theworldofdreams.com

Joram Lionheart wrote:

Nia Atei wrote:I don't see how you can separate Church and State, but NOT God and State.

There's a difference between forcing people to pray in school, and allowing people to do so wherever they wish.

I think we agree on this point, the option that creates the greatest amount of choice and freedom without harming anyone is generally the best one.

That said, just as another data point, when I was in public school each morning was started the day with the lords prayer, many classes had for one reason or another a smal number of students who wouldn't stand up and recite it for whatever reason. Said students had to get a specific form from thier parents stating a valid reason, at which point they were "allowed" to go stand out in the hall while the prayer was being said, this always struck be as very very wrong, but at that point I was a good little person who didn't question authority.

If the choice is between no prayer in school and that level of ostracism, the former is possibly better.

I don't think you can lay racism so exclusively at the feet of western europeans. it's been with us in varying degrees since we were bashing the neighbour's heads in with rocks. If you want racist cultures that go back a long time look at the chinese and jappanese for instance. the jappanese have been enthusiastic racists for a thousand years and the chinese several times that.

Joram, when I wish to pray in public, I do so silently. No one can stop me. No one can stop you. It is not illegal to pray in public or in school. No one can remove "God" from your heart. Most people don't care what anyone else believes, as long as they don't push it on anyone else.

I believe prayer led by a person of authority in a public school is wrong, and I am glad the law agrees. I am not Christian, I don't agree with many Christian attitudes and teachings, and I don't want any future child of mine subjected to them.

I think people sometimes discourage talk of religion in the work place for 3 major reasons. 1) Religious debates, like political ones, often get nasty. This can create a lasting friction between co-workers. 2)To protect subordinates from bosses who may allow religious biases to interfere with how they treat the people they supervise.
3) No one likes to be preached at. It is really irritating when someone feels the need to "save" you, and you think they are a delusional lunatic.
All are good enough reasons to disallow religious discussion during work.

From gay rights to prayer in school, it would seem that change is slow but things are indeed changing.

This is what my Logic professor would call a classic example of a logical fallacy, namely the "Slippery Slope." The fact that an eventual extreme could arise from a single occurance earlier, even though it makes sense, is not logical proof, and cannot be accepted as an argument. It is logic based upon assumptions that have no backing.

Edgewood Dirk wrote:This is what my Logic professor would call a classic example of a logical fallacy, namely the "Slippery Slope." The fact that an eventual extreme could arise from a single occurance earlier, even though it makes sense, is not logical proof, and cannot be accepted as an argument. It is logic based upon assumptions that have no backing.

To what are you referring, Edgewood? I'm a bit confused, but then, this topic has lasted ten friggin' pages!

Edgewood Dirk wrote:This is what my Logic professor would call a classic example of a logical fallacy, namely the "Slippery Slope." The fact that an eventual extreme could arise from a single occurance earlier, even though it makes sense, is not logical proof, and cannot be accepted as an argument. It is logic based upon assumptions that have no backing.

That's why I don't entirely agree that homosexual marriage will inevitably lead to incestuous marriages or polygamy (or maybe even legalized beastiality). Hence my comment about, "we'll just have to see." You could very easily draw parallels, however, where political "rights" activism have been taken to absurd extremes (civil rights movement of today is a completely different "beast" from the civil rights movement of Martin Luther King Jr, unfortunately). Therein alone you can build a pretty solid argument.

Bayn wrote:But you bring up an amusing mind game that I used to play. Is that "thing" we call a tree really that? What is a "tree"? Perhaps what we call a tree is actually a rock. Perhaps that elm tree is actually a pair of buttocks! Gosh, the ramifications.

Unlike you Bayn, I don't regularly engage in metal masturbation (you seem to be quite the expert, though). I'm too pragmatic for that.
The argument about race being a western, madeup notion isn't something I came up with. It's an idea that historians have been discussing and arguing for for decades. If you do some quick research on the historical roots of "race" as an institution you'll find some leading scholars who favor my view. I'm taking a Colonial Latin America class right now in which issues about race, caste, and the social hierarchy are brought up constantly in the literature. While not all historians who write about the early history of slavery and racial relations will come out and say outright what I just said, you can tell that's the pressuposition they're working under. At least that's been my experienced from reading Colonial history books and articles.

Joram Lionheart wrote:Unlike you Bayn, I don't regularly engage in metal masturbation (you seem to be quite the expert, though).

Yeah, sad to say, I have hair growing on my cerebellum. *blush*

I'm too pragmatic for that.

I imagine it is fear, Joram, not pragmatism.

The argument about race being a western, madeup notion isn't something I came up with.

Did anyone say you came up with it? It appears you are losing touch with the thread again.

I'm taking a Colonial Latin America class right now in which issues about race, caste, and the social hierarchy are brought up constantly in the literature.

School is a wonderful thing.

Bayn wrote:Find a school more suitable to your taste then.

Now where were you 30 something years ago? You could have thought those foolish integrationist a thing or too. *much sarcasm*

I pray/talk to my god wherever I am, whenever I want. But then, I don't need to kneel and fold my hands, or lay out a rug and face east, or hop on one foot while chanting things and holding my nose, or other traditional religious observances.

That's why only religions which don't require you to be too expressive in public should be allowed in the
US. All others should be henceforth banned! Sheesh, those muslims, what do they think, that they can just kneel down and pray whenever it's "prayer time"? This is America for pete's sakes! We don't allow those silly practices. Such things disturb the sensibilities of Americans.

*much sarcasm*

"God" is not being removed from public affairs. Religion is.When the 10 commandments sculpture was removed from the Alabama courthouse, it was an effort to separate religion/church from state, not "god" from state.

BOTH are getting the boot, because people don't know how to differentiate them too. Take our current president for instance, he's just about crossed the line between into uniting church and state in certain aspects of civil society. It's not that he is wrong into thinking that God shouldn't be kicked out of the country. It's that he's been listening way too much to the politically loaded rhetoric of the Christian right. Such kind of self-serving, self-centered fanaticism (which has infected and corrupted just about all other forms of political activism out there--from gay rights and civil rights to pro-choice/pro-life and animal rights) is bound to have negative consequences in our society and the nation. Their most staunch supporters (supposedly) are doing the most harm to God in the public sphere.

Knee jerk reactions, such as your remark above, by religious people who equate God with Religion is what is causing so many problems and misunderstandings.

I've been arguing AGAINST the people who equate God with religion since the very first post on this issue. For the millionth time, Bayn, you fail to misrepresent my opinion by taking only some of my comments into account, and disregarding the parts that don't fit your preset view of me. That's it, I can't argue with someone so dishonest such as yourself. I'm through with you.

Joram Lionheart wrote:Now where were you 30 something years ago? You could have thought those foolish integrationist a thing or too. *much sarcasm*

Are you stating you are forced to go to your current school?

That's why only religions which don't require you to be too expressive in public should be allowed in the
US.

That is a silly notion.

*much sarcasm*

Ahh, sarcasm. Sarcasm is a wonderful thing.

BOTH are getting the boot,

It is rather significant that you feel that "GOD" can get the boot.

Their most staunch supporters (supposedly) are doing the most harm to God in the public sphere.

You are speaking about the Christian god, is that correct? I quite agree that far right Christian groups do cause more harm than good.

Bayn wrote:Knee jerk reactions, such as your remark above, by religious people who equate God with Religion is what is causing so many problems and misunderstandings.

Joram wrote:I've been arguing AGAINST the people who equate God with religion since the very first post on this issue.

Joram wrote:Slowly but surely God is being forcebly or subtedly removed from public affairs.

Hmmm, who's blowing smoke here? You need to make up your mind, Joram.

I'm through with you.

Truth hurts, huh?

Nia Atei wrote:Joram, when I wish to pray in public, I do so silently . . . Most people don't care what anyone else believes, as long as they don't push it on anyone else.

What if your religion requires you to pray verbally (and there's a few that do)? And what does "pushing it on someone else" constitute? If I decide to pray outside my classroom, how is that pushing it on someone else? If you don't like what I'm saying you don't have to listen to me. Heck you don't even have to look at me.

I believe prayer led by a person of authority in a public school is wrong, and I am glad the law agrees.

I believe private schools exist for that reason. If you want your kids to pray the mormon prayer, send them to mormon Bible school.

I think people sometimes discourage talk of religion in the work place for 3 major reasons. 1) Religious debates, like political ones, often get nasty.

And yet no one is discouraging (more like prohibiting) political talk in the work place. You see the blatant double standard? You can say whatever you want about Republicans and Democrats, but God forbid (no pun intended) that the name of God ever comes up.

This can create a lasting friction between co-workers.

There's A LOT of things that can potentially create friction between coworkers. Only religion is seriously taken to constitute a threat enough to be "discouraged" (as you so euphemistically put it) in the work place.

2)To protect subordinates from bosses who may allow religious biases to interfere with how they treat the people they supervise.

Huh? First of all, not everyone is the boss. Usually there's only a few people with the power to fire/hire someone. Secondly, what you are saying amounts to implying that bosses should have no religious biases (i.e. no religion). Yes, bosses should be atheists, but then atheists have a bias too. For that matter EVERYONE IN THIS PLANET has a bias. Does that mean they shouldn't be the boss of anyone?
You can't stop a person from being biased anymore than you can stop a human from making mistakes. You can try to ensure the person is not making biased decisions but the fact that I believe in God and I'm open about it shouldn't automatically disqualify me from holding a position of power.

3) No one likes to be preached at. It is really irritating when someone feels the need to "save" you, and you think they are a delusional lunatic.

This falls under the protection of anti-harrasment laws. If someone is falling you around the workplace trying to sell you something (in this case religion) you can report them on the basis that you are being harrassed. But then anti-religious laws don't only apply for these instances. They apply universally to ANY instance where religious issues are being dicussed. It doesn't matter if it's going on between two consenting adults, or that both parties are willing to engage in that conversation. If a third party (which is none of his/her damn business anyway)overhears you talking about God, you can very well be fired from your job.

All are good enough reasons to disallow religious discussion during work.

I disagree.

Joram Lionheart wrote:

I believe prayer led by a person of authority in a public school is wrong, and I am glad the law agrees.

I believe private schools exist for that reason. If you want your kids to pray the mormon prayer, send them to mormon Bible school.

Excellent thought. If you want your kids to pray Christian prayers, send 'em to a private Christian Bible school.

Bayn wrote: You need to make up your mind, Joram.

You need to learn how read and take people's comments into their proper context. If you can't do that, you'll never understand what I'm arguing here (and you obviously don't).

Joram Lionheart wrote:

Bayn wrote: You need to make up your mind, Joram.

You need to learn how read and take people's comments into their proper context. If you can't do that, you'll never understand what I'm arguing here (and you obviously don't).

*chuckles* Ahhh, now who's taking out of context, hmm? You get "caught" in a contradiction and like many self righteous people, you go on the offense and hope that if you display enough smoke and mirrors, everyone will forget.

Out of curiosity, how old are you, Joram?