Should we let Bill Frist & Co. change the rules of the senate ?

I thought it was something from Celine Dion. She's not even of the Amy Grant style of musician. Let me ask you this, would Peter Gabriel's "Salsbury Hill" be a problem? How about Jethro Tull's "Hymn 43" or "Locomotive Breath"?I think there is a big difference between a song which is from a generic pop star who touches on many subjects and one happens to have a spiritual or religious element to it, and an artist whose particular subject is preaching the faith through each song. That's begging the question isn't it? I was just arguing that it wasn't unconstitutional behavior, or shouldn't be considered as such.Someone choosing to express their religious view at a public venue, including school, is not the same thing as being forced by a school to endure a religious service.I grant that it will be a few minutes of boredom, but what else is new at school? Generally if we're going to allow people to communicate someone is going to mention their religious feelings at some point. Is it really that terrible?I get that we shouldn't have to be forced through services or sermons or overt moralizing, but I don't feel like my constitutional rights have been stripped because a girl chose one hideously boring Celine Dion song with religion, rather than the one without. Heck, I'd buy an argument more along the lines of cruel and unusual punishment than having one's religious freedoms violated.This message has been edited by holmes, 05-28-2005 10:51 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I understand the difference between the two examples offered and I believe the judge was out of line to issue an order preventing the parents from raising their own kid as a Wiccan. It’s just plain wrong and I was not offering a rebuttal in favor of the judge's decision. There is a difference between preventing the religious education of a child and someone being denied free speech. I do understand this.My case was offered more specifically to counter the statement that we live in a theocracy or that the current trend is that we will soon end up as a theocracy. I’ve read comments like this on several occasions and I don’t believe it. I just do not believe that one day soon our government, or more specifically the Republicans, will create a state run religion that will exert authority over all aspects of government.Does one errant judge give definitive evidence that theocracy is in the future? I say no. Similarly, the Dion case does not give definitive evidence that all religion will be eliminated by secularist. Theocracy is a strong word and should be used with the appropriate definition in mind. When I think of a theocracy, Iran comes to mind. Look at their level of intolerance for anything divergent from Islam.Islamic laws have intruded in all aspects of life in Iran. All public functions are now designed, based and enforced by Islamic law. Iranian Society has been segregated based on sexual apartheid. Men and women are segregated in public space and women are treated as second-class citizens in all manners of life.Schools in Iran and the education system have been redefined and any subject not compatible with Islamic definitions has been eradicated. Women have been forced to veil. Marriage has to follow Islamic codes of conduct.Any voluntary sexual relationship outside marriage is punishable by flogging, imprisonment and by stoning to death. Any criticism of Islam or any policies handed down by the representatives of god on earth has been treated with the harshest response under the laws of blasphemy and critics silenced by imprisonment and death. Religious intolerance and bigotry are the order of the day.This is theocracy. This is something to be fearful of. This is something I strongly disagree with. Are there any Americans who would welcome this type of society? Very few if any. Some would argue that organizations like the Family Research Council (FRC) have an agenda to form a society exactly like Iran but with Christianity as the religion. I don’t see this either. I do not believe the FRC wants a religious society in the Iranian extreme.The FRC lobbies for increased religious expression in the general public. Their objective is to establish a conservative Christian standard of morality in all of America’s domestic and foreign policy. Because of these stated goals, many on the left find FRC abhorrent. That’s understandable.But there are many other lobbying organizations that have all sorts of goals abhorrent to some segments of society. Secular lobbying organizations would like to push atheism to the forefront of society much to the chagrin of Christians.One such organization, "Godless Americans Political Action Committee," or GAMPAC, have adopted a rather novel lobbying strategy. Their name is intentionally offensive so that GAMPAC could use the threat of endorsement to pressure lawmakers into siding with the group on issues. According to President Ellen Johnson, If a candidate says, 'Don't endorse me,' we will have to say we have the right to endorse somebody, but perhaps we can talk about what we can get in terms of promises from that candidate to help us out in return for not endorsing him,".This may be a joke and they may not be serious about using this tactic, but then again, the selection of their name could have been less conspicuous if their goal is to effectively push forward their cause.So, I would not deprive atheist their rights to lobby politicians in this way or in much the same way that the FRC is lobbying. Christian lobbying efforts do not demonstrate a clearly irreversible march towards Iranian type theocracy.The Democrats will regain power one day and when they do, the FRC and other right wing organizations will begin to fade. Nothing in American politics is permanent though the short term seems unbearable to those not in power. It often helps to have a longer viewpoint.This message has been edited by Monk, Sat, 05-28-2005 10:46 AM

