BS: Separation of church & state lessened

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: mousethief
Date: 15 Jun 01 - 05:12 PM

Jim, I'll respond to this in the new thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 15 Jun 01 - 05:12 PM

Mousethief, if that's your point, I don't agree with that either.

In general, it's a weak argument, although I hear it often. "There's no point in trying to keep people from doing X, because if they can't do X, they'll do Y, which is just as bad."

"There's no point in trying to keep people from robbing convenience stores, because if they can't rob convenience stores, they'll rob houses, which is just as bad."

To make it a strong argument, first, you have to prove it's true. THEN you have to answer the argument, "OK, then, let's stop people from doing X AND Y."

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: mousethief
Date: 15 Jun 01 - 04:54 PM

This thread is getting very long; as many of you know, we have been asked to try to keep threads down to the 100 post range. Thus I've started a CONTINUATION THREAD. Please continue discussion there.

Thanks,
Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: mousethief
Date: 15 Jun 01 - 04:51 PM

My point exactly, MMario.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: MMario
Date: 15 Jun 01 - 04:51 PM

that wasn't a case of freedom of speech - that was a case of a teacher verbally abusing a student in his/her care - and showed (primarily) a lack of judgement on the teacher's part - plus a pretty good dose of disregard for his/her students.

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: mousethief
Date: 15 Jun 01 - 04:46 PM

Jim, you missed my point. The teacher used religion to club the student. If you take away that club, the teacher would find a different club.

As for "separation" as a function of politeness, I agree with all you say.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 15 Jun 01 - 04:42 PM

Mousethief, I've been pondering your assertion that separation of church and state wouldn't prevent the incident I described above.

If you think of separation of church and state as being purely a legal principle, where the only means of enforcing it is to sue someone, then I suppose you're right. But I think of it as more than that. For me it's also an ethical principle, a moral ideal, and I wish more people accepted it as such, too.

Here's an analogy: Assault and battery is a crime, punishable by a jail term. But that's not why we teach our children not to fight. Most adults feel that unnecessary violence is morally wrong. (Interestingly, I don't see anything in the Ten Commandments that prohibits punching your neighbor in the nose, so I wonder why so many people consider them the paragon of moral guidance.)

When kids fight, most adults will intervene to stop them. We usually don't find it necessary to call the police or sue the other kid's parents. That's because there is a consensus among adults that fighting is a bad thing. If we did not have this consensus - if, say, one kid's parents encouraged him to assault other kids - then perhaps we would be forced to have the police or the courts intervene.

Now I believe that needlessly flouting your religious beliefs, practices, or lack of them, in front of people whose beliefs are different, is morally wrong. I wouldn't invite a Muslim to my house for dinner and then serve him pork. I wouldn't hide the fact that I sometimes eat pork, but I probably wouldn't cook it or eat it in front of him, either. I would do this because (1) I want to be polite and respectful and make him feel comfortable, and (2) I don't feel that going without pork for a short time is much of a hardship for me.

Separation of church and state is simply politeness extended to the public sphere. Or at least it COULD be thought of that way, if we could count on people to be polite. But I'm afraid we can't. Unlike fighting, we don't have a consensus in America about whether religious practice in public is good or bad, offensive or honorable, uplifting or degrading. It's because of this lack of consensus that we end up fighting it out in court.

I wish religious people all felt that they could refrain from vocally praying in public schools as easily as I refrain from eating pork while my Muslim friend is visiting. That just seems like the polite thing to do. And that's what the majority of religious people actually do. It's only a minority (but possibly a majority in some areas) who claim that NOT vocally praying is a hardship and an injustice. I can't help but feel they are a bit disingenuous (to put it mildly) when they claim to be an OPPRESSED minority.

To get back to my original point - if there were a consensus that separation of church and state is more than a legal principle, but also a moral ideal, then I would have some basis for approaching that teacher who insulted her student's religion. I could say, "Look, this is a public school. You are paid by tax money. You have no business commenting on other people's religion." And I might have some chance persuading her to stop. But without that consensus, the teacher could equally claim, "Hey, you're trying to restrict MY freedom of speech!" And if I had to appeal to the administration, I wonder whose side they would come down on?

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: M.Ted
Date: 15 Jun 01 - 03:52 PM

I am enjoying GUEST/GUEST's rantings in particular, since (and I am sorry to say this,Guest) he crusades for "objective reality" with a pouch full of totally subjective blathering--this statement is a good example:

"I find no direct link between physical manifestations and any numinous object (a god or other such being/force/what-have-you)"

One imagines that someone who refutes (or seems to refute, depending on what a "Numinous object" is) Aristotle, St. Thomas, DesCartes, among others, would give us a little more to go on than the extremely subjective assertion that that *he* has seen nothing--

The business about 'If a tree has no leaves, then it has no leaves, and saying it has leaves won't make it so." demonstrates that he is neither a student of logic nor a student of natural science--a tree could have no leaves because it's leaves were on the ground, in which case it simultanously has leaves and has no leaves- (and even a kindergartener can verify that this is often the case)--

My point really is that GUEST/GUEST really doesn't seem to have made any sort of objective or oritical inquiry into any of the ideas or philosophies that he is lambasting--

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: SeanM
Date: 15 Jun 01 - 03:45 PM

Mmario -

There's a case of that right now in California. I can't find a link to it, so I'll copy the blurb from the local paper: "

School District Bans Student Clubs

An Orange County high school district banned noncurriculum clubs from its campuses rather than allow the establishment of a Christian club.

The action resulted from a lawsuit settlement by Saddleback Valley Unified School District, which agreed to exclude student clubs rather than allow a chapter of Fellowship of Christian Athletes on one of its campuses.

The clubs will have to meet before or after school, and can no longer use campus bulletin boards or other school outlets to solicit members or publicize meetings, Bill Manahan, the school district superintendent, said Thursday.
FROM NEWS SERVICES"

What I find interesting is that this is two pages after the article wherein the 'Boy Scout' funding restriction that I mentioned above has been broadened (By Barbara Boxer - a Democrat, no less) to now state that a school refusing to allow a group that discriminates on the basis of the organization's "position concerning sexual orientation" to use their facilities risks losing federal funds.

M

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: katlaughing
Date: 15 Jun 01 - 10:56 AM

Thanks, Wolfgang and Fibula. I appreciate it.

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: Fibula Mattock
Date: 15 Jun 01 - 10:43 AM

kat, Wolfgang - there is a similar set up in N.Ireland:

"Religious Education
All schools, except nursery and special schools, must provide religious education for all pupils as part of the curriculum, and must also give then the opportunity to take part in daily collective worship.

As a parent you have, however, the right to ask that your child should be excused from attending classes in religious education, or from collective worship, or both.

In special schools, religious education and collective worship will be provided insofar as this is practicable.

From September 1993 a core syllabus for religious education must be used in all grant- aided schools."

(from The Parents' Charter for Northern Ireland)

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: MMario
Date: 15 Jun 01 - 10:36 AM

I still don't see, based on the constitution, how the use of the school by a religious group of any affiliation defys seperation of church and state.

basically the constitution says no rights shall be denied based on religion (or lack therof)

if any other non-school group has the right to use the school - then so does a religious one.

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: Wolfgang
Date: 15 Jun 01 - 10:29 AM

From what I've seen, nobody has responded to this question yet:

He said all children, there [in Germany], from kindergarten through 4th grade, have to attend religious instruction classes during their school day. According to him, they have a choice of Roman Catholic or Lutheran. His son was prepared, in school, for his first communion by the local priest. When asked what a person was supposed to do if they were Jewish, he had no answer, except that a better question might be what to do if one is Muslim, as they have so many immigrants.

I would like to hear from some of you who live in Germany, if this is true, please.

That's a mixture of true and false and a central assertion (have to) is false.

There is religious instruction in the curriculum of all German schools (after kindergarten) but it is the only part of the curriculum that is not compulsory (for a qualification see below). Until a kid is 14 years old it is her parents choice whether she has to attend or not, from 14 on it is her choice.

Due to the relative proportion of catholics/protestants the usual classes offerend will come from these two faiths. With a strong enough minority from another religion there can be classes for other religions as well.

In some lands (parts) of Germany, pupils that do not go to religious instruction have to attend a class on 'general ethics' (or some other fancy name) in which thry are e.g. taught about ethical questions from different point of views, among them religious.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: mousethief
Date: 15 Jun 01 - 12:16 AM

Sorry Peg. I'll try not to do that next time.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: Peg
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 09:14 PM

Alex wrote:

"Okay, all you pagans: moment of honesty. If this were a Wiccan group instead of a Christian group which was allowed to use the school after suing, what would your response be? Be honest. Brutally honest. You'd be dancing in the streets, right?"

