Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should we let Bill Frist & Co. change the rules of the senate ?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 181 of 256 (212163)
05-28-2005 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Silent H
05-28-2005 2:21 PM


I get that YOU think it is violating the Constitution, but I don't think it is and I explained why.
Part of your rationale seemed to be that it wasn't unconstitutional if it was only a slight violation, or didn't take long. I didn't understand that reasoning, but it's possible that I've misunderstood you.
You cannot simply make that claim, and when I question its veracity, use that same claim to back up your position.
Well, then let me ask you this. How long would a worship service have to be before it would be unconstitutional to make you attend, even if you didn't have to actively participate?
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.
In your view, how long does a religious presentation have to be before it's unconstitutional?
Does it really pain you to hear someone else may have a faith for a few minutes?
Does it have to, for my constitutional rights to be violated? Now I understand how you view your question as relevant, which is what I didn't understand before. You're equivocating constitutional infringment with harm or inconvinience to my person. I don't see what the two have to do with each other. Do I have to be harmed for my rights to be violated? Do I have to be pained? I don't see that I do, and no, that's not "us[ing] that same claim to back up [my] position."
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 05-28-2005 05:20 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Silent H, posted 05-28-2005 2:21 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Silent H, posted 05-28-2005 6:05 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 185 by paisano, posted 05-28-2005 7:06 PM crashfrog has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 182 of 256 (212165)
05-28-2005 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Phat
05-28-2005 3:43 PM


Quoting the ACLJ will not be much of a rebuttal
The ACLJ, beyond being a reactionary organization, is replete with propaganda and misinformation. Just look at the quote you supplied.
Such programs usually cross over from objective teaching to advocating amorality.
And their evidence is?
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.
And their evidence is?
To imply that ACLJ has anything to do with Law is also questionable. It is but the tool of the New American Taliban.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Phat, posted 05-28-2005 3:43 PM Phat has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 183 of 256 (212166)
05-28-2005 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Phat
05-28-2005 3:50 PM


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.
Christian Morality is certainly accepted into the culture. Christian Bigotry is not!
There IS such a thing as secular "religion" and we won't tolerate it either!
Say it often enough and folk will begin to believe it.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Phat, posted 05-28-2005 3:50 PM Phat has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 184 of 256 (212173)
05-28-2005 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by crashfrog
05-28-2005 5:14 PM


Part of your rationale seemed to be that it wasn't unconstitutional if it was only a slight violation, or didn't take long. I didn't understand that reasoning, but it's possible that I've misunderstood you.
You are misunderstanding my position. It is irrelevant how long something is, and one can even say whether you got harmed or not is irrelevant to whether your constitutional rights have been violated.
The only person who had their rights violated in Monk's piece was the girl. While it was a public school function, she was an individual and not a part of the state organ educating the public. This was a general celebratory function where many people of diverse ideas were going to be and she had been offered a chance to express her interests... until someone that was a part of the education system decided that her expression could offend others just because it contained a reference that was religious in nature.
The Bill of Rights grants you the freedom to pursue your religion and not have it interfered with by the State. The girl was not the state and a state personnel's allowing her to speak at a public function where others also get to speak their beliefs would not have made her a state official.
It was just a girl at a celebration wanting to express herself, just like anyone else.
Indeed if taken as a precedent it would seem that no state body could allow religious activities (including weddings) to take part on state grounds (or other public places), because it might offend others. And worse still, no communication of any kind that might suggest religious belief (even if it is not a ceremony).
As an aside, my question regarding if you were pained by such things as a girl's song at a school function, was not meant to get at the legal issues involved. Whether your rights get violated in a situation or not, the choice to act on your perception that they were is usually driven by discomfort of some kind. I mean why go after something that doesn't bother you, just because it might involve some "unconstitutional" quality? And by go after, I mean sue or something like that.
Like let's say a teacher says something about Christ at school one day. Although that would definitely be illegal, I wouldn't get huffed up enough to do something about it unless the commentary was negative towards others. I do not view saying something positive about one's religious beliefs to necessarily be negative towards others.
If you had gone to the ceremony and some girl sang "the prayer" by Celine Dion, would you really care? Would it have offended you? If not, why even care?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by crashfrog, posted 05-28-2005 5:14 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by crashfrog, posted 05-28-2005 10:27 PM Silent H has replied

paisano
Member (Idle past 6422 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 185 of 256 (212179)
05-28-2005 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by crashfrog
05-28-2005 5:14 PM


Crash, here's a thought experiment for you:
If someone had sung John Lennon's "Imagine" at the graduation, would you regard this as impermissible state sponsored advocacy of atheism? Would you think that theists who felt allowing such a song to be used was unconstitutional had a point?
Or would you think they were being hypersensitive?
For the record, I'd go with hypersensitive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by crashfrog, posted 05-28-2005 5:14 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by crashfrog, posted 05-28-2005 10:33 PM paisano has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 186 of 256 (212216)
05-28-2005 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Silent H
05-28-2005 6:05 PM


If you had gone to the ceremony and some girl sang "the prayer" by Celine Dion, would you really care? Would it have offended you? If not, why even care?
You keep asking that, and my answer is always the same - none of that matters in regards to the unconstitutionality of her speech.
It's like we disagree on every point. She was acting as an agent of the state; the state appoints student speakers not for the purpose of their individual expression, but to represent the school and the student body. The piece she performed was religious in nature, and not simply a personal expression of faith; it was a three-minute worship service.
Indeed if taken as a precedent it would seem that no state body could allow religious activities (including weddings) to take part on state grounds (or other public places), because it might offend others.
What others? The state does allow certain public facilites to be privately rented to individuals for whatever purpose they see fit, including religious ones. Presumably no one is there but those who have been invited and have chosen to attend.
Would you feel the same way if a teacher chose to devote a half-hour of class time to personally expressing her faith via a worship service? The schoolchildren there are a captive audience with no option to leave. So too these graduation attendees.
It's a tricky case. You've admirably defended your side; I believe that the ruling was correct. The Constitution doesn't interpret itself, and neither does the law, so it's not surprising that two entirely reasonable persons would come to opposite conclusions.
If you had gone to the ceremony and some girl sang "the prayer" by Celine Dion, would you really care? Would it have offended you? If not, why even care?
I caare about my constitutional rights and their defense. That said I wouldn't have pressed forward with this case. But whoever did had that right, and apparently a court found their case compelling.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Silent H, posted 05-28-2005 6:05 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Silent H, posted 05-29-2005 4:53 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 187 of 256 (212220)
05-28-2005 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by paisano
05-28-2005 7:06 PM


If someone had sung John Lennon's "Imagine" at the graduation, would you regard this as impermissible state sponsored advocacy of atheism?
Atheism isn't a religion. Though I might consider it a "religious-equivalent position."
Would you think that theists who felt allowing such a song to be used was unconstitutional had a point?
Possibly. It's difficult to see how "Imagine" could be construed as some kind of atheist worship hymn or as anything beyond a personal expression of atheism.
I dunno. Maybe your characterization of hypersensitive is correct. I don't believe I would have pressed the case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by paisano, posted 05-28-2005 7:06 PM paisano has not replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 188 of 256 (212284)
05-29-2005 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by nator
05-28-2005 5:08 PM


Schraff writes:
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.
The fact that homosexuality is being touted as an alternativive lifestyle. Creature worship...idolatry...is the basis for assuming that attraction to ones own gender is somehow a normal component of human biological makeup.
Of course, you being the naturalist that you are and having no clue of Gods intentions of the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman means that you see this as the "fundamentalist agenda" and not as Gods wish for humanity.
Some people wish to teach their kids reverance for nature and not reverance for a Creator. Alternative lifestyles are somehow "natural"!
That is deification of the creature over proper worship of the Creator.
While slightly off topic, all of this fits within the ideology of the faith based republicans.
To equate the ACLJ with the religious Taliban? If they were not serious lawyers, they never would have won at the Supreme Court level, which they have done. Listen to Jay Seculow sometime, Jar. Does he scare you? He should. And he has the legal argument that makes the A.C.L.U. and all of those godless liberals cringe!
Man Alone at Yale; God Need Not Apply
William F. Buckley’s 1951 God and Man at Yale, it’s now clear, described only a mid-point on the down-sloping sewer main of American education. Yale’s motto is Lux et Veritas (Light and Truth), but there is no longer any light or truth; just secular materialism.
-------
If you are bewildered by the sewage overflow of anti-Americanism on our college campuses, this is part of the explanation: Yale has made it official that the university is a secular and materialistic trade school for training young socialists.
An April 30, 2005, Associated Press article by Matt Apuzzo (Yale Severs Tie with Church; Pledges Ecumenical Services) reports:
Faced with this dwindling congregation and a dramatic drop in student participation, Yale is cutting its 248-year-old Congregational roots to try to re-energize the historic church by making services more welcoming.
Beginning in May, Battell [Chapel] will offer ecumenical, or non-denominational, Christian services. The decision has upset a number of Battell regulars, who say that after remaining faithful while attendance dropped around them, Yale is turning its back on the them.
It’s so painful for us as a congregation because it seems so unnecessary, said Dianne Davis, moderator of the Church of Christ at Yale. Reaching out to the undergraduates couldn’t have been done with us? The congregation is being blamed for the university’s failure to attract students to this church.
Let’s be clear about it. Ecumenical, or non-denominational, Christian services is the description for secular (atheistic) humanism. There is no Christianity involved.
Reinforcing the point, the article continues:
Founded by Congregational ministers in 1701, Yale was the first school in the country to open a university-run church in 1757. But by the 1880s, visiting ministers of many faiths regularly filled the pulpit.
The university has, for at least 150 years, viewed the church as not affiliated with a denomination, said Martha Highsmith, the university’s deputy secretary.
The university’s official website emphasizes the point by omission. According to it,
Yale University was founded in 1701 as the Collegiate School in the home of Abraham Pierson, its first rector, in Killingworth, Connecticut. In 1716 the school moved to New Haven and, with the generous gift by Elihu Yale of nine bales of goods, 417 books, and a portrait and arms of King George I, was renamed Yale College in 1718.
There is in this official history no mention of the signal fact that Yale was founded by a group of Congregational ministers in 1701 for the purpose of training new Christian ministers and imparting a moral education to others.
This incomplete and therefore misleading history is in the grand Soviet tradition of rewriting history to expunge the inconvenient facts and to inculcate in the young a mythology of socialist doctrine, as described in Milan Kundera’s novels (The Ideals of Education vs. Tyranny).
This message has been edited by Phatboy, 05-29-2005 01:32 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by nator, posted 05-28-2005 5:08 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Rrhain, posted 05-29-2005 4:58 AM Phat has not replied
 Message 191 by Silent H, posted 05-29-2005 5:09 AM Phat has not replied
 Message 192 by berberry, posted 05-29-2005 5:18 AM Phat has not replied
 Message 195 by nator, posted 05-29-2005 8:06 AM Phat has replied
 Message 199 by jar, posted 05-29-2005 4:25 PM Phat has not replied
 Message 200 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-29-2005 4:30 PM Phat has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 189 of 256 (212289)
05-29-2005 4:53 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by crashfrog
05-28-2005 10:27 PM


You keep asking that, and my answer is always the same - none of that matters in regards to the unconstitutionality of her speech.
Yes, your answer remains the same despite the fact that I have told you that it is irrelevant to the discussion of "unconstitutionality". I am just straight out asking you if you would really be bothered by something like that.
She was acting as an agent of the state; the state appoints student speakers not for the purpose of their individual expression, but to represent the school and the student body. The piece she performed was religious in nature, and not simply a personal expression of faith; it was a three-minute worship service.
On the question of constitutionality, you are right that we are in disagreement on all of those points. You really are taking things too seriously and overreaching with what a state or state entity is.
A ceremony is not a class and not about education. When individuals speak at ceremonies they are speaking for themselves unless it is specifically stated to be speech for the school. That is a person can get up and go on about how great chess club was and that keys to success may be found in chess, or young businessman organizations, or the boy scouts, or class abroad programs, or just that they are excited in general. It is simply expressions and thoughts about the past and the future by students who have passed through that state entity.
Are you suggesting school dances should then make sure not to play that song, or how about Madonna's "Like a Prayer"? Anything with the word God in it? Those are certainly more planned by the school than an individual student's choice of words at a graduation ceremony.
Indeed I have been through more than one graduation ceremony and I have yet to find one student that ever "embodied" the graduating class. That's why they usually have more than one speaker. The ceremony in question definitely did... and ironically a student who had not sent in his words for approval did go on about the Bible in specific.
By the way, I read the lyrics. It is not worship, much less a service of some kind. The biggest wish in the prayer was to find some person to love you. Heck, I'd have been interested in hearing what she was going to do with the parts in Italian.
What others? The state does allow certain public facilites to be privately rented to individuals for whatever purpose they see fit, including religious ones. Presumably no one is there but those who have been invited and have chosen to attend.
You have not been to a public park? I have seen religious things going on at public parks and if I wanted to stay in the park I was going to hear and see them.
Would you feel the same way if a teacher chose to devote a half-hour of class time to personally expressing her faith via a worship service? The schoolchildren there are a captive audience with no option to leave. So too these graduation attendees.
This is totally separate and I have been trying to point out the distinction. You must be at class, you don't have to be at graduation cermonies. A teacher is an official of the state, a student is simply a fellow student whose opinions can be anything including boring and irrelevant to your life. Singing a pop song which happens to mention faith, is different than a religious service.
The only thing in common is that there is an audience for something that happens to involve the mention of something religious.
It's a tricky case. You've admirably defended your side; I believe that the ruling was correct. The Constitution doesn't interpret itself, and neither does the law, so it's not surprising that two entirely reasonable persons would come to opposite conclusions.
I have agreed that there is at least a side from which to make an argument in this case. I just do not see it holding up under scrutiny, particularly with the negative atmosphere and precedent which would be set.
There is not just one set of rights here, there are two. Free speech of a non state employed individual needs to come before your "right" not to be offended by speech of a religious nature when in an audience at a public event.
I care about my constitutional rights and their defense. That said I wouldn't have pressed forward with this case. But whoever did had that right, and apparently a court found their case compelling.
Well, let me slightly adjust my position on this whole case. I have previously said I disagreed with the judge's ruling but that might not be completely accurate.
What happened was a girl chosen to say something, wanted to sing that song. The Principal didn't want to take any chances on a separation of state vs religion thing and stopped her from singing. She decided to sue and lost.
I disagree with the judge that her rights to free speech had not been violated. I think it is pretty clear that they were. Of course I don't know what her lawsuit was about (money?) nor if she was suing the right people to be held responsible. Those might have made the ruling more understandable.
In a way I understand that the principal was making a call which is his duty and he was erring on the side of caution. He has to make these kinds of calls, especially with interests of time (not every kid gets to speak anyway) so why shouldn't he make a choice to err on the side of caution, rather than chance a celebration turn into a lawsuit from other parents of other kids because of one girl's choice of song?
I guess I wouldn't want to see principals or school boards punished for such a decision. But I think guidance for future events would have been possible and useful.
I don't think how this case was resolved solved anything, and I do believe asking us to treat students speaking at graduation ceremonies as state officials endorsing a position of any kind is not conducive to the diverse and tolerant community I want to live in, and believe this nation is supposed to be about.
Extreme sensitivity to religious statements isn't exactly tolerant, and I think you'd want some degree of tolerance for your own speech wouldn't you?
This message has been edited by holmes, 05-29-2005 04:56 AM

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by crashfrog, posted 05-28-2005 10:27 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Rrhain, posted 05-29-2005 5:40 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 202 by crashfrog, posted 05-29-2005 7:21 PM Silent H has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 190 of 256 (212291)
05-29-2005 4:58 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Phat
05-29-2005 3:13 AM


"Lifestyle"?
Phatboy responds to schrafinator:
quote:
quote:
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.
The fact that homosexuality is being touted as an alternativive lifestyle.
Um, "lifestyle"? What is this "gay lifestyle" that I always hear about? You don't seriously think that all gay people live like they were subdivisions of Queer Eye, do you? My lord, they came up with a few episodes of the "Fab Five" making over other gay men.
After all, if gay people want to get married, wouldn't that be indicative that they share the same "lifestyle" as straight people who want to get married? And if that is so, how can this "lifestyle" be called "gay" or "straight" since both gay and straight people engage in it?
So please, tell me: What are the specifics of this "gay lifestyle"? What sort of clothes, housing, education, entertainment, social activities, and political activities does this "gay lifestyle" require?
And more directly to schraf's comment: What makes you think that allowing gay people to be full citizens entitled to equal protection under the law as demanded by the Constitution requires you to do anything different about how you live your life?
Be specific. If you are not allowed to discriminate against gay people, how would your life change? Would you have to pay higher taxes due to your status as a heterosexual? Would your children be taken away from you? Would you be evicted from your home? Would you be refused an education? Would you be forced to socialize with someone you didn't want to socialize with? Would you be forced to house a gay person in your spare room?
Be specific.
quote:
Creature worship...idolatry...is the basis for assuming that attraction to ones own gender is somehow a normal component of human biological makeup.
Are not humans biological creatures? Therefore, how can the expression of sexuality in humans be something other than a normal component of the human biological makeup?
I cannot understand this proclivity of some people to insist that humans are somehow separate from the world in which they live. That somehow there is a definition of "animal" that does not include humanity and therefore it is somehow legitimate to claim that humans are "above" such things as sex and passion and lust.
This doesn't mean that one need embrace a "nature-loving religion." It is simply realizing that the argument of "crime against nature" is invalid on its face.
Note the hypocrisy, however. From someone who is railing against the supposed "creature worship" he sees everywhere, he falls into that very same "creature worship" by claiming that gay people are going against their "human biological makeup."
You don't get to have it both ways, Phatboy. If humans are "above" the other animals, then being gay is not animalistic for gay people are humans, too.
You do agree that gay people are humans, too, do you not?
quote:
Of course, you being the naturalist that you are and having no clue of Gods intentions of the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman means that you see this as the "fundamentalist agenda" and not as Gods wish for humanity.
So if god were to insist that pi equals three (which, according to the Bible, it is), then that would justify the abandonment of mathematics because to say otherwise is to defy "god's wish for humanity"?
The problem is that gay people exist, Phatboy. They are not going to go away. Our foundational document insists that all citizens be treated equally under the law. That includes gay people as they are citizens.
You do agree that gay people in the United States are citizens, do you not? I am forced to ask because, after all, Bush, Sr. once said that atheists should not be considered citizens. Do you agree with that concept? Should only people who have a religious faith be allowed to be citizens? And if so, must they conform to your faith?
Did it not occur to you that there are people who think that gay people are part of "god's wish for humanity"? Christian people, at that. Why does your interpretation of "god's wish for humanity" overrule theirs? Why is the idea of equal treatment under the law as full and equal citizens so threatening to your religious foundation?
quote:
To equate the ACLJ with the religious Taliban?
Considering its origin with Pat Robertson, that is not such a bizarre notion. What else would you call a group that wishes to turn the United States into a fundamentalist Christian theocracy?
quote:
If they were not serious lawyers, they never would have won at the Supreme Court level, which they have done.
What does that have to do with anything? That they are capable of finding cases where people's religious rights are being affected and have argued successfully before the courts doesn't change their basic position.
Why are you so threatened by people who do not share your faith? Is your faith so fragile that it cannot survive contact with the outside world?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Phat, posted 05-29-2005 3:13 AM Phat has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 191 of 256 (212292)
05-29-2005 5:09 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Phat
05-29-2005 3:13 AM


Creature worship...idolatry...is the basis for assuming that attraction to ones own gender is somehow a normal component of human biological makeup.
Huh? Homosexuality has been accepted by other religions as well, and is seen as a natural part of human life from those "creators".
That is different than marriage, which hasn't been, but certainly relationships and activities of a homosexual nature were and are accepted as part of our design.
On the flipside I anxiously await your discussion of how circumcision is a normal component of human biological makeup.
To equate the ACLJ with the religious Taliban? If they were not serious lawyers, they never would have won at the Supreme Court level, which they have done.
Perhaps you can explain what wasn't serious about the Taliban, besides their military power compared to our own?
I think the comparison between the ACLJ and the Taliban is more than apt, unless one wants to suggest that they are simply the legal arm of the Taliban-like enterprise.
They are wishing to institute and impose a singular religious denomination's belief systems on the rest of a nation through legal and political fiat. What more do you want as an apt comparison?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Phat, posted 05-29-2005 3:13 AM Phat has not replied

berberry
Inactive Member


Message 192 of 256 (212294)
05-29-2005 5:18 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Phat
05-29-2005 3:13 AM


