It's a Wonderful Life? - pipTalk Forums

Huan Yi
Member Elite
since 10-12-2004
Posts 4018
Waukegan

25 posted 12-06-2004 01:20 AM

Inappropriate content?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,140545,00.html

Is it still allowed to put crosses at sites of fatal accidents
near the highways?

Kaoru,

“Some people are easily offended”

Some people define and feel an empowerment of themselves
by being easily offended, or simply take pleasure in it.

hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1692
Ohio, USA

27 posted 12-07-2004 11:20 PM

Inappropriate content?

"that pesky line between church and state"

Yeah, that pesky Bill of Rights just keeps biting us in the ass, huh? But Fox News will conveniently remember the Bill of Rights when it comes to gun ownership... *sigh* you know, that pesky right to own a dangerous weapon for which the intended use is killing or maiming another human being...

I exaggerate, and I digress...

I think Kaoru has a good point. I personally am not offended by optional prayer groups- you know, stuff that people only hear if they actively seek to hear it, as opposed to a God-fearing bible-thumping poem read over a PA system... I don't think it violates anyone's rights to have that option available. But Karen's kid better be able to go to a wiccan service, Kaoru better be able to "Hail Satan" till she's blue in the face, and dammit, if I wanted to wear a shirt that says "It's okay to be gay" I should have been allowed to.

The people who think it's about repression have it wrong. It's about a respect for diversity, not just a respect for the diversity of the majority.

Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1610

28 posted 12-07-2004 11:43 PM

Inappropriate content?

Somehow I find it somewhat illogical to state:

"I personally am not offended by optional prayer groups- you know, stuff that people only hear if they actively seek to hear it"

I suppose my response to be, that is very tolerant of you, to say to the overwhelming majority of those who profess a Christian belief, that you can practice your faith as long as you don't do it in public and actively seek it out in some non-public setting.

then turn around and argue that

"But Karen's kid better be able to go to a wiccan service, Kaoru better be able to "Hail Satan" till she's blue in the face, and dammit, if I wanted to wear a shirt that says "It's okay to be gay" I should have been allowed to."

Some believe one of those other silly amendments to the Bill of Rights also applies to the majority, the majority that also happens to be Christian, "Freedom of Speech."

If all references to Christianity are to be removed from public view, ie Christmas, under God, A.D.-B.C.(which I find to be particularly ludicrous) the bill of rights, the first thanksgiving, and you name it, then say, but diversity requires we allow any other view to be unrestricted in its application, then I do miss the logic, but then is why we have the 9th Circuit.

Perhaps we ought to rename the days of the week and months of the year, heaven knows...(ack delete reference to heaven) what god each of those was named after.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 8268
Colon, MI USA

30 posted 12-08-2004 04:11 AM

Inappropriate content?

quote:
I suppose my response to be, that is very tolerant of you, to say to the overwhelming majority of those who profess a Christian belief, that you can practice your faith as long as you don't do it in public and actively seek it out in some non-public setting.

Tim, there's a huge difference between in public and in publicly funded, publicly sanctioned settings. Build a church, rent a hall, get a permit for a revival, but please keep your religion out of MY schools and government buildings.

We often hear, "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." There have to be limitations, and I submit that our government institutions, and especially our schools, is where everyone's nose begins. Even then, that's not so much a limitation on the right to worship as it is a protection of that right. When any one religion is allowed to hold sway in our government institutions, and especially in our schools, all other religions necessarily suffer.

Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1610

31 posted 12-08-2004 08:08 AM

Inappropriate content?

There is a difference Ron between a government sponsored or sanctioned religion and the freedom to exercise your religion; between having the constitutional right to not only practice but to speak of your religion and having to avoid all mention of your religion in public.

When the mention of one's religion is forbidden and history has to be rewritten to excise mention of only a certain religion, then perhaps a problem exists.

Tolerance goes both ways on the spectrum.

There should be no mention of the Christian religion in a school or public setting?
Does that apply to Wiccan or any other religion?

Just an off comment, it seems a bit contrary to the intellectual ideal of learning to say you can hear or learn about any subject, unless it happens to be contrary to the views of the minority.

(some would argue that situation already exists in our institutions of higher learning)

[This message has been edited by Tim (12-08-2004 08:44 AM).]

Brad
Moderator
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5556
Jejudo, South Korea

32 posted 12-08-2004 09:35 AM

Inappropriate content?

quote:
There is a difference Ron between a government sponsored or sanctioned religion and the freedom to exercise your religion; between having the constitutional right to not only practice but to speak of your religion and having to avoid all mention of your religion in public.

You are right, Tim. Please name the law that does what you say it does. There is silliness out there, I don't deny it. But should we have prayer in school and should people be forced to hear it?

