posted
Yep. That's true. I'm telling you why I posted what I did. This is the first time you've acknowledged such cases, which, as I said, I didn't even expect you to do.
posted
Amazing. This is an issue I care deeply about, and have studied in some depth, and yet I am completely bored and turned off by the present discussion of it.
You guys killed it. Took all the fun, interest and passion out of it. Bummer.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, so now that I'm not some Christian hating person with no integrity, can you present me with reasons why I should accept what I said as a mischaracterization of the situation?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, you in fact did say that this was your impression of me.
quote:This is the first time you've acknowledged such cases, which, as I said, I didn't even expect you to do.
edit: And yeah, I don't accept your closure. The posts you point to are mostly irrelevant to our disagreement, which was about relative amounts of types of perceived attacks and never about whether there were serious ones at all.
posted
Be fair, Squick. That just implies the "no integrity" part. It doesn't say anything about the "Christian-hating" part.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nope. Not the same thing (edit: as an accusation of lack of integrity). I expected you to go off on a tangent and question my motivation, and to make accusations about my expected motivation of you. Pretty good guess, huh?
No matter how you take that quoted sentence, you can't twist "Christian hating person" out of it.
You've been accusing me of that since the very first time we ever interacted. Stop it.
quote:edit: And yeah, I don't accept your closure. The posts you point to are mostly irrelevant to our disagreement, which was about relative amounts of types of perceived attacks and never about whether there were serious ones at all.
I told you my thinking when I made the post - that you were leaving out a very large category of attacks. That's it. I haven't been arguing about the proportion at all in this thread.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, Honestly, most of the time we run into problems it starts, like here, with you telling me I don't understand something or I'm ignorant about something. From my perspective, you're the one who goes off on tangents and doesn't want ot address the points of contention, which, as I've done here, I keep bringing up. When we stay on the relevant points, we tend to have interesting discussions, but it's hard for me to get you to do that when it's about an issue that's in your in-group. And you imply I have a prejudice against Christians all the time. Even here, I can't think of a supportable reason why my no integrity would come into play unless it was because of my supposed antipthy towards Christians.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can anyone imagine the poor jury (in some imaginary world) that has to sit through testimony as presented by Dagonee and Mr. Squicky? The ones that didn't hang themselves before the end of the trial would probably dead-lock over which attorney was the most [insert adjective here.]
Though, I suppose if your sole goal was to get the jury not to decide the guilt of your client, this would be a good outcome.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I AM NOT CONTENDING WITH YOU ABOUT THE PROPORTION. I NEVER WAS.
Is that clear enough.
As for the rest, nothing productive can come of discussing that right now. Suffice it to say I disagree.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
sax, I guess I feel I was never granted A and I never even considered B relevant to what I was saying.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know, I'd be interested to see if he actually does agree with the main thrust of my argument. I still don't think he does, just that he wasn't discussing it.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Until all the creation Myths of all the faiths represented in America have equal time in the classroom, we will just have to keep them all out and teach silly old evolution in science class. We cannot afford to leave out the Hopi indians, and the Hindu and Shinto and Muslim and so forth by placing the Christian version above their version, that would smack of a state endorsed religion!
Hee Hee... I win!
"When the natives solemnly rub blue mud on their navels I do the same!"
posted
Somebody back on page 3 mentioned us IB kids, and someone else asked what one is. Considering that we IB kids often have a lot to do with and arguments about school curriculums, bigotry, science, religion, and proving anything from the existence of god(s) to the color of a sock, and everything I've seen on these boards suggests to me it will be good for you to hear about us. IB stands for International Baccalaureate, and it is a program used in select high schools throughout the world. In the USA, it's considered by universities to be slightly better than having all AP courses. The idea is that we're intelligent and interested in learning, which already tends to put us fairly far ahead of our fellows academically. Our curriculum is not particularly affected by local policy, and by local I mean state and federal. The only thing decided here is whether the school is going to have such a program or not. The curriculum is decided on by an international panel and handed down from Geneva. Geneva had this to say about evolution: "Evolutions is a collection of popular theories that generally state that all life is actually the result of millenia of mutations from an original proto-organism, most likely created spontaneously through electro-chemical reactions. There are other schools of thought." If you took Bio instead of Chemistry as I did, they went into more detail about the different theories. As far as religious studies went, it was generally considered that to study one in a school setting was to study them all, and we didn't have nearly enough time for that. That's the way I think it should be done. Now, what students thought was another matter entirely, and we frequently got into some of the more even-handed arguments about it I've ever heard, and ultimately many of us decided that, just as I don't have enough evidence to determine if it will rain on February 8th, 3021, in Greenwich, I can not determine if there is a god or gods from the information provided. As to the matter of oppression between christians and non-christians, it happens all the time, in both directions, and I personally have been involved in both. When I was held back from recess for not reciting the pledge, I was being oppressed by the Christian majority. When I make Catholic jokes, I'm oppressing Christians. I don't think you'll find any dividing line without strife in both directions, be it gender, race, creed or what have you. The trick is keeping it out of hand, and any time the logic "You can't do this because I don't want you to" is the main reason, it's out of hand. If I say "You can't teach your children what you want, because I don't want you to", it's out of hand. If you say "You can't keep us from teaching your children what we want because we don't want you to" then something is equally wrong.
