Page 16 of 29 FirstFirst ... 6111213141516171819202126 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 320 of 566
  1. #301  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    ......I don't know if schools still do this type of thing, but when I was coming through the system, students would often be assigned to memorize famous documents or speeches for presentation at a school function........
    The POA is not comparable to an assignment that is at the option of a teacher. It is part of the school program, schedule and routine and teachers have even less choice in the matter than kids.

    All that said, the American expectation of their schools is that "Johnny not fight, that he have the credentials for the next step in the program, and that he not be exposed to any controversial ideas." The last are any that Johnny's parents do not like. Our schools are under so much political pressure that they are incompacitated.
  2. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #302  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    The POA is not comparable to an assignment that is at the option of a teacher. It is part of the school program, schedule and routine and teachers have even less choice in the matter than kids.

    All that said, the American expectation of their schools is that "Johnny not fight, that he have the credentials for the next step in the program, and that he not be exposed to any controversial ideas." The last are any that Johnny's parents do not like. Our schools are under so much political pressure that they are incompacitated.
    So if I read this right, it is more acceptable to mandate the child memorize a speech that references a diety and hold the child accountable for the memorization by virtue of grades than it is for the school to have a voluntary recital of the POA with no consequence if they do not recite the pledge.
  3. #303  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    So if I read this right, it is more acceptable to mandate the child memorize a speech that references a diety and hold the child accountable for the memorization by virtue of grades than it is for the school to have a voluntary recital of the POA with no consequence if they do not recite the pledge.
    Sir, are you baiting me?

    Without agreeing to your hypothetical, it is not the use of the coercive power of the state for a teacher to assign anything that he or she believes to be academically appropriate to one or more students. It may be coercive but it does not involve the state, the one institution in our society sanctioned to use violence. It may be coercive but it is no more coercive in a state school than in a private one and arguably less so than in a religious one.

    It is an abuse of the coercive power of the state to require, mandate, or otherwise expect that all students will recite a state loyalty oath every day.

    Now you may say what you want about how voluntary it is and what the consequences are. However, I do not consent to it. To expect an elementary school student to recognize propaganda when he sees it and to refuse to participate at the expense of separating himself from the group is to expect wisdom and courage beyond what most adults are capable of. I was not such a student and I damn well doubt that you were.

    Whatever you may say about it and however many times you may repeat it, it is coercive, it is indoctrination, and it is theocratic. It is "mandatory" and there is a "consequence" for not participating. Ostracism is the greatest of all penalties. Even the Romans used it sparingly and the great Dracon, for whom we name excess in punishment, not at all. That one committed the offense, knowing the penalty, does not make it any less a punishment. Suffering the penalty does not make the act voluntary. If there were no other evidence, the outrage of the religious right over the very possibility that this excess might be curbed ought to be enough to convince. They believe that the content of the propaganda justifies the means. That they have stirred up this tempest in this small pot ought to be enough to convince. The experience that most of us had in school, state or otherwise, ought to be enough to convince. That you, Sir, cannot even win gracefully, that you persist in poking at this sleeping dog, not to say dead horse, ought to be evidence enough.
  4. #304  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Interesting paradox you introduce, because a concentrated effort is made to suggest that this nation is NOT founded on christian principles.
    Quote Originally Posted by jmill72x
    This country was founded on Christian ideals, not Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, or Muslim ideals. Everyone who lives here understands that.
    (From an older post: )

    You two and many others here have claimed the same: that the US (as a union of states) are based on Christian principles.

    I doubt this. The US and other democracies are based on principles like

    - Freedom of speech
    - One man/woman, one vote
    - Equal rights for everybody
    - Freedom of religion

    ...and others, but maybe those are the most important ones (add more if you know more).

    However, none of the principles mentioned are in any way Christian principles. Christian principles are e.g.

    - Believe in god
    - Jesus is the messiah
    - Love your enemies
    - Turn the other cheek

    There are more, of course (please add), but it has been a while since I was in church the last time...

    My point is: there is no overlap between truly Christian principles and the principles in your constitution, at least I don't know of any overlap, and so far, nobody presented one. That doesn't mean the US are anti-Christian, not at all, it just means that Christian principles were not important for the constitution. If you disagree, please state the Christian principles (name them, not just a general remark) which played a role in the constitution, preferrably with a quote from the Bible. Note that the rules "thou shalt not kill" and "thou shalt not steal" don't count, since those are universal rules which apply in just about any society everywhere, they are not specifically Christian. Also note that just because the US were founded by people with a Christian background does not mean that Christian principles played a role. Christian principles and the principles of a democracy have little or nothing in common.

    I have posted this before, but nobody could come up with an example. Why not give some convincing examples, or stop claiming the US are based on Christian principles?
    Last edited by clulup; 09/20/2005 at 03:17 AM.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  5. #305  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I'd like to extend this point a bit.

    I don't know if schools still do this type of thing, but when I was coming through the system, students would often be assigned to memorize famous documents or speeches for presentation at a school function.

    A strict interpretation of the standard you have offered would render this practice unconsitutional. For Example, they could not recite the Gettysburg address. They could not recite the Declaration of Independence. For that matter, passages from Greek or Roman mythology would be off limits. Homer. Shakespeare. Much of the "great" literature.....

    Do you think such assignments ought to be unacceptable?

    Or, are there circumstances where references to deity would be acceptable.

    Where would you place the line?
    Pledging alliance to a flag, country and god is very different than memorizing an old document..
    They can memorize any document (inc. the bible) as long as there are no judgements implied i.e. memorize the bible because it is the truth would be a wrong thing, but memorize the bible because it is an important (historical) book is fine.
    With god in the pledge, the schools are implying strongly the existance of (a) god. even worse you pledge alliance to it.
    It is not the schools job to make kid pledge alliance to anything esp. not something religious.
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  6. #306  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I'd like to extend this point a bit.

    I don't know if schools still do this type of thing, but when I was coming through the system, students would often be assigned to memorize famous documents or speeches for presentation at a school function.

    A strict interpretation of the standard you have offered would render this practice unconsitutional. For Example, they could not recite the Gettysburg address. They could not recite the Declaration of Independence. For that matter, passages from Greek or Roman mythology would be off limits. Homer. Shakespeare. Much of the "great" literature.....

    Do you think such assignments ought to be unacceptable?

    Or, are there circumstances where references to deity would be acceptable.

    Where would you place the line?
    I think there is a difference between literature, historical documents, and indoctrination in the form of nationalism. There is nothing historical about the Pledge in its current form, there is historical value to the other documents you mentioned. Literature is a completely different subject, in the vast majority of cases literature isnt government sponsored.
    iPhone in the Washington DC area.
  7. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #307  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    Sir, are you baiting me?

    Without agreeing to your hypothetical, it is not the use of the coercive power of the state for a teacher to assign anything that he or she believes to be academically appropriate to one or more students. It may be coercive but it does not involve the state, the one institution in our society sanctioned to use violence. It may be coercive but it is no more coercive in a state school than in a private one and arguably less so than in a religious one.

    It is an abuse of the coercive power of the state to require, mandate, or otherwise expect that all students will recite a state loyalty oath every day.

    Now you may say what you want about how voluntary it is and what the consequences are. However, I do not consent to it. To expect an elementary school student to recognize propaganda when he sees it and to refuse to participate at the expense of separating himself from the group is to expect wisdom and courage beyond what most adults are capable of. I was not such a student and I damn well doubt that you were.

    Whatever you may say about it and however many times you may repeat it, it is coercive, it is indoctrination, and it is theocratic. It is "mandatory" and there is a "consequence" for not participating. Ostracism is the greatest of all penalties. Even the Romans used it sparingly and the great Dracon, for whom we name excess in punishment, not at all. That one committed the offense, knowing the penalty, does not make it any less a punishment. Suffering the penalty does not make the act voluntary. If there were no other evidence, the outrage of the religious right over the very possibility that this excess might be curbed ought to be enough to convince. They believe that the content of the propaganda justifies the means. That they have stirred up this tempest in this small pot ought to be enough to convince. The experience that most of us had in school, state or otherwise, ought to be enough to convince. That you, Sir, cannot even win gracefully, that you persist in poking at this sleeping dog, not to say dead horse, ought to be evidence enough.
    I am not trying to bait you. I am honestly trying to figure out the basis of the argument. In one post I read that reciting under God is recognition of a diest religion and then in another post I read that it is OK to recognize that same diest religion if it is an assignment. I fear that if we allow teachers to decide what is acceptable to teach we are headed down a very slippery slope. I have a very hard time believing that you or any of the other posters here did not see your teacher as a knowledgeable, authoritative figure when you were in grade school. With that in mind, when a teacher determines to teach from the Koran, the Bible or any other book that recognizes a religion the child sees it as the truth. Any employee (teacher) in a public school represents the state and must abide by the same guidelines as the state institution.

    If you use the same argument and reverse the subjects it is no different. If the school allows the teacher to teach from or give assignments that relate to a diety then it is mandatory, and is coercive. If allowed once who determines how many assignments from the same view point and when does it change from an assignment to indcotrination.

    As far as it stirring up the religious right, do you not agree it takes both sides to stir it up. I am not trying to win or lose, I am trying to have a discussion. I have stopped replying to individuals who do not want to discuss, have no valid input but just try to slam.
  8. #308  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    I am not trying to bait you. I am honestly trying to figure out the basis of the argument. In one post I read that reciting under God is recognition of a diest religion and then in another post I read that it is OK to recognize that same diest religion if it is an assignment.
    If you are referring to my post you misinterpreted what I said.
    It is OK to recognize the existance of a religion and even study its beliefs.
    However it is not OK to state (any) religion is true and/or promote it.
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  9. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #309  
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT
    If you are referring to my post you misinterpreted what I said.
    It is OK to recognize the existance of a religion and even study its beliefs.
    However it is not OK to state (any) religion is true and/or promote it.
    Was not referring to your post, Antelope and DaT have both stated and/or indicated that the statement "under God" recognized that there was a God, and that recognizing there is a God endorses a religion and that since they do not believe there is a god it violates their rights.
  10. #310  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    (From an older post: )

    You two and many others here have claimed the same: that the US (as a union of states) are based on Christian principles.

    I doubt this. The US and other democracies are based on principles like

    - Freedom of speech
    - One man/woman, one vote
    - Equal rights for everybody
    - Freedom of religion

    ...and others, but maybe those are the most important ones (add more if you know more).

    However, none of the principles mentioned are in any way Christian principles. Christian principles are e.g.

    - Believe in god
    - Jesus is the messiah
    - Love your enemies
    - Turn the other cheek

    There are more, of course (please add), but it has been a while since I was in church the last time...

    My point is: there is no overlap between truly Christian principles and the principles in your constitution, at least I don't know of any overlap, and so far, nobody presented one. That doesn't mean the US are anti-Christian, not at all, it just means that Christian principles were not important for the constitution. If you disagree, please state the Christian principles (name them, not just a general remark) which played a role in the constitution, preferrably with a quote from the Bible. Note that the rules "thou shalt not kill" and "thou shalt not steal" don't count, since those are universal rules which apply in just about any society everywhere, they are not specifically Christian. Also note that just because the US were founded by people with a Christian background does not mean that Christian principles played a role. Christian principles and the principles of a democracy have little or nothing in common.

    I have posted this before, but nobody could come up with an example. Why not give some convincing examples, or stop claiming the US are based on Christian principles?
    Your request for information contains an underlying assumption that a given principle has to be unique to christianity to be a "christian principle."

    I reject that premise.

    You have appropriately pointed out principles that may be unique to christianity. However, those unique ideals do not represent the whole of christian principles.

    Your request for information contains another underlying assumption that "democratic principles" are somehow "universal" and therefore without source or inspiration.

    I reject that premise.

    So, in presenting the overlap, I will take the liberty of reframing the question slightly. I will point out biblical principles (because the Bible is the guidebook of christianity. The Bible is not exclusive to christianity. But, christianity is exclusive to the Bible) while recognizing that the founders did not seek to establish a theocracy. And, thus I like your use of the term "overlap" because it indicates not cause and effect, but rather influence.

    With these things in mind, here goes. At this stage, I am inserting references in the text of the charter documents. One could also make reference to quotes from founders as a basis of clarifying the link, but I will avoid that exercise at this time.

    First up, the Declaration of Independence. The discussion must begin here, because it was upon the basis of this declaration that the republic was launched. The Constitution was and is the practical application of the principles embedded in the declaration.

    The Declaration of Independence

    IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

    The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

    When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    We hold these truths (John 8:32) to be self-evident (Romans 1:20), that all men (I Peter2:17, Acts 10:34) are created (Genesis 1:26-27) equal(Galatians 3:28), that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life (John 10:10), Liberty (Luke 4:18, I Peter 2:16) and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men (I Peter 2:!3-15, Titus 3:1), deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed (Matthew 22:21, Deuteronomy 16:18, Deuteronomy 1:13-15, Acts 6:3), --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer (I Corinthians 13:4), while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

    {...List of grivances...}

    In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

    Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

    We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor (Acts 4:34).
  11. #311  
    Quote Originally Posted by AnteL0pe
    I think there is a difference between literature, historical documents, and indoctrination in the form of nationalism. There is nothing historical about the Pledge in its current form, there is historical value to the other documents you mentioned. Literature is a completely different subject, in the vast majority of cases literature isnt government sponsored.
    I respect that distinction and appreciate your taking the time to express it.

    Branching off on the concept of indoctrination, I wonder, what process do you (and others) believe should be used in educating future generations of the principles that underly our republic? Don't we want future generations to "hold these truths to be self-evident" just as we do? Without "indoctrination", what other basis do we have for ensuring that our citizens continue to to subscribe to the assumption that "all men are created equal?" (Because, if we lose that assumption from our collective understanding, the whole experiment will implode)
  12. #312  
    Sorry shopharim, this is is not convincing in the least. I doubt you yourself are convinced about your approach. The sentences from the bible have little or nothing to do with what the constitution says, as one can see when adding the content of the parts you quoted. All that led you to them is that the contain some common words such as "truth" or "free" etc. Funny that you add a quote where the bible says "honour the king"... doesn't quite fit, does it?

    For sure, none of the parts you quoted show a link between Christian principles and the principles your country was founded on.

    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim, content of the quotes added by clulup
    We hold these truths (John 8:32: And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.) to be self-evident (Romans 1:20: For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse), that all men (I Peter2:17: Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king. Acts 10:34: Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons) are created (Genesis 1:26-27) equal(Galatians 3:28: There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.), that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life (John 10:10: The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.), Liberty (Luke 4:18: The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised. I Peter 2:16: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.) ....
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  13. #313  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Was not referring to your post, Antelope and DaT have both stated and/or indicated that the statement "under God" recognized that there was a God, and that recognizing there is a God endorses a religion and that since they do not believe there is a god it violates their rights.
    Then I kinda agree with them, though violating a right might be worded a bit strong..
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  14. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #314  
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT
    Then I kinda agree with them, though violating a right might be worded a bit strong..
    How do you feel about a teacher requiring memorization and recital of historical documents, novels, teaching of greek mythology, or literature that recognize a diety? If I believe in one true God, and I do not want my children exposed to greek gods because it goes against my belief that there is only one God why would my rights be different than those who do not want under God in the pledge?

    This argument can go on forever if the mention of a god or gods is an endorsement of religion.
  15. #315  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I respect that distinction and appreciate your taking the time to express it.

    Branching off on the concept of indoctrination, I wonder, what process do you (and others) believe should be used in educating future generations of the principles that underly our republic? Don't we want future generations to "hold these truths to be self-evident" just as we do? Without "indoctrination", what other basis do we have for ensuring that our citizens continue to to subscribe to the assumption that "all men are created equal?" (Because, if we lose that assumption from our collective understanding, the whole experiment will implode)
    I think it should be taught as it was taught to me. The issue of religion never came up, it was taught to us from a political perspective. All "men" (ahem, people) are equal. The whole term "created" seems a bit silly because we all know how babies are made but thats another class all together. The principles of our republic dont intersect with the religious beliefs of our founding fathers.
    iPhone in the Washington DC area.
  16. #316  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    How do you feel about a teacher requiring memorization and recital of historical documents, novels, teaching of greek mythology, or literature that recognize a diety? If I believe in one true God, and I do not want my children exposed to greek gods because it goes against my belief that there is only one God why would my rights be different than those who do not want under God in the pledge?

    This argument can go on forever if the mention of a god or gods is an endorsement of religion.
    See my statement above. These are totally different things.

    Quote Originally Posted by AnteL0pe
    I think there is a difference between literature, historical documents, and indoctrination in the form of nationalism. There is nothing historical about the Pledge in its current form, there is historical value to the other documents you mentioned. Literature is a completely different subject, in the vast majority of cases literature isnt government sponsored.
    Not wanting your children exposed to different belief systems is another problem all together. I dont mind if my kids take a course in world religions and learn about a bunch of them even if i dont believe in any of them. This is the difference, there is an educational basis for that kind of thing. The Pledge is government sanctioned speech proclaiming that god exists, theres nothing educational about it.
    iPhone in the Washington DC area.
  17. #317  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    I am not trying to bait you. I am honestly trying to figure out the basis of the argument. In one post I read that reciting under God is recognition of a diest religion and then in another post I read that it is OK to recognize that same diest religion if it is an assignment. I fear that if we allow teachers to decide what is acceptable to teach we are headed down a very slippery slope.
    Slippery slope to where? Chaos, political correctness, pluralism, authoritarianism. violence? Where is it that you fear to go? How does allowing professional autonomy to teachers get you there?

    [Most of the religious right pretends to fear (progressive) political correctness. Their schools are no less politically correct than others; it is simply that what is "correct" is different. I fear political correctness but not much. As I see it on most campuses (I teach on several a year and visit others) it is a preference for civil discourse and a rejection of appeals to base motives (e.g., rascism, anti-semitism, (religious) zealotry, xenophobia, homophobia, even nationalism), a respect for the autonomy of others. I do not see much to fear here but then I am not a theocrat. It is not my authority that is diminished.]

    Consider the alternative to teacher autonomy. The alternative is to have an authority to tell them what to teach. Remember that we tried the latter for nearly a thousand years, an epoch identified in history as the Dark Ages. I prefer the collective judgement, of a lot of teachers, across students and time, to any central authority. (Attempts by text book publishers to pass the censors of the Texas Text Book Selection Commission have turned all text books into pap.)

    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    I have a very hard time believing that you or any of the other posters here did not see your teacher as a knowledgeable, authoritative figure when you were in grade school. With that in mind, when a teacher determines to teach from the Koran, the Bible or any other book that recognizes a religion the child sees it as the truth. Any employee (teacher) in a public school represents the state and must abide by the same guidelines as the state institution.

    If you use the same argument and reverse the subjects it is no different. If the school allows the teacher to teach from or give assignments that relate to a diety then it is mandatory, and is coercive. If allowed once who determines how many assignments from the same view point and when does it change from an assignment to indcotrination.
    I have made the argument several times; you ignore it. The difference is in both the uniformity of the message and its content. Yes, I did see my teachers as authority figures and I rarely found myself at odds with them as much as I saw them at odds with one another. In a system of tenure and professional authonomy I did not receive a uniform message crafted by the state to serve its purposes. I was not made to recite it everyday. It was not cant. While it may have warped my little psyche, it was not crafted to serve either the state or the church.

    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    As far as it stirring up the religious right, do you not agree it takes both sides to stir it up. I am not trying to win or lose, I am trying to have a discussion. I have stopped replying to individuals who do not want to discuss, have no valid input but just try to slam.
    I would agree that both sides seem equally agitated but not equally motivated. I think that the Christian Right is on a Holy Crusade. I think that they believe their cause to be so righteous that all means are justified in its name. They prefer indoctrination of the young because it is easier and more persistent than the persuasion of adults. They appear jealous of the authority of the state and wish to use it to further their cause. (Pat Robertson even wants to make foreign policy.) They do not seem to have appropriate fear of the state; they do not see that to the extent that they permit abuse of power by the state in furtherance of their cause, that it may be turned against them.

    I argue for separation of church and state because I believe it to be the safer course. I have a reasonable fear of both bureaucrats and theocrats but I am frightened near to apoplexy by their unholy alliance.
    Last edited by whmurray; 09/20/2005 at 02:55 PM.
  18. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #318  
    Quote Originally Posted by AnteL0pe
    See my statement above. These are totally different things.


    Not wanting your children exposed to different belief systems is another problem all together. I dont mind if my kids take a course in world religions and learn about a bunch of them even if i dont believe in any of them. This is the difference, there is an educational basis for that kind of thing. The Pledge is government sanctioned speech proclaiming that god exists, theres nothing educational about it.
    If it is not acceptable to recite the pledge with under God because it proclaims a God exists why is it acceptable for a child to be taught which greek god controls the wind, the sun, the rain, etc in a federally funded public school. In a childs mind if a teacher says it is then it must be, so instead of the child being indoctrinated that there is a God they are indoctrinated that there are lots of gods.
  19. #319  
    Quote Originally Posted by AnteL0pe
    ..... because we all know how babies are made but thats another class all together.....
    Apparently we do not all know. However, we cannot teach it to the uninitiated because it would promote promiscuity, i.e., sex without the sanction of the church.
  20. #320  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    If it is not acceptable to recite the pledge with under God because it proclaims a God exists why is it acceptable for a child to be taught which greek god controls the wind, the sun, the rain, etc in a federally funded public school. In a childs mind if a teacher says it is then it must be, so instead of the child being indoctrinated that there is a God they are indoctrinated that there are lots of gods.
    You appear to focus exclusively on the content of the message while ignoring the methods. I argue that however appropriate the message might be, the methods are abusive and dangerous to the society.

Posting Permissions