Round 2: 'Tolerance' on American Universities???
POSTED BY: SoupCatcher
UPDATED: Wednesday, December 6, 2006 15:10
VIEWED: 8046
PAGE 1 of 6
Round 1: http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=25454
Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
BTW, I have dial-up. Please, be merciful. If you'd like to continue this thread, start it anew, so I don't have to wait several decades for it to load on my computer. Thanks.
P.S. If this post is full of errors, my apologies. It's rather lengthy, and I haven't had the time to proof-read it. I actually have a job, and I have an appointment this evening, so it'll have to wait (for proofing) until (Lord willing) sometime tomorrow afternoon. Thank you for you patience.
I do want to respond to your post. There's a lot there and I won't have much time until tonight so this is more in the way of a placeholder.
Just a few tidbits...
Re: soupcatcher. Actually, I trimmed my beard down to a goatee more than a year ago. So I guess you could say I've been engaging in false advertising
. The beard was getting a little too shot with gray and was kind of looking like Steven Seagal's coma beard from Hard to Kill (mmmmm Kelly LeBrock).As far as Dobson goes, I grew up listening to Focus on the Family. I don't know how many Dobson books my parents own but it's a lot. As I've mentioned in another thread, we even listened to a tape of Dobson for sex ed in sixth grade. So I'm quite familiar with the Dr.
Type more later.
* edit to add link
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Round 1: http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=25454
Thank you. You have no idea how much I appreciate this. Hopefully, everyone else will respond in this thread to posts from the previous thread.
Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
I do want to respond to your post. There's a lot there and I won't have much time until tonight so this is more in the way of a placeholder.
Take your time.
This thread is destroying my days. Between work and this thread, I get nothing else done. I have to leave shortly, myself. Where has the time gone?Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Re: soupcatcher. Actually, I trimmed my beard down to a goatee more than a year ago. So I guess you could say I've been engaging in false advertising
Same here. I use "cartoon" as I used to have a comic strip on the web (hobby, no pay). However, I ended it two years ago this month (perhaps, last month by the time you read this), so the name doesn't exactly apply at the present, either.
Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
As far as Dobson goes, I grew up listening to Focus on the Family. I don't know how many Dobson books my parents own but it's a lot. As I've mentioned in another thread, we even listened to a tape of Dobson for sex ed in sixth grade. So I'm quite familiar with the Dr.
Okay. That's fair. If you're getting it from the horse's mouth and you still don't like it, that's legitimate.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Theres the Christian schools that teach radical Christianity in the US, and prepare their students to win debates and so on with the stated purpose of turning out the next presidents of the US. Radical Christian organisations that are playing the long game to litterally take over the US government.
Originally posted by Razza:
I hope you are wrong on this issue. I don't see any viable concerted effort to eliminate church and state separations. There are obviously some who would like to see that, but I don't think they have any real ability to impact actual change to do so. If they did, believe me, there would be many conservatives such as myself right by your side opposing such measures.
Do you have examples of such efforts coming to successful fruition in recent years?
What happens next? I imagine the US becomes a Christian Theocracy and Cartoon gets it's life long dream of leading a violent inquisition against the non-believers.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Popping in for a minute to say how awesome this discussion is (and how nice it is to just be a lurker ). Oh, and Storymark, thanks for reading my mind:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:Quote:
(...stuff posted by antimason...)
Reading your stuff tips me more towards atheism every time I read it.
---
"What the world needs now is love, sweet love - it's the only thing that there's just too little of. What the world needs now is love, sweet love. No, not just for some, but for everyone."
http://richlabonte.net/tvvote - Vote Firefly!
(by Kelai)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:What do you mean by bias? That people, schools, businesses, and government don't express religious sentiment. Or that they discourage its expression? Or is it more overt: that you feel personally ridiculed, excluded, picked on? Or that you feel YOUR religion is targeted more than others for negative response?
I see the bias in my life everyday. I see it in our local schools, in our local newspapers, I see it on TV, on the radio. I see it here in this forum. People can deny it all they want. It exists, and anyone with eyes to see can tell as much. Unfortunately, I don't have a search engine in my brain where I can instantly recall every bit of information I've observed or heard in my life-time (complete with footnotes), or I'd be able to produce more examples than could fill this forum.
Quote:Is THAT what you mean by bias? Then what about reading the Koran out loud in class? The Torah? The Vedas? Or reading The End of Faith out loud? It seems to me that in fairness you'd need to give equal time to all religions, and anti-religions, and that classroom time would be taken up by anti/ religious readings instead of actual... er... teaching.
A child reading from the Bible in a classroom, however, is not Congress establishing a religion. A teacher reading from the Bible in a classroom, likewise is is not Congress establishing a religion. Prohibiting a child or a teacher from reading the Bible in a classroom is, however, "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". ..Yes, the government should not sanction a religion -- any religion. Yes, the government should not prohibit the free exercise, thereof.