I'm all for it, personally. Let the pain begin!

Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1610

33 posted 12-08-2004 01:24 PM

Inappropriate content?

The law would be the Constitution and the Bill of Rights contained therein.

Who ever said anything about requiring or having prayer in school? I am talking about equal rights for a Christian as in relation to any other religion, agnostic or atheist.

Perhaps an admission Western Civilization does have a few roots and ties with Judiasm and Christianity.

I did have to chuckle at the pain comment.

Sheesh, the pain numerous professors inflicted upon me over the years, maybe a little payback would be in order. (a joke)

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 8268
Colon, MI USA

34 posted 12-08-2004 02:07 PM

Inappropriate content?

quote:
Who ever said anything about requiring or having prayer in school? I am talking about equal rights for a Christian as in relation to any other religion, agnostic or atheist.

Tim, I would have no problem at all with a student or member of the public praying in a public building, and short of depriving someone of consciousness, wouldn't know how to stop them any way. I have a great deal of trouble with a teacher or professor or mayor leading a group in such a prayer.

The same distinction apply to virtually every other religious activity, as well.

quote:
Perhaps an admission Western Civilization does have a few roots and ties with Judiasm and Christianity.

We have fairly deep roots in the Roman Empire, too, but I wouldn't expect "In Caesar we trust" to be printed on our money. We have even closer ties to Britain, of course, but no longer let respect for royalty overtly influence our government. Even more importantly, I think, our roots are very much twined in religious persecution, the kind that is virtually inevitable when state and church crawl into the same bed together.

I believe the only sure way to protect our right to worship a Christian God, not just for today but for the centuries to come, is to protect all religions. I don't want the majority dictating, or even unduly influencing, my relationship with God.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 8268
Colon, MI USA

39 posted 12-09-2004 10:35 AM

Inappropriate content?

quote:
My point, and what I believe a number of others are suggesting is that separation of church and state does not require the obliteration of the mention of Christianity in society.

And my point, Tim, is that agreement with your point depends entirely on who you see doing the mentioning.

Ladycat

Senior Member
since 07-05-99
Posts 809
At the edge and a doorway,TX

40 posted 12-10-2004 12:24 AM

Inappropriate content?

ACLU/FCC. Let's just stop speaking, breathing and thinking freely. The life that they want us to have would void us of living. Plain and simple. I'm so ashamed.

Love,
Ladycat

"Everything changes, everything stays the same."-Bill Austin

Huan Yi
Member Elite
since 10-12-2004
Posts 4018
Waukegan

41 posted 12-10-2004 01:13 AM

Inappropriate content?

Looking at the quarter in my hand
I realize not only would the government
have to strike off “ In God We Trust”,
but the date as well, for 2004 is measured
from . . .
Then it must go to all those military cemeteries
and change the dating to something similar
to what the French tried; year 1 being the
first year of the revolution. And all those
school history books. We’ve got some work cut out
for us.

Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1610

42 posted 12-10-2004 08:08 AM

Inappropriate content?

"But they do disagree, that's the whole point."

Depends on what level with which you are dealing.

As far as the basic principle involved, there is no disagreement.  The disagreement deals with implementation of the principle.

Brad indicates he feels prayer in school would inflict pain on those forced to hear such prayer.  Ignoring the fact no one suggested school led prayer, the individuals who file the lawsuits most generally indicate they are offended  (not pained) by references to Christianity.

It would be a bit incongruous for them to argue they feel their will might be overcome and they will become Christian against their will.  I suppose they could attempt to argue those weaker than themselves upon hearing the word God spoken will lose their ability of rational thought, but I suspect it as most say, they are offended by the mention of Christianity because it offends their "intellect."

This in no way refers to anyone in this forum, and I wish to make that clear.  It has been my limited life experience that no one believes they are intolerant or bigoted.
However, those who profess the loudest their tolerance are prone to being the most intolerant.

I am sorry some are offended by the mention of Christianity.  I am sorry some Christians are offended by the mere mention of the Wiccan, Jewish (place your faith).
I do feel relative certain that whether you be in the majority or minority, when someone indicates you should not be allowed to mention your faith in public that you will feel offended.

So is there a disagreement on the point there should be separation of church or state; or should there be toleration?  Not really, the disagreement is as to who or what beliefs you are willing to tolerate, whether it be the majority or minority view.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 8268
Colon, MI USA

43 posted 12-10-2004 08:52 AM

Inappropriate content?

Tim, you keep using the term "in public," and I honestly have to question whether you're using it the way it sounds to me.