quote:

---

What about being forced to sit through a gay pride assembly?

---

I did several searches and only two things worth noting came up: 1) various articles about optional gay pride events organized by students in universities, and 2) articles about a group of students who were suspended for wearing shirts supporting gay rights. Can you provide a reference to the event you are specifically talking about?I would caution that assemblies to promote tolerance of homosexuality are a far different thing from "gay pride" assemblies (though I suppose you may consider both a violation of the Constitution).

So? Like I said we don't know the content of the song in question. Unless one of us wants to try to look it up or something. If they both sing a song that's all "praise be to God", then no, I don't see a difference. I don't see what your question had to do with unconstitutionality. Could you elaborate? Ok, but what happened was the latter, not the former. I have no problem with a statement of religious belief. Praising God through song is something I would have a problem with, if it wasn't something that I had knowingly signed up for.

"State-mandated religion." Does that about cover it? Aside from the level of penetration into the state apparatus, what's the difference between that and Christian intolerance in this country? Not even when you say this not two paragraphs later? But, hey, that's not theocracy, right? We know it's not because "theocracy" is such a dirty word, and we all know that it could never happen in the US, right?Look, you can believe what you like. The facts spell a different story and I question the judgement of anyone who can't see it. Well, I'd like to think so, but so long as Republicans are the ones that own the voting machines, when do you think that's likely to happen?

quote:

---

Nature worship is basically harmless. Its just not that bright!

---

That is an incredibly arrogant, patronizing, demeaning statement, phat.The really sad thing is you probably don't even realize it.

quote:

---

What about students that are "forced" to read Harry Potter books in class?

---

Yeah, and they shouldn't be forced to do any algebra, either, because it was invented by those evil Muslims.

quote:

---

What about being forced to sit through a gay pride assembly?

---

I'm sorry, what religion are the children being exposed to during a gay pride assembly?