Phatboy writes schraf:
quote:
The fact that homosexuality is being touted as an alternativive lifestyle.
The only people "touting" homosexuality as an "alternative lifestyle" are religious wingnuts who either hate gays or who don't know any better. I've had enough conversation with you to realize that you do know better, so I'm saddened to see that I've been wrong about your motives.
Speaking of alternative lifestyles, is that how you would characterize pentecostals? These people can be spotted a mile away, especially the women. They do everything they possibly can to stand apart from normal people. They don't wear normal clothes and they don't act like normal people when they're in public. And they do really bizarre things, like speaking in tongues. Do unnatural people like these live an "alternative lifestyle"? And since living an "alternative lifestyle" means idolatry to you, what idol do pentecostals worship?
quote:
Of course, you being the naturalist that you are and having no clue of Gods intentions of the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman means that you see this as the "fundamentalist agenda" and not as Gods wish for humanity.
How about "no evidence of God's intentions..."? What evidence is there that you and the other wingnuts speak for God? Where did Jesus say "don't let gay people get married!"? Where did Jesus say "gay people are idolators"? Where did Jesus say that it's okay to deny civil rights protections to people who aren't just like you? Where did Jesus ever say that anyone should be denied equal treatment under the law? Where, Phat? You speak for Jesus, you know what he wants, so where did he say all this lunacy that you so firmly believe?
quote:
To equate the ACLJ with the religious Taliban...
The ACLJ was formed by Pat Robertson, the idiot who thinks God sends hurricanes, earthquakes and terrorist attacks to punish homosexuals. You citing that group in any positive light whatsoever means you are scarcely different that Pat Robertson.
Why would it be surprising that the ACLJ has won before the SCOTUS? There are religious wingnuts on the SCOTUS after all, or didn't you know that?

Keep America Safe AND Free!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Phat, posted 05-29-2005 3:13 AM Phat has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 193 of 256 (212296)
05-29-2005 5:40 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by Silent H
05-29-2005 4:53 AM


holmes writes:
quote:
A ceremony is not a class and not about education. When individuals speak at ceremonies they are speaking for themselves unless it is specifically stated to be speech for the school.
Who is sponsoring the ceremony if not the school? If the school is the one who is sponsoring the ceremony, how can it not be said that what takes place there is endorsed by the school?
quote:
I have seen religious things going on at public parks and if I wanted to stay in the park I was going to hear and see them.
Indeed, but nobody involved with the state is organizing that gathering. They did not choose the people. Too, you are not being prevented from engaging in similar activity.
Try to get the mike at a graduation ceremony when you're not one of the chosen speakers.
quote:
You must be at class, you don't have to be at graduation cermonies.
Why does that make a difference? Is not the school the one in charge of the graduation ceremony? To add a variant to crash's question: How many students need to be present for a school-sponsored religious ceremony to be declared unconstitutional?
Why does it matter if they want to be there? Why does it matter if they don't have to be there?
quote:
A teacher is an official of the state, a student is simply a fellow student
A student chosen by the school. Are you suggesting that graduation ceremonies are open-mike?
If said student wants to talk about his religion while in line waiting to go to his seat, he should feel free. But that is him acting on his own without any action of the school involved. But the graduation speaker is there only at the whim of the school. He is therefore acting as an agent of the school.
quote:
I just do not see it holding up under scrutiny, particularly with the negative atmosphere and precedent which would be set.
So people's rights should be trampled if to uphold them would create a negative atmosphere and precedent.
quote:
There is not just one set of rights here, there are two.
Indeed. And no rights are absolute. Sometimes one right needs to give way to another. It would seem that you have a different opinion as to which right should give way.
quote:
Free speech of a non state employed individual needs to come before your "right" not to be offended by speech of a religious nature when in an audience at a public event.
But someone chosen by the state is a representative of the state, even if not officially "hired." It isn't like being a speaker at graduation ceremonies are open-mike or won by lottery. They are actions of the school. How can an organization of the state do something that is not state-sponsored?
quote:
I do believe asking us to treat students speaking at graduation ceremonies as state officials endorsing a position of any kind is not conducive to the diverse and tolerant community I want to live in, and believe this nation is supposed to be about.
Others, however, do.
Isn't part of fostering a diverse and tolerant community entail having a respect for those with whom you are interacting? Shouldn't we expect the speakers to consider somebody other than themselves for a change? It's true that no individual student embodies the entire class, but does that mean the solution is to allow an ego trip?
quote:
Extreme sensitivity to religious statements isn't exactly tolerant
Huh? Standing up to rudeness is now "extreme sensitivity"? If said students wants to sing her song, she can sing it on her own time, not when she's functioning as an agent of the school.
Does the phrase, "this is not the time or the place," mean nothing anymore?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Silent H, posted 05-29-2005 4:53 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Silent H, posted 05-29-2005 7:57 AM Rrhain has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 194 of 256 (212311)
05-29-2005 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by Rrhain
05-29-2005 5:40 AM


Who is sponsoring the ceremony if not the school? If the school is the one who is sponsoring the ceremony, how can it not be said that what takes place there is endorsed by the school?
There is a difference between sponsoring an event at which many individuals will express their personal feelings, and endorsement of those positions being expressed, as well as (and more importantly) officials of that school attempting to teach others that position.
A school dance or party is another event unquestionably sponsored by the school. Are they then endorsing religion if Dion's song is played? Or as Paisano questioned, what about Lennon's "Imagine"? Would they then be endorsing atheism? If there is a line about smoking cigarettes or using drugs or having sex outside of wedlock, would the school be endorsing these things?
If we wanted to limit school functions to musical expressions such that no position can be seen to be endorsed, you'd pretty much ban everything but classical and Lawrence Welk type music. Okay, maybe some Santana and Hugo Winterhalter, but you get the idea.
Indeed, but nobody involved with the state is organizing that gathering.
The state is not choosing people to represent the school's position, nor the students as a whole. Indeed most speakers are generally chosen by members of the class, with items de-selected for time or reasons of propriety by the state.
This is why I have changed my position slightly to say I guess I could understand a judge dropping a lawsuit as a principal might err on the side of overcautious behavior when deselecting student choices. The key being it wouldn't have been wrong or unconstitutional if he had let it go forward.
Is not the school the one in charge of the graduation ceremony?
Yes, but not in the same way that they are "in charge of" classes or patently school administrative functions. There is an allowance for some degree of student freedom of expression at these events, beyond anything the school might want to "endorse".
To add a variant to crash's question: How many students need to be present for a school-sponsored religious ceremony to be declared unconstitutional?
I would guess any. However singing a Celine Dion song is not a religious ceremony, and a school celebratory function is not the same as a school instructional function.
But the graduation speaker is there only at the whim of the school. He is therefore acting as an agent of the school.
You mean students don't say things at school celebratory events to other students, which are not school "endorsed"? That's a riot. Until a student is employed by the school, or somehow raised as an example above other students, and more importantly the opinions they are going to make as above the opinions of other students, they are not "agents" of the school.
Sometimes one right needs to give way to another. It would seem that you have a different opinion as to which right should give way.
Once again, stop answering my posts one line at a time. This part right here should have meant that you did not need the question which preceded it. The only thing that made it possible is that you asked a question before reading the next sentence. That gives me mutiple nonissues to read and reply to.
As it is I have also already answered this. One right must give way, and when giving away a free speech right would result in a more negative and intolerant environment then it is the free speech right which shouldn't be given away.
Your right not to hear the word "faith" (I don't think there was even the word God in the song) warbled by a graduating teen, because you don't like the suggestion that she might be religious, is seriously less important than her ability to express what she is feeling about life. She was offered a small moment in the sun by some students that wanted to hear what she had to say. Let her express herself.
It isn't like being a speaker at graduation ceremonies are open-mike or won by lottery. They are actions of the school. How can an organization of the state do something that is not state-sponsored?
Oh, maybe graduations are conducted differently across the states. In my case the school arranged the time, the place, and the sequence of events. Beyond a few of the school officials saying something (and handing out diplomas) the rest of the speakers were chosen by students, not the school, and generally allowed to express themselves.
I have not witnessed one where the school board chooses students they believe reflect all the students and assign them what to say, or edit out messages they feel should not be endorsed by the school (for example "alright all you guys, now we get to go out and PARRRRRTTTYYYY!!!!").
Isn't part of fostering a diverse and tolerant community entail having a respect for those with whom you are interacting? Shouldn't we expect the speakers to consider somebody other than themselves for a change? It's true that no individual student embodies the entire class, but does that mean the solution is to allow an ego trip?
Perhaps you aren't up on the concepts of diversity and tolerance. Diversity means that there will be people who like to do things that you don't and believe things that you do not. Tolerance means allowing others to practice or express those beliefs. Tolerance is not flying off the handle or feeling injured when someone says something about their own beliefs.
Tolerance and diversity is not respecting people by avoiding being yourself and discussing what you believe. Yes you should respect others by not trying to force your opinions onto others and berating them for not agreeing, but that is completely different than expressing your own feelings about life.
I'm not sure how the crowd is respecting a speaker's identity and beliefs by telling her she cannot sing a Celine Dion song because it suggests she might have a god. It certainly isn't tolerant.
As it stands you just accused this girl of trying to go on some ego trip. Why is wanting to sing a celine dion song when she was chosen by classmates to express herself at the ceremony, an ego trip?
I love the Newspeak version of tolerance and diversity: Keep your mouth shut so that you do not let on about any personal convictions you might hold or practices you might engage in that might possibly offend someone else, expect the same of others.
Huh? Standing up to rudeness is now "extreme sensitivity"?
No, making mountains out of molehills such that personal expression of the most mundane variety is "rude" is an indication of "extreme sensitivity".
I am standing up to rudeness by pointing out people need to be a lot less sensitive and actually be tolerant of other people's diversity.
Does the phrase, "this is not the time or the place," mean nothing anymore?
When is a good time for songs to be butchered by teens graduating from school? I agree that all songs should be sung by teens at home. That is the time and place for such things.
Alas some people like to sing as their form of expression. At that point it really doesn't matter if the lyrics contain words indicating faith or a religion on their part.
The only time the text would become an issue is if they were overtly negative toward me or someone else, rather than an expression of that person's personal joy, or were part of an overt religious ceremony. Neither of those things (spoken or sung) would really be appropriate at a general public school function.
Can you tell me what words crossed the line in the Dion song? And what songs could be allowed, if not that one?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Rrhain, posted 05-29-2005 5:40 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Rrhain, posted 05-30-2005 3:54 AM Silent H has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 195 of 256 (212313)
05-29-2005 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Phat
05-29-2005 3:13 AM


