religious? ----------------------------------------- [link\|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html\|?W] Where were you in 72? [link\|http://www.blah3.com/graymatter/archives/00000420.html\|Fair and Balanced] sig
Post #114,922 by admin 8/22/03 12:12:36 PM Reply	Perversion of the Constitution. No laws respecting the establishment of religion. By preventing a group from gathering because it is a religious group, and not a soccer group, or Pokemon group, or whatever, you are creating a law discriminating against religion in all forms. Religion should be treated no differently than any other pasttime or hobby, especially because of the explicit reference to that fact in the Constitution. This explicit mention, however, is unfortunately being perverted to the exact opposite meaning by the Jeffersonian interpretation. Incidentally, this is a representative democracy. Once you pay your taxes, it's out of your hands how it gets spent as long as the usage is legal, regardless of whether you personally agree with that use or not. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #114,924 by Silverlock 8/22/03 12:35:21 PM Reply	See my response to Beep [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=114923\|here]. Pretty much covers this. ----------------------------------------- [link\|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html\|?W] Where were you in 72? [link\|http://www.blah3.com/graymatter/archives/00000420.html\|Fair and Balanced] sig
Post #114,926 by admin 8/22/03 12:47:25 PM Reply	Which part of it? Because it's not the same point. 1) "My worship"? Examine your assumptions here. I'm as atheistic as they come. And that post doesn't answer my points. 2) "The only way the gov can truly be neutral with respect to religion is to scrupulously avoid supporting any of the various flavors." Wrong. "not supporting" is not the same as explicitly supporting (or discriminating). By preventing church groups from gathering at a school, you are engaging in explicit discrimination, not explicit support. Only if a single group is allowed permission is there any kind of explicit or implicit support. By explicitly prohibiting religion, in direct contradiction to the Constitution, you are just as guilty of engaging in discriminatory, non-neutral behavior. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #114,927 by Silverlock 8/22/03 12:58:11 PM Reply	I don't agree You think the current interpretation is a perversion. I think it's a logical outgrowth. You don't agree with current case law in this matter, I do. ----------------------------------------- [link\|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html\|?W] Where were you in 72? [link\|http://www.blah3.com/graymatter/archives/00000420.html\|Fair and Balanced] sig
Post #114,930 by bepatient 8/22/03 1:04:15 PM Reply	And its discriminatory. Just as much so as separate toilets. ...without regard to race, color, religion, creed, gender, national origin, age, disability, marital or veteran status, sexual orientation... If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #114,935 by admin 8/22/03 1:28:16 PM Reply	Don't see how you can call that logical. For the reasons I stated. Whether that is the current interpretation or not, I don't care. Argument from authority. Make your own argument, not someone else's. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #115,158 by Silverlock 8/24/03 9:18:29 AM Reply	Argument from authority A complaint about being illogical in an argument about religion. Good one, Scott. And the complaint is about using the argument from authority. About religion. Better one. ----------------------------------------- [link\|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html\|?W] Where were you in 72? [link\|http://www.blah3.com/graymatter/archives/00000420.html\|Fair and Balanced] sig
Post #115,160 by admin 8/24/03 9:37:07 AM 8/24/03 9:37:20 AM Reply	Wrong. Lame attempt at misdirection. This is an argument about politics. We're not arguing faith. We're arguing law. Try again. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..." Edited by admin Aug. 24, 2003, 09:37:20 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #115,279 by Silverlock 8/25/03 10:26:49 AM Reply	The law is in regards to faith. The point is proposed that there is "no difference" in laws regarding hobbyists use of public facilities and laws regarding religious groups use of those facilities. I am saying you can't divorce the religious aspect from the discussion. There is a difference. ----------------------------------------- [link\|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html\|?W] Where were you in 72? [link\|http://www.blah3.com/graymatter/archives/00000420.html\|Fair and Balanced] sig