Isn't this discussion about God being conducted in public? Do you believe the ACLU or anyone else would take legal issue with our discussion? Do you think they potentially have realistic recourse to stop us?

I don't think the issue is what beliefs we are willing to tolerate, Tim, so much as it is where we're willing to tolerate them. And I think in public is a little too murky a definition of that "where" to be useful. We're talking about a separation of church and state, after all, not a separation of public and private.

hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1692
Ohio, USA

44 posted 12-10-2004 10:52 AM

Inappropriate content?

Tim-

I don't see what the problem is? What I'm saying is that I'm fine with student-organized prayer groups, such as the one we had around the flagpole every so often at my school. What I'm not fine with is a school-wide prayer session. I'm not fine with a principal reciting a poem to the entire school about how we should believe in God rather than dressing like freaks and getting knocked up. And I'm not fine with Christian prayer groups being recognized while Karen's kid apparently needs "spiritual guidance" for having a different religion. What's the problem? What's illogical about my opinion?

I never once said that people shouldn't be able to talk about God in public. I don't think most other people, aside from some very radicals who may just hate God so much as to want him excised from American memory, are saying that. Then again, I don't believe the words "under God" belong in our Pledge, (at least not the version schoolchildren ahve to recite) so maybe I'm one of those nuts too.

John-

""Yeah, that pesky Bill of Rights just keeps biting us in the ass"

What was the intent of their authors?"

I think the intent was that people should be able to worship religion as they chose without government interference. Admittedly, they probably meant this in a Christian context. But let me ask you a return question: What did these slave owning men mean by "All men are created equal?"

If we boil everything down to original intent, you might as well strip me of the right to vote, take away my job, and get me nice and pregnant here at home. And my black neighbor better shuffle hisself back to them fields, massa, because he's not even considered human- he's property.

Huan Yi
Member Elite
since 10-12-2004
Posts 4018
Waukegan

45 posted 12-10-2004 01:29 PM

Inappropriate content?

hush,

First you call on the Bill of Rights then you discount it.

Also as regards the slavery issue, that was
a case of the majority forcing its view
on a minority, (at the expense of 500,000 lives),
which I assume you would agree was never the less
good.

[This message has been edited by Huan Yi (12-10-2004 07:19 PM).]

Brad
Moderator
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5556
Jejudo, South Korea

47 posted 12-10-2004 07:02 PM

Inappropriate content?

quote:
Brad indicates he feels prayer in school would inflict pain on those forced to hear such prayer. Ignoring the fact no one suggested school led prayer, the individuals who file the lawsuits most generally indicate they are offended (not pained) by references to Christianity.

No, I think pain will be inflicted on those who disagree with an authority sanctioned prayer by those who think difference is something to be destroyed. In my junior high school, there was a daily moment of silence. At the time, I thought it was a decent enough idea to promote reading. Of course, it was a way for prayer to be allowed in school. If that's all you want, I'm all for it.

But again I don't know of any ACLU suits that go against this type of sanction. Are there?

The argument, as far as I can tell, is always about authorities leading prayer and since that authority (principal, teacher, etc.) is supposed to have authority over all students, you create problems. What do you think the stereotypical football player (not all of them of course) will do to the skinny kid who believes he has the right not to attend prayer session if he so chooses?

Pain is a real issue here, but it's not about a pain in the ears or a pain in the arse, it's quite physical.

Huan Yi
Member Elite
since 10-12-2004
Posts 4018
Waukegan

48 posted 12-11-2004 12:59 AM

Inappropriate content?

“What do you think the stereotypical football player (not all of them of course) will do to the skinny kid who believes he has the right not to attend prayer session if he so chooses?”

Depends on the school. If it’s on the South side, where I grew up,
not much . . .

hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1692
Ohio, USA

49 posted 12-11-2004 01:41 AM

Inappropriate content?

Well, now I'm really confused.

John-

"First you call on the Bill of Rights then you discount it."

No, I didn't discount it- I was playing devil's advocate. If you say that since the founding fathers intended relgious freedom to encompass Judeo-Christian worldviews, I'm saying they meant for equality to encompass white landowning men. It's cool- we're both right. That's the beauty of the constitution- read Brad's comment directly after your comment that I'm quoteing from (gee, that was a mouthful...)

"Also as regards the slavery issue, that was
a case of the majority forcing its view
on a minority, (at the expense of 500,000 lives),
which I assume you would agree was never the less
good."

Please explain to me how you came to the conclusion that I would say this is good? And... um... please explain to me how you came to the conclusion that I think the majority forcing its view on the minority is good?

	User Options

Admin	Print	Send	ECard


	User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> It's a Wonderful Life? [ Page: 1 2 ]
	Print	Send	ECard