ROTFLMAO!!!!Compared to having to read Chaucer in Ancient English?Get serious.Primary education is the time to challenge beliefs, to teach kids critical thinking. The books they read should be exactly those that cause them to think, question and temper their beliefs.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yes, that verifies my statement that you thought Crash's citation was as "flippant" as yours. Which is why my criticism still stands.He posted a case which is disturbing and shows a case of someone trying to move toward mandated religious intolerance. Now your latest post digs in to some actual material which can be used against the point Crash was making with his cite, but your original reply to him (esp. using the case you did) didn't outline the case you just made at all. In fact it didn't make any case, except your apparent need to counter something he said. I agree with you that one judge does not make a theocracy, but this is not the only case of judges doing things in support of their religious views, and that behavior has been getting much boosting from the religious conservatives. It is not proof that we reached that point, but certainly an indicator that attempts are occuring. First of all you are right that it doesn't give such evidence, because it is not evidence of anyone affecting religious practice at all. You just said so yourself to Crash. I wish you'd just drop that lame example because it does nothing for comparing issues.Second, secularism is not about eliminating religion. That would be anti-theism or perhaps hardcore atheism. Secularism is simply about addressing nontheistic issues without using theism, or in the case of gov't making sure that it only deals with nontheistic issues. One can be religious and still be a firm secularist. That certainly is one example. But there are others as well. A very good description is one that you just gave... That is equally a theocracy. The flavor is only slightly different between Iran and the above situation. I guess we are talking degrees of theocracy. Maybe you like weak ones, but I dislike any theocracy.You may note that Iraq is being crafted as an Islamic democracy. That is actually a step backward for Iraq in that it used to have a secular gov't. Now it is a theocratic democracy. Bush has suggested that this would be an Islamic form, while ours is a Xian form of democracy. That is advocacy of theocracy. I am an agnostic-atheist who also happens to be a firm believer in secularism. I can tell you that secularism has nothing to do with my views on theism. I can think of few things more abhorrent than having a gov't push atheism on anyone.Thus I reject your claim that secular lobbying groups puch atheism. If you want I can give you links to some religious secular groups... though you can easily find them if you want.There are some anti-theists which are pushing for atheism, but then they are not secular in nature (even if they happen to use the name for their groups).Many of the founding fathers were religious, yet they created a secular gov't. Uh, once again, I am not a Democrat. I was more for Bush than Gore in 2000. He could have even gotten my support in 2004 if he had actually done good work between elections.I have a pretty long viewpoint, and I do know that while things may be just temporary, my life is only temporary and so people trying to move us to a theocracy for the short duration of their life have a real impact on my life.... regardless if things change years down the line. In the end analysis, it is important to be cognizant and fight these things from happening here and now.Hitler was temporary. Stalin was temporary. Iran's theocracy just happened recently and there are movements within that nation which might reverse it some day. This gives little comfort for those on the losing side of those temporary events, and maybe they'd have been better off fighting harder at the time.By the way, a little bit more nitpicking, Iran is not beholden to Islamic law. It is one specific version of Islam. The revolution which occured was between different Islamic ideals. I'm certain if a form of Xianity you did not believe in gained power in the US you'd chafe if people claimed that was "Xian law" being practiced. My suggestion is you do some research and find out what form of Islam they are practicing and then stick that on the front of claims that they are practicing X-Islamic law.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Wouldn't knowing that be rather important before stating it shouldn't have been sung? You just suggested that people should not sit through songs with religious content of any kind or they are having their rights violated, which is to say the singer or school is breaking the constitution.You cannot simply make that claim, and when I question its veracity, use that same claim to back up your position.I get that YOU think it is violating the Constitution, but I don't think it is and I explained why. We can debate the points leading to our conclusions, but appealing back to your original conclusion is off limits. I'm going to go back and reread the piece but I didn't see anything suggesting that the school was forcing anyone to do anything religious. If you are basing this solely on the idea that you ought to know beforehand that anyone will mention God, or thank God in some way, otherwise you have been forced to endure something, then I am opposed to your position. I think that is weak and not very helpful for building a diverse society.Does it really pain you to hear someone else may have a faith for a few minutes?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Got a rise out of you, Schraff? That was my intent. I have to endure numerous barbs directed at "outdated" Christrian thinking, but if I even suggest that worshipping mother earth is a joke, I am labled as insensitive?? I am sorry if I offended you, Schraff.
This is one of the roots behind the conflicting ideologies that are being filibustered.
One side wants to uphold pro religious beliefs and is ridiculed for such, while the other side wants to advocate respect for the planet and alternative human lifestyles and is ridiculed for such. Christians are criticised for attempts at legislating morality, right? Does it not occur to you that forcing our kids to accept nature worship and an almost holy reverence for the same is just as unfair? Fortunately, we still have the law on our side. This message has been edited by Phatboy, 05-28-2005 01:43 PM

Yes and No. I am stirring the pot a bit.
Christians are accused of rejecting every belief except their own. I am pointing out that the liberal agenda has belief componants within it as well.
Deification of self and of nature, for one.We are expected to be tolerant of alternative lifestyles and to accept this into our childrens culture yet Christian morals are not accepted into the culture. To us, alternative lifestyles offend our religious beliefs. To us, earth worship disguised as Sierra Club pandering is every bit as offensive as listening to the word "God" in a graduation exercise!There IS such a thing as secular "religion" and we won't tolerate it either!

Good point!

quote:

---

Got a rise out of you, Schraff? That was my intent.

---

Great.

quote:

---

I have to endure numerous barbs directed at "outdated" Christrian thinking,

---

You are free to believe what you want to, of course, and so is everyone else.If you make claims that your particular faith is better than or more tru than any other, for example, then I'm going to question it. If you make any logical or factual claim that doesn't seem to stand up, I'm going to question it, and I would question Wiccans if they did the same things.

quote:

---

but if I even suggest that worshipping mother earth is a joke, I am labled as insensitive?? I am sorry if I offended you, Schraff.

---

But it is insensitive.If you want respect for your unfounded belief then you need to show respect for everybody else's unfounded belief.Who's to say which is correct, after all?

quote:

---

This is one of the roots behind the conflicting ideologies that are being filibustered.
One side wants to uphold pro religious beliefs and is ridiculed for such, while the other side wants to advocate respect for the planet and alternative human lifestyles and is ridiculed for such.

---

I don't really understand what you're talking about here, sorry.

quote:

---

Christians are criticised for attempts at legislating morality, right? Does it not occur to you that forcing our kids to accept nature worship and an almost holy reverence for the same is just as unfair?

---

Who is forcing all children to worship nature under penalty of law?Seriously, who is doing that?And have you completely lost any shred of critical thinking skill you used to possess? You are quoting a website run by PAT ROBERTSON.How sad.

quote:

---

If your school system already integrates liberal sex educators such as Planned Parenthood or homosexual advocates such as California's Project 10, you probably have grounds to object. Such programs usually cross over from objective teaching to advocating amorality. Appeal to your school board that the course undermines parental authority by implying to students that everyone their age is having sex, or by teaching that homosexuality is normal, or by telling students that they can easily and confidentially arrange abortions without their parents' knowledge. A religion can be any set of beliefs by which a person lives and trains their children to live, even amorality. If necessary, object on First Amendment grounds. Show that the state is illegally establishing a religion by advocating amorality.

---

Phatboy, how many unwanted teenage pregnancies occur in the US every year?How does this number compare to other industrialized nations that have comprehensive sex education in the schoos?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-28-2005 04:43 PM

quote:

---

Christians are accused of rejecting every belief except their own. I am pointing out that the liberal agenda has belief componants within it as well.

---

Oh, if you mean all of the Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, etc. liberals, I agree.

quote:

---

Deification of self and of nature, for one.

---

What a load of bollocks, phatboy.Stop reading the lies on Pat Robertson's website.Give me one specific example of any liberal politican or judge or lobbyist has tried to enact into law a policy in which all Americans will be forced to "deify themselves" and/or "worship nature", or stop making such preposterous, false statements.

quote:

---

We are expected to be tolerant of alternative lifestyles and to accept this into our childrens culture yet Christian morals are not accepted into the culture.

---

Our culture in the US is steeped, dripping, saturated in Christian morality, and always has been. You are on crack if you think any differently.Well, you could just go live in the wilderness of Alaska and never expose your children to any other people or ideas.If you fail to instill your moral values in your own children, then that's your fault, not the culture's.

quote:

---

To us, alternative lifestyles offend our religious beliefs.

---

That's too bad.Maybe America is too pluralistic a place for you.Maybe you would be more comfortable living where everyone is compelled to think exactly the same.

quote:

---

To us, earth worship disguised as Sierra Club pandering is every bit as offensive as listening to the word "God" in a graduation exercise!

---

This is a ridiculous statement.I am embarrassed for you, phat, I really am.

quote:

---

There IS such a thing as secular "religion" and we won't tolerate it either!

---

Yeah, just like there is such a thing as "Scientific Creationism".Only in the fundie's minds do either exist.