Posts: 2 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Until all the creation Myths of all the faiths represented in America have equal time in the classroom, we will just have to keep them all out and teach silly old evolution in science class. We cannot afford to leave out the Hopi indians, and the Hindu and Shinto and Muslim and so forth by placing the Christian version above their version, that would smack of a state endorsed religion!
I often marvel at the pseudo reductio ad absurdum people will apply in the question of separation of church and state. Only a fool would attempt to class all references to religion irrespective of all societal and cultural context and applicability as state sponsored religion if uttered in a public forum by a public official.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Only a fool would attempt to class all references to religion irrespective of all societal and cultural context and applicability as state sponsored religion if uttered in a public forum by a public official.
It doesn't look to me like that's what's going on. The issue is specifically references to religion as an alternative to a particular form of science.
Consider the dialectic. Creationists claim that they're discriminated against because evolution is offered as truth/verified theory without mentioning Christian creationism as a viable alternative. Suppose that the courts accepted their argument. Wouldn't it follow from that very same argument that not mentioning Hindu creationism as a further alterative discriminates against Hindus?
Looks to me like a reductio of the creationist take on religious freedom.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
We have an IB school near me, the International Academy. It's a private school though, and cost far more than what most kids in the area can afford, otherwise I would have loved to go there.
I tend to agree with the general point of all or none. I don't think it's stupid to say that if one is taught and none of the others, then it gives some support to the one that IS mentioned.
There are a lot of plans out there to solve Social Security, Bush chose one to champion at the State of the Union, and we believe that is his choice. Not the best example I know, but if there aren't alternatives, it's hard to claim there isn't support for the one that is mentioned.
If high schools want to create an optional, key word optional, religion class that teaches all religions for a semester, or at the very least, the biggest religions, Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Hindu, Buddhist and Shinto, I don't have a problem with that. I think it's a waste of money personally, but I wouldn't have a problem with it. It would not only make students broader minded about the world (the most important aspect in my opinion), it would be equally fair.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
destineer- I was actually addressing the specific comment I quoted, not the wider debate. Certain posters here seem to believe that separation of church and state means that no public official can discuss, show preference for or otherwise demonstrate religious predilections. I submit that such a view is patently absurd.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Certain posters here seem to believe that separation of church and state means that no public official can discuss, show preference for or otherwise demonstrate religious predilections. I submit that such a view is patently absurd.
I don't think most people have a problem with individual public officials showing their faith (possibly excepting when they use it as a tool of scorn and invective, such as Tom DeLay). I think what they are nervous about is a consensus amongst the people of government that one religion should be supported, and when laws are passed that closely mirror one specific religion's tenents. Personally I get nervous when I see the 10 Commandments outside a courthouse, I think that is out of bounds and silly. More silly than anything else.
If Bush wants to go to church on Sunday, more power to him. If he wants to pray left and right, and make references to God in his speeches, I'm even okay with that. But if he starts giving more money to Christian groups, empowering them, and making Christian laws into national laws, then I have a problem.
Drawing from your faith is one thing, making your faith the law is another.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
[pet peeve]The word is "tenet". A "tenant" is a renter in an apartment building.[/pet peeve]
I think it is perfectly reasonable to have a religion class that teaches about the core philosophies of the major religions in the world, while leaving out the minor ones. That's just as valid as teaching a civics class that addresses major political movements while ignoring minor ones, or a history class that addresses major historical events while ignoring less-significant ones, or a geography class that spends more time on more powerful or populous or historically-influential countries.
There's a difference between teaching about religions as an outside observer ("This religion believes this, while this religion believes that.") and teaching the tenets of a religion, as though under the assumption that the teacher and all students are members (or should be members) of that religion.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Religion class, fine. What is under discussion here is science classes.
I think that was rather rude of you, but whatever.
And if you look at the last 50 posts or so by Dag and Squick, that hasn't been the discussion at all.
And my point is relevant. I'm talking about where I think religion SHOULD be discussed, as opposed to a science class. It's valid because I'm saying it should have it's own class, and not be in science class.
And sorry about the tenet/tenant thing, I knew I was wrong, but didn't feel like looking up the correct form of the world. My bad.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Is it the freedom to never have to encounter an opinion other than your own? Clearly, that's not tenable since your freedom would necessarily impinge on the freedom of others.
Is it the freedom to practice your religion without ever having someone insult you because of it? No. Government can only react after the fact to the worst (actually destructive or violent) acts of private citizens.
Is it the freedom from official (government-sponsored) promotion of religious ideas that you disagree with? Well...no not even that. The government isn't allowed to sponsor a state religion, but ideas drawn from religious sources are still fair game for a government to use. They'd have to be. Just because an idea can be found referenced in a religious text doesn't make its use "state sponsorship" of religion.
(but this is a gray area we in the US are always having to grapple with).
No...religious freedom is simply the right to practice your own religion without interference from the government. And, by the same token, freedom from a state-sponsored religion in that you can't be forced to profess any particular faith or belief in order to "get things" or have equal treatment under the law.
(Dag can correct this with more exact language if necessary).
But the bottom line is that no-one is guaranteed freedom from being verbally abused about their religion. Except that officials representing the government can't do it legally. Everyone else can. It's rude and unpleasant, and repugnant, but not illegal. Under some conditions (such as relationships between employers and employees) this kind of thing is also illegal in private (non-governmental) settings.
The question isn't whether some Christians are maltreated in some instances by some people. That is certainly the case. The question is (or should be) whether that rises to the level of religious persecution -- official state-sponsored or even done by someone who is acting as a representative of the government -- in which a person is inhibited from practicing their religion in the freedom guaranteed by our Constitution.
If we take that as our definition, then there really is precious little that would rise to the level of religious persecution. At least there's precious little of it that wouldn't just as easily be chalked up to the illegal actions of a few individuals who exceeded their authority and, one presumes, will be getting the smackdown as soon as their behavior catches up to them.
In contrast, Christians who try to use their elected positions on School Boards to systematically inject their religious views into non-religious areas of school curriculae (such as biology classes) are, indeed and in fact, attempting to create a little pocket of state-sponsorship for religious education.
They should be viewed as violating the Constitution, and the result should be reversal of the offending curriculum changes.
Keeping ID or creationism OUT of school curriculae is NOT a violation of the religious freedom guarantee because, quite simply, no-one is stopping those who want it from getting this education. They are just saying that we're not going to provide it at public expense.
And only those who try to twist the truth to say that teaching evolution is anti-religion, or that evolution is, in itself, a religious concept, are confused by this issue.
I'm not sure what the discussion over the past 2-3 pages of this thread have been about. Ants and contrived examples of not-very-analogous situations, for the most part.
In essence, I think this discussion could be about many things. But it has drifted so far afield that I'm having trouble connecting it to anything meaningful.
Question:
If an individual who works for a government agency berates a person specifically BECAUSE they are a Christian... 1) is that an action of the government agency? 2) does it only rise to that level if the agency, upon hearing of it, does nothing? 3) If the person is still free to practice their religion, does it rise to the level of religious persecution by the definition we understand commonly? Or is it something lesser? 4) Is it REALLY about the person's religion or is it more about the illegal and reprehensible behavior of one person toward another person?
As to whether I am attempting to reduce to the absurd with the seperation clause, well I find it interesting that the creation epics of those non Christians bring the word absurd to mind. Especially after the way the Old Testement was cobbled together by borrowing from its influeces in exile. I just think of it as poetry and always have.
We have a duty to remember that anything the government supports with money comes tied around a brick of influence. It is not bad that this is so, responsibility is the flip side of the coin of power, so by pushing for the high ground we can shut the creationists up in sullen mumbling while we continue to teach science. It is never needful to dirty our hands and seem anti christian, we need merely to seem as if we are open and loving to all religions to get our way. It is good strategy.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