Post #115,284 by admin 8/25/03 10:48:16 AM Reply	Doesn't matter what the law is about. We're discussing law primarily about religion secondarily. Your previous objection is therefore ridiculous. Religion is a (strange) hobby, as far as I am concerned. There is no difference. And as pointed out elsewhere, apparently current case law supports my view on this manner, since you seem to be impressed with authority. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #115,297 by Silverlock 8/25/03 11:58:23 AM Reply	Ok We are done. The impasse is obvious. The "no difference" position is what it all boils down to and I don't see any way of convincing you of the error of your conviction. ----------------------------------------- [link\|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html\|?W] Where were you in 72? [link\|http://www.blah3.com/graymatter/archives/00000420.html\|Fair and Balanced] sig
Post #115,298 by bepatient 8/25/03 12:07:51 PM Reply	Heh heh... ...because his isn't in error. Nudge ;-) If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #115,300 by Silverlock 8/25/03 12:11:57 PM Reply	Braap I make rude mouth noises in your general direction. Nudge ;-) backatcha ----------------------------------------- [link\|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html\|?W] Where were you in 72? [link\|http://www.blah3.com/graymatter/archives/00000420.html\|Fair and Balanced] sig
Post #115,299 by admin 8/25/03 12:11:49 PM Reply	... You're treating religious groups differently. This is, by all definitions applicable, discrimination. The Constitution specifically disallows this kind of discrimination. I'm at a loss as to how you can't see that. Impasse indeed. You've managed to present nothing that explains why your position isn't illogical, yet you're convinced that my "conviction" is in error. None so blind... Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #115,303 by a6l6e6x 8/25/03 12:47:07 PM Reply	I agree with your point, Don. Not all "clubs" and "hobbies" are equivalent. Plug in "man boy love" or "child porn photo exchange" or "animal sacrifice" or "masochist sadist interaction" group. Yeah, they deserve to meet in public facilities as well. Maybe NOT! One needs to have a blind spot not to see the evil baggage that comes with religions. Alex "Don't let it end like this. Tell them I said something." -- last words of Pancho Villa (1877-1923)
Post #115,309 by admin 8/25/03 1:16:21 PM Reply	Er... legal groups. Which is a perfectly valid distinction to make. I'm certainly not blind to the danger of religion. However, making the distinction on religion is in direct contradiction to the Constitution. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #115,313 by a6l6e6x 8/25/03 2:34:16 PM Reply	But ritual animal sacrifice is perfectly legal. [link\|http://www.religioustolerance.org/santeri1.htm\|SUPREME COURT RULING ON SANTERIA ANIMAL SACRIFICES]. And so are consensual [link\|http://www.geocities.com/rhsmcjrotc/parrisisland.html\|power mind games]. Alex "Don't let it end like this. Tell them I said something." -- last words of Pancho Villa (1877-1923)
Post #115,314 by bepatient 8/25/03 2:38:18 PM Reply	Cool... ...school barbecue! If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #115,315 by admin 8/25/03 2:47:07 PM Reply	Goes in same category as the rest of the legal groups then. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #115,310 by bepatient 8/25/03 1:25:47 PM Reply	And I know those... One needs to have a blind spot not to see the evil baggage that comes with religions. ...that hold the same opinion about certain minority groups. Understand his point or not...its not illegal to be religious (unlike the other examples)...and as such that makes the view bigoted and prejudicial. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #115,318 by Ashton 8/25/03 4:00:14 PM Reply	OK for just now: perhaps made illegal____just after WW-III?
Post #115,132 by mhuber 8/24/03 2:44:21 AM Reply	Um, no . Current case law says the opposite If a school allows the use of facilities by outside groups, it has to allow them whether religious or not. ---- Sometime you the windshield, sometime you the bug, sometime you the driver you turn on the windshield washer you keep going.
Post #115,161 by admin 8/24/03 9:37:58 AM Reply	Good, that's how it should be. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #114,876 by Ashton 8/22/03 3:44:23 AM Reply	It seems to have come to 'about that', no? Were we a more curious bunch, our culture less anti-intellectual and very much less violence prone (often over really screwed-up premises, do many die) - Why then.. Who Wouldn't-be! Interested in (exploring possible) 'origins'? But we have it backwards: murderous rages over one ignorant piece of (wishful? fearful? both??) cant VS an equally-ignorant but Opposed guess. {sigh} what to do with duelling naifs? You can't make the topic safe for dummies; all you can do is reduce the dumbth level (my guess). But that level isn't improving.. is it. So yep: put it in Econ terms - the fav (actual) Universal God of Murica! Not one cent for ~~Tribute!~~ fanciful musings in My Government Offices thankyouverymuch. Sign me up too, Ashton (who has seen only quite rare occasions wherein an actual exchange of valuable insights became possible. But those are enough to demonstrate what Might Be, post-adolescence and all. That'll be a while.)

Welcome to IWETHEY!