NO I would not. Because this is a violation of the separation of church and state.

Why even bother to ask questions if you are just going to provide your own answers?

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: MMario
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 08:53 PM

Jim - I think your example just poiints out that a) the teacher was either ignorant or deliberatly baiting the child

and b) that a good broad based culteral course in various faithsa and denominations would DECREASE such incidents as people would be aware of differences.

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 07:56 PM

Stevangelist, I heartily support your right to believe whatever suits you as long as you don't attempt to infringe upon my right to believe what suits me.

Where I begin to have problems with your words is when you make broad sweeping generalizatons like this one...

"I simply respond to anything anyone says to me in a way that is in accordance with my beliefs. Yet when the word Christian is mentioned, everyone feels perfectly OK about generalizing and making fun."

I submit that your use of the word 'everyone' is hardly fair, and is far from correct.

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: catspaw49
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 07:26 PM

Sean, I don't think even this Court will accept a case like that and I doubt it ever gets there. "Discriminatory Groups" have a long history of access to public facilities and on that basis alone I don't think it will ever be heard. Once again, no matter how repugnant or even mild a group or individual is, they have the same "rights."

I think the more interesting response will come from the schools. Will funding be withheld if they restrict ALL outside usage? By doing so, the school is showing no discrimination and the state would be hard pressed to show cause.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: mousethief
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 07:22 PM

Jim Dixon, I don't see how separation of church and state helps prevent such incidents at all. There are always asshole teachers willing to humiliate kids; if they don't humiliate them about religion, they'll humiliate them about something else.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 07:14 PM

At last! A music tie-in:

A U.S. public high school, French class, circa 1964. The teacher was born in France and presumably Catholic. It was December, and we were translating French Christmas carols into English. One student stumbled over the phrase, "pour effacer la tache originelle" ("to erase original sin").

The carol was "Minuit Chrétiens", which is commonly known in English as "O Holy Night." As is common with verse translations, the familiar English version is quite different from the original. In fact, "O Holy Night" doesn't mention original sin at all.

With some prompting, the student finally arrived at the "correct" translation, but she was still confused and doubtful. She had never heard the term "original sin" before, and asked what it meant. The teacher's response was "What's the matter with you? Don't they teach you anything in that church of yours?"

Naturally the student felt humiliated, and so did anyone else who was unclear on the concept of original sin. (Original sin is the guilt that you inherit from Adam and Eve, and has nothing to do with your own behavior. How many knew that?)

I don't know whether this teacher was scornful of Protestantism in general, or whether she was merely ignorant of the fact that most Protestant churches either deny the existence of original sin, or de-emphasize it to the point that they don't bother to teach their kids about it. Perhaps she was merely scornful of what she assumed to be this particular student's failure to study her catechism carefully. But scornful she was, and she showed it.

The doctrine of separation of church and state may not prevent incidents like this, but it goes a long way toward minimizing them. And as such, I'm in favor of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 06:50 PM

Alex,

You are correct; we are, in part, on the same page. And I'm only GUESTGUEST because at this point I haven't set up a login. I shall set to and do that and then log in as myself....have to find an appropriate nom de debate.

"I'm also very uncomfortable with religion in the public sphere -- because there is no such thing as generic religion; anything religious excludes or denies somebody else's religious beliefs, and that's pushing towards establishment"

Exactly. Where we differ is in the expression. I do believe that having a club meet in a school, especially when their expressed motivation is to gather adherents, is wrong. The goal is not really instruction but increase. Chess club, math club, sports, etc, are based around relatively agreed-upon criteria -- the rules of chess and improvement thereby, math and its assorted and messy permutations, and so forth. A religious club for children exists less for the children than because some adult wishes an excuse to proselytize.

"I'm also uncomfortable with having prayer opening the Senate and stuff like that. "

Ditto. The most recent rampage (the spat over who the chaplain would be) was particularly repugnant, and, I think, instructive. The then-governing party, itself allied with certain extremist religious groups, basically attempted to supplant a perfectly good chaplain of the "wrong" religion (RC) with one of their own fold (SB). Now, chaplain, per se, s/b nondenominational and the one who had been in office for a bit had been (by all accounts) doing a perfectly good job. Why was he suddenly assailed? I'd suggest that it's due to a latent intolerance, and one unbefitting people at that level of government.

"I'm not at all sure what you mean by "based on objective reality"

I suppose a better term might be common sense. If a tree's leaves are green, they're green irrespective of who is looking at it (all other things being equal, assuming daytime and sunlight and people with vision and no colorblindness, etc). If a tree has no leaves, then it has no leaves, and saying it has leaves won't make it so.

I find no direct link between physical manifestations and any numinous object (a god or other such being/force/what-have-you). Consequently, when I find someone speaking for their god, I am compelled to ask how they know their god's position on the issue at hand. If they cite historical texts, I can ask that they clarify the ethics expressed in said texts, but I fail to see the text as evidence of a numinous hand.

Given the inability of the religious I've dealt with to establish a clear causal relationship that leaves no doubt as to:

- any demonstrable existence of their numinous entity; - the positions allegedly taken and statements allegedly made by that numinous entity; - the correctness of their interpretations of the alleged statments and positions

... then I am loath to accept that their reasoning be established as public policy. If I suddenly told everyone that I had a vision in which everyone did something -- I don't know, wore white on alternate Thursdays -- and attempted to say it was of divine inspiration and cited a millinia-old text supporting my position, you'd tell me I was crazy. But that's what many religions ask us to do. I see it as a means by which to exert (often abusive) social control much more than as any sort of tool for peace and justice.

Personally, I believe that if I treat other people well, that I've done all I can do, and have (hopefully) left the world a more civil place. Demanding that other people adopt my view of proper living is pointless and time-consuming. I find it offensive and demeaning when someone who is religious who knows my antipathy towards religion assumes that my lack of religion is congruent to a lack of basic ethics....and it happens all the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: SeanM
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 06:36 PM

Kat & Susan;

You're both making a point that while I heartily agree with it, it's not the issue at hand (the Supreme Court decision).

The meetings themselves - which is what the decision covered - don't really seem to be the point of disagreement.

What the disagreement seems to be is the use or appearance that the school (and there from extension the local government) approves and uses public funds to support the organization. I think I said it earlier - THAT part (if it is indeed the case) is very likely against the 'separation clause'.

In related news, this article covers the Senate's passing of an amendment that would

"withhold federal funds from school districts that deny use of their facilities to the Boy Scouts because of the organization's exclusion of homosexuals."

This DOES raise a few interesting points. The BSA, normally worthy organization that it is, DOES bar the admission of homosexuals, which puts it athwart anti-discrimination laws regarding usage of public facilities in several states.

I see two issues: First, the BSA would apply under the recent Supreme Court decision excepting the anti-discrimination statutes.

Second, by willfully discriminating (and having been ruled that their discrimination IS legal), do they still have a right to the public facilities, given state law? I'm not sure if this is a conflict between state and other regulatory bodies, beyond the fact that schools in affected areas would now be facing a wonderful catch-22 - violate local laws by giving a group classified as 'discriminatory' public facilities to operate in, or lose federal funding by following said laws.

Interesting, indeed. Without the rhetoric, it becomes a sticky legal point. Anyone care to place bets on THIS one making it to the Supremes?

M

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: mousethief
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 06:23 PM

Is "thw truth" Welsh? :-P

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: Stevangelist
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 06:19 PM

What I mean is that there is such a dearth of knowledge in the general public's mind about authentic Christianity that it would be wise to save one's breath in order to not try to typify or pigeon-hole the members of that faith. I would never say that ALL Buddhists wear orange robes and are bald-headed Orientals... so why is every 'fundamentalist' Christian a narrow-minded bigot bent on zombie-izing the world with faith and fairy tales?

Stevangelist

P.S. There are so-called 'fundamentalist Christians' who are as full of shit as anyone else... they don't know thw truth, either.

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: mousethief
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 06:18 PM

I think we're closer, GuestGuest, than you might believe. I'm also very uncomfortable with religion in the public sphere -- because there is no such thing as generic religion; anything religious excludes or denies somebody else's religious beliefs, and that's pushing towards establishment. BUT not letting a bunch of little kids use a classroom for whatever religious club they may have, when every other club in the school is allowed to, is just as much religious discrimination as anything else that's been mentioned here.

I'm also uncomfortable with having prayer opening the Senate and stuff like that.

I'm not at all sure what you mean by "based on objective reality" -- do you mean something that has been scientifically verified? If two people see a flash in the sky but nobody else does, is that "objective reality"? What if the others weren't looking in the same direction? This could be an interesting topic to take up, maybe in a different thread. I don't think "objective reality" is nearly so objectively definable as you apparently do.

Alex the philosopher

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: GUEST,GUEST
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 06:13 PM

Steve and Alex,

I'm glad you're willing to grant point three to others. In general, that's not been my experience. It's been my experience that Xtianity, particularly fundamental Xtianity, resolutely demands rights for itself, and demands the right to insert itself into public life in this country, and demands that it be allowed use of public facilities to further its own message because "we're taxpayers."

Great argument. I'm also a taxpayer and I don't want to either see my money go to an organization which has no raison d'etre other than self-perpetuation and no basis other than faith. When people tell me to have faith, I tell them I'll wait until the check clears, and then I'll ship....not bloody well before. I also don't want my taxes coming back at me in the form of some publicly-subsidized religious exercise which someone in gov't has decided is sufficiently of merit to be allowed to attempt to instruct me on the error of my ways.

I don't like ANY religion in the public sphere. My take is that if you want to believe something, that's fine. But if the belief is based on faith rather than objective reality, it doesn't belong in public policy at any level. There's too much room for abuse in the name of faith....as witness the Crusades, the Inquisition, a variety of Islamic jihads, and certainly a great many others that I can't list. Social policy should be based on close observation of human nature, which I submit is basically as Hobbes described it -- I'm not an optimist -- understanding that we need to adapt to minimize the harm caused by our basic primate urges.

Steve, what did you mean by this: "You want to know about salvation? try this: save your breath. "

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: Stevangelist
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 06:10 PM

Alex, GOD (I said it) bless you.

Just because I don't believe someone else is correct in their beliefs doesn't mean I can't allow them to have and promote those beliefs. I concede point 3 on a daily basis. If someone wants to believe they can reach relationship with God by hitting themsleves in the head with a frying pan 100 times a day, I say let 'em. Ain't my job to point out their faults...

May The Road Rise To Meet You,

Stevangelist

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: mousethief
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 06:04 PM

PS "Xtianity" would stand for Christtianity, since "X" stands for "Christ." I wonder if Guest has a stuttering problem?

Stevangelist: simmer down, boy! Illegitimi non carborundum. Don't lower yourself to Anonyguest's level. Anger breeds only anger.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: mousethief
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 06:00 PM

The problem with Xtianity is that it wants points 1 and 2 and doesn't want to grant point 3 to others.

Speak for yourself. I'm a Christian and I'm willing to grant point 3 to others. Maybe we're not as monolithic as you would have us be.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: Stevangelist
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 05:59 PM

You know what's really, really funny, GUEST? You don't seem to know ANY real Christians. You seem to know the narrow-minded assholes who can't smile at a person that refuses to listen to their rantings. I am a Christian minister. A PREACHER. A LOUD, JUMP-UP-AND-DOWN, HOLY GHOST, BIBLETHUMPNG preacher. And yet, it's strange... I never seem to find time in my day to PUT DOWN other beliefs. I simply respond to anything anyone says to me in a way that is in accordance with my beliefs. Yet when the word Christian is mentioned, everyone feels perfectly OK about generalizing and making fun. Christianity as the majority? Hardly. Christianity as a 'monolith with a salvation agenda'? Friend, you don't know the first thing about Christians. We don't seek adherents. We ourselves seek to adhere. Ask any REAL Christian and they will tell you that people don't save anything. Most people can't even save coupons.

You want to know about salvation? try this: save your breath.

Stevangelist

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: wysiwyg
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 05:58 PM

I do think that passing out permission slips IN class to something (anything) OUTSIDE of class is wrong. The school should not be doing that, and probably is violating some rule when they do.

There IS a rule about having to have a slip, in most schools, to skip taking the bus, or to take a bus other than one;s usual to go home with a pal, but the slip is for the contracted bus company to deal with risk management, I believe.

A note like that is supposed to come from the parent, directly, not via an activity that requires staying.

In other words, part of what sounds messed up here, as far as boundaries and separation go, is that the school has been "helping" with Good News Club publicity.

The "draw" to join it should happen outside of school entirely, via community publicity, just like other activities, unless the club is motivated by students starting it on their own, which I think unlikely. Students should have freedom of speech to invite friends to come, and use print materials to do it if they wish, but the teachers should not be involved in xeroxing and distributing the flyers or slips.

I know Girl Scouts and Cub Scouts, etc. usually get "school dispensation" to distribute stuff in class, but in that case they supply their own paper and teachers as a rule hate doing it, from what teaching friends have shared with me, because it is ONE MORE THING. But it is really supposed to be school biz only.

And that, IMO, is an entirely winnable fight that should be undertaken-- but only if people at the local level want to fight it, and if it's OK with them, then it should not be our biz.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: GUEST,Guest (again)
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 05:56 PM

In an earlier post, someone made the statement that all Xtianity is not monolithic.

To which I can only answer: bullshit.

All of Xtianity's agenda, which is blatantly exposed in the court case that led to this thread, is salvation (a rather nebulous concept, IMHO). Denomination be damned, Xtianity sees itself as having a divine mandate to promulgate itself in order to gain as many adherents as possible.

Now, work with me on this. If you're going to claim that: 1. you have legal rights and standing based on those rights that stem from your belief in an entity that has absolutely no observable, overt, physical manifestation, and 2. you demand that other folks accept the validity of your belief structure simply because it is a matter of longstanding tradition,

3. Then I would respectfully submit that you have to accept the church of bonky the clown (just made that up) -- or the ravings of a clearly psychotic individual -- as deserving of the same rights as yourself.

The problem with Xtianity is that it wants points 1 and 2 and doesn't want to grant point 3 to others.

The widespread existence of Xtianity is a testament to its own internally-consistent memes that preach promulgation at any cost rather than any sort of altruism or actual peace or love. That's what the Xtian group that won the ruling has won -- ultimately, it's the right to promulgate itself through a captive audience.

Consequently, I don't see this ruling as at all correct. In like fashion, I wouldn't see ANY numinous-focused group as having legitimate standing in this sort of a case. If fewer people subsumed solving problems now for pie in the sky later, we'd all be better off. Religions, IMHO, provide nothing more than a rather limited range of solutions to the complex problems of existence. They do provide some good ethics; the ten commandments, at least those that don't demand that [Gg]od be worshiped, are a fairly useful code. But so are the teachings of the Buddha (when not nattering about nirvana), Shinto, and other religions. But on the whole, they provide ways for folks to avoid looking squarely at problems and having to think their way through to a good solution.

end of rant. Thanks

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: mousethief
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 05:56 PM

Well they're certainly not Men. Says so in that song.

ALex

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: catspaw49
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 05:52 PM

Little dinosaur, 'bout yea tall.....kinda' spotted.............

Or maybe it's Enzo Ferrari's kid....or Dean Martin's................

Maybe he meant DEVO and in that case, I've never had any idea what they were.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: mousethief
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 05:46 PM

What's "Deno"?

alex

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: GUEST,GUEST
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 05:41 PM

In an earlier post, someone made the statement that all Xtianity is not monolithic.

To which I can only answer: bullshit.

All of Xtianity's agenda, which is blatantly exposed in the court case that led to this thread, is SALVATION. Deno

That is to say, it sees its job as promulgating itself in order to gain as many adherents as possible

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: catspaw49
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 05:19 PM

Hell Mary, you can be on my front door. I have a few doors open for icons as I only worship either at the "Shrine of the Immaculate Emmylou" or the "Church of No Redeeming Social Value." All we need is a name for your church and you're on your way to pin-up land!

I haven't had any dash statuary either, but since acquiring Cleigh's nemesis, "The Little Pissant," I've seriously thought of putting him on the dashboard of my Astro.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: Mary in Kentucky
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 04:59 PM

...but Alex, why would you want a picture of me on your front door? ;-)

My hubby tells those door-to-door types that they are welcome to come back anytime, just don't bring their religion with them. No takers so far.

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: wysiwyg
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 04:55 PM

Hearts are not political. They're soft and fuzzy. To communicate with one is to leave agreeing or disagreeing behind as a goal or a way of communicating.

A heart is something you hold gently in your hand when someone gives it to you to hold for a bit. It's usually a trade... one hopes the other holds one's heart as gently. Precious things. Good to hold. Good to have held.

Hearts usually turn out to be much the same, regardless of what the tongue spouts when connected. When you hold one, and yours is held, that becomes quite clear, and simple. It causes a sort of awe-filled feeling of curiosity and privilege. And gratitude.

Hearts hide when politics hold sway, and shouting is the communication in force.

Miss the heart and you miss the human being living beside you. Look around yourself