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:
The fact that homosexuality is being touted as an alternativive lifestyle.
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 accept homosexuality as normal and /or make everyone be homosexual or stop making such preposterous, false statements.
Oh, and what is this "homosexual lifestyle" you speak of? I live in a city with lots and lots of homosexuals, and nearly a quarter of my coworkers are openly gay, and all of them live pretty much like I do as far as I can tell, except most of them have really crappy love lives.
quote:
Creature worship...idolatry...is the basis for assuming that attraction to ones own gender is somehow a normal component of human biological makeup.
No it isn't.
You are spouting nonsense.
What has happened to you?
You seem to not be able to form coherent sentences anymore.
quote:
Of course, you being the naturalist that you are and having no clue of Gods intentions of the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman means that you see this as the "fundamentalist agenda" and not as Gods wish for humanity.
Give me one specific example of any liberal politican or judge or lobbyist has tried to enact into law a policy in which all religious Americans will be forced to stop thinking of their own marriage as a sanctified sacrament, or stop making such preposterous, false statements.
quote:
Some people wish to teach their kids reverance for nature and not reverance for a Creator. Alternative lifestyles are somehow "natural"!
That is deification of the creature over proper worship of the Creator.
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" or stop making such preposterous, false statements.
Maybe America is too pluralistic and tolerant of difference for you.
Perhaps you would be more comfortable in a place where everyone was compelled by the government to all think the same way.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-29-2005 08:13 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Phat, posted 05-29-2005 3:13 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Phat, posted 05-29-2005 1:27 PM nator has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024