To get back to an older topic:
Quote:Not a Biblical scholar, but here's a hypothetical example: There are a number of writings that survived to this day. Some of them may be tallies of taxes, transcriptions of the Gnostics, census records, laws, etc. I think it would be fair to say that almost none of them make any mention of Jesus. Some of them might provide indirect evidence that Jesus never existed- for example, failure to mention his name in a census where you might expect it, or failure to mention his name in court records. Some of them might mention his name but disagree with his divinity, or tell a very different story of his life or message. The fact that you have selected a single "lineage" of books means that they will be mostly self-consistent (altho there are disagreements even between the various disciples versions). But you might not find corroborating evidence for the existance of a "historical" Jesus in non Biblical sources.
Okay, but I have to wholeheartedly disagree with your statement about "other texts just as old with contradictory statements"
One of the interesting things is that nobody doubts the existance of a man named Mohammed, or that he started a religion. His life and work - although laced with questionably fantastic stories - is fact. If we're going just on documentary reliability, Islam seems the way to go.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
What do you mean by bias? That people, schools, businesses, and government don't express religious sentiment. Or that they discourage its expression? Or is it more overt: that you feel personally ridiculed, excluded, picked on? Or that you feel YOUR religion is targeted more than others for negative response?
Hi.
Firstly, as I explained in the first part of this thread, I don't expect anyone else to conform to my beliefs. People are free to believe (or not believe) as they choose. People are also free to tell you they'd rather not discuss it, and (as I also said previously) that's that. (In actuality, I rarely bring it up. Anything I usually say is in response to something someone else has said.)
I never (or very rarely) feel "personally ridiculed, excluded, picked on", (even if it is specifically directed at me) as I know it comes with the terrority (see my previous post), and is to be expected.
I do often get irritated, however, when the government (usually someone in the judiciary) shows an obvious bias against something done by a Christian, which it would've permitted by a non-Christian. I don't like hypocrisy. If something's allowed for one, it should be allowed for the other. If something is prohibited for one, it should be prohibited for the other.
Yes, I do believe Christianity (at least at the present, in the U.S.) is targeted more in this respect than anything else. And why you're hearing about it more in the past 15 (or so) years than previously, is because (as I also said previously) Christians sat by for decades and did nothing while this double-standard was being applied. Now, apparently, some are tired of the double-standard, and are desirious of an fair standard.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Is THAT what you mean by bias? Then what about reading the Koran out loud in class? The Torah? The Vedas? Or reading The End of Faith out loud? It seems to me that in fairness you'd need to give equal time to all religions, and anti-religions, and that classroom time would be taken up by anti/ religious readings instead of actual... er... teaching.
I seem to be repeating myself here, but, yes.
As I said previously, if something's allowed for one, it should be allowed for the other. If something is prohibited for one, it should be prohibited for the other. I see no reason why anything shouldn't be allowed to be read in class if the student wants to read it, and it's applicable to the course. (BTW, I'm not condoning people reading from the Bible, Koran, or The Book of Monkey for personal devotions in a class, but as related to the study or some assignment where they can choose their own subject matter. Personal devotions should be allowed in public settings on their own time, but not during class.)
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Not a Biblical scholar, but here's a hypothetical example: There are a number of writings that survived to this day. Some of them may be tallies of taxes, transcriptions of the Gnostics, census records, laws, etc. I think it would be fair to say that almost none of them make any mention of Jesus. Some of them might provide indirect evidence that Jesus never existed- for example, failure to mention his name in a census where you might expect it, or failure to mention his name in court records. Some of them might mention his name but disagree with his divinity, or tell a very different story of his life or message. The fact that you have selected a single "lineage" of books means that they will be mostly self-consistent (altho there are disagreements even between the various disciples versions). But you might not find corroborating evidence for the existance of a "historical" Jesus in non Biblical sources.
I don't think any of the types of records you mentioned would be inclusive to mention "everyone" from the period. As such, why should they mention Jesus? To the Roman authorities, Jesus was just another guy.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Heya, yah, breakin a thread up helps dialup users, and preserves interest in the discussion, I think, one can always link past references if needful.
I'm mostly just watching this one - but I will chime in with one bit.
Part of the reason for specific hostility against christians is their own fault, a lot of em really are pushy and annoying - and in our country here, there's not quite as many folk who've been annoyed by someone pushing some other religion at them, as there are folks who've been annoyed by someone pushing christianty at em, thus you're logically going to face the retaliation of such annoyed folk rather more often than any other belief system will.
Makes sense, yes?
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
cartoon,
Taking things piecemeal...
The House bill I brought up: The part that I have a problem with is not what is referenced in the title of the bill. Politicians love to use titles that are unassailable (clean skies act, no child left behind, stuff like that). It's the part about limiting establishment clause cases to rich people. That's the part I don't like. Right now, if you win an establishment clause case you can recoup your attorney fees from the loser of the case. In other words, if you are on the right side of the Constitution you have nothing to worry about. This bill would eliminate that provision. The underlying message, "We know these are lawsuits that we're going to lose. So we better make it harder to bring these types of lawsuits." It's not the statue lawsuits that I'm worried about. Those are ticky tack. But, in a stated effort to get rid of the ticky tack (and I don't buy that stated goal for a second), the bill's sponsors will make it exponentially harder to go after serious violations. What if an average citizen encounters a clear violation of the establishment clause but does not have the funds to challenge it?
As far as my personal belief in terms of all this. I am not offended by seeing the word God on a statue. I wouldn't be offended if you placed a statue of Jesus right next to the Statue of Liberty pointing and giving the thumbs up. I would not be offended by seeing a statue of the Flying Spaghetti Monster on top of the California State Capitol building. I would not be offended if we placed statues of Buddha on the right side of a judge in a courtroom. But I don't see the need for any of these. What I do believe is that anyone who needs to have their beliefs enshrined in stone and given preferential treatment by the government is probably a bit on the lame side of things. But that's just me. When it comes to spirituality, I don't feel the need to constantly remind everyone of what I believe. And I don't feel the need for my government to also believe what I believe and publically make that statement.
Bouncing some more.
Quote:
Do you think that the posting of the "Ten Commandments" in front of a court house qualifies as Congress making a law respecting an establishment of religion? If so, why?
- cartoon
I think it sends an exclusive message.
Quote:
I've attended large Christian assemblies and gatherings of every kind over the past 20 years (since I've been a believer), and I have yet to meet one believer who wants to force their beliefs on anyone else.
- cartoon
Well, we've been living in different neighborhoods. We got a lot of people coming door to door where I grew up trying to sell religion. It got to the point where I could pretty much guess the denomination before they opened their mouth. That's just not my style. I'm more of a, "knowing people by their fruits," kind of person. Living your life as an example and, if someone ever asks, then sharing with them. But not starting out with the hard sell. Which is what I see from the evangelical movement.
Quote:
The reason it seems like evangelicals are making a stink about the hypocrisy is because for decades evangelicals sat by and did nothing. They allowed this inequity to take hold, and said nothing. Now that it's blaring in our faces, and we're protesting the unfair, hypocritical treatment we're receiving, those who disagree with us are accusing us of trying to get "our way". Respectfully, that's nonsense. We just want a fair slate. Is that too much to ask for?
- cartoon
To me, it's more like a pendulum. The founding fathers laid things out. Then religious groups started chipping away. And chipping away. And made inroads quite a ways. Think Sunday blue laws. Then other groups started removing those inroads. It's a back and forth. It's just as important to have people constantly making sure there is no preference as to have people constantly making sure they can practice their own religion without fear.
Because that's what it's about
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
not sure where this came from, but it's where I wanta go:
Quote:
Do you think that the posting of the "Ten Commandments" in front of a court house qualifies as Congress making a law respecting an establishment of religion? If so, why?
It offends ME. If you wanta post Selected Commandments From Moses, that's OK. " Thou shalt not kill."" Thou shall not steal."" Thou shall not bear false witness." Even the one about " Thou shall not commit adultery" might be relevant. But the minute you post the one about " Thou shall have no other God before me", you've stepped over the line.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
With reagard to reading from the Bible out loud... there is no coursework that I know in elementary school, and very few in junior high, high school, and college where reading from ANY religious text is a viable part of the curriculum. World history in junior/ high school maybe. Philosophy and religious studies in college. But in general, the oppty is nil. So it seems a small point.
Quote:...performing miracles and possibly fomenting the rebellion that they were worried about. Again, not an expert, but my understanding of the times is that there was heightened Messianic fervor, and that the outlook of some Jews was that the Messiah would deliver them from Roman rule, which the Romans were aware of.
I don't think any of the types of records you mentioned would be inclusive to mention "everyone" from the period. As such, why should they mention Jesus? To the Roman authorities, Jesus was just another guy....
The point you keep evading, though, is the one about Mohammed. You have your religious texts, they have theirs which has the same lineage but of more certain provenance. So why pick yours and not theirs?
There is BTW a case in point where a Congressman refuses to swear on the Bible but wants to swear on the Koran instead, and the right wing is in a complete huff about it. Most Congressmen don't swear on ANY book (altho the oath does inlcude "so help me God"). IMHO there should be NO religious reference in the ceremony, but if you're going to include one religion you have to include all.
Yay or nay?
Quote:Newoldbrowncoat- Me too. If you're going to post anything in a Courthouse, wouldn't the Bill of Rights be more appropriate?
It offends ME. If you wanta post Selected Commandments From Moses, that's OK. " Thou shalt not kill."" Thou shall not steal."" Thou shall not bear false witness." Even the one about " Thou shall not commit adultery" might be relevant. But the minute you post the one about " Thou shall have no other God before me", you've stepped over the line.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME