Round 2: 'Tolerance' on American Universities???
POSTED BY: SoupCatcher
UPDATED: Wednesday, December 6, 2006 15:10
VIEWED: 8046
PAGE 2 of 6
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
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.
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.
Citizen:
I've seen stories about such groups and they are not a serious threat...YET! I think the vast majority of americans see such things as absolutely abhorent and would reject such "revolutionary" attempts quite vehemently. So rest easy, the United States of Christ is not likely for many generations, and we both know how much can change in that amount of time.
*Edited to clean up quotes, etc..
-----------------
"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration."
---Andrew Carnegie
"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Soupcatcher:
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?
Soup:
I share some of you concerns here, but I think it's a little more complicated than a plaintiff not having the means to file suit and conservative politicians wanting to make sure they cannot. Specifically, you stated
Quote:
"We know these are lawsuits that we're going to lose. So we better make it harder to bring these types of lawsuits."
in characterizing possible defendants that are facing establishment clause legislation. I think that's an inherently unfair characterization. The very threat of the possibility of having to pay exorbitant attorney's fees has been enough to squelch legal action. Not because the defendant has a weak case, but because the legal decision is not an utter certainty. If the defendant does not have the financial means to pay a plaintiff's attorney fees should they prevail, they may take the easier way out and acquiesce to the plaintiff's demands eventhough they believe they are in the right. Settling is often easier and cheaper than going to court as any insurance company lawyer can attest to. Here is a link to the American Legion's statement in support of the bill which I think states this arguement fairly well:
http://www.legion.org/?section=pub_relations&subsection=pr_listrelease
s&content=pr_press_release&id=289
For balance, here is also the ACLU's statment regarding the bill proposed:
http://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/26254prs20060726.html
I think both statements have some merit and suspect this has more to do with "exorbitant attorney's fees" than anything. Why are they so exorbitant? I know, that's a whole new can of worms worthy of a whole new thread. Regardless, there must be some happy medium where defendant's aren't intimidated with the prospect of paying a plaintiff's exorbitant attorney's fees and where the defendants should rightly be compelled to take responsibility for their actions which infringe on a plaintiff's constitiutional rights.
Thankfully, the bill isn't law yet and the Senate has to hash it out before it becomes law, maybe they can find that medium.
-----------------
"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration."
---Andrew Carnegie
"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
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.
Soup:
I agree with your approach to lead by example, and I have also had some folks come to my door trying to "sell" me their religion. One question though, Cartoon has stated that evangelicals are not interested in forcing others to believe as they do. How is going door to door to deliver an informational message forcing you to believe as they do? I have found that a polite thanks for thier time and a statement of disinterest in their message is often enough to make them move on to the next door. While I find it annoying to be bothered with this kind of thing, I don't feel as if they are forcing me in any way. I am not required to listen to them and they have no means to compel me to do so.
*Edited for spelling and grammar
-----------------
"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration."
---Andrew Carnegie
"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
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.
Would you use that as legal justification to discriminate against them?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
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").
And the BEST part about that whole sideshow?
Quote:
Matthew 5:33-37 -- 33 ‘Again, you have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, “You shall not swear falsely, but carry out the vows you have made to the Lord.” 34But I say to you, Do not swear at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37Let your word be “Yes, Yes” or “No, No”; anything more than this comes from the evil one. (NRSV)
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
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.
Hadn't ever thought of that, but yer right.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I really don't see "discrimination" specifically against xtians so much as general restrictions against ALL religious expression. It's just that xtians are so used to being the unquestioned norm that they view any restriction as discrimination.
Would you use that as legal justification to discriminate against them?
I got into dog doo on another forum because it prohibited political and religious expression, but some of the participants couldn't grasp that "God bless America" fell into both categories.
They thought I was "un-American" when I objected, and then they felt "picked on" when I pressed my point. But I would have said the same if someone had said "Allah give strength to our soldiers".---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
from Razza'a post, looks like you use it as a signiture line:
Quote:
"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration."
---Andrew Carnegie
That explains a disturbing trend- library budgets keep getting cut, and hours shortened.
There's a branch library ACROSS THE STREET from my apartment. It's open 4 days a week, 25 hours a week. mostly from 10:30 AM 'till 5:00 PM, which is great scheduling for working folks or even school kids. The Main Library downtown is now going to re-open on Sundays-- it usedta be open 8 hours every Sunday, some years ago. It'll now be open 5 hours on Sunday, but now Closed all day Monday.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
NewOldBrownCoat:
Yes, it is a disturbing trend to see library budgets cut year after year. Ironically, it is a reflection of the democracy it seeks to uphold. The fact is that there are a lot of people who simply see no value in libraries and find them a drain on the public coffers. They view them as obsolete, no longer necessary, or just another useless social program. I'm a public librarian, so I'm a little biased, but they are so much more than just a warehouse of books. In my opinion, professional librarians haven't been very good at adapting to the new information age in recent times, but that is changing! As the role of the library changes, so will the perception of it's value in our society and the cradle will continue to rock.
-----------------
"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration."
---Andrew Carnegie
"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Razza:
The fact is that there are a lot of people who simply see no value in libraries and find them a drain on the public coffers.
I voted against the library levy because I see it as a long term benefit to me to cut down on competition for my job by denying easy access to the information I used to get were I am today.
I also want to end busing for public schools, raise college tuition, and bring back debtor's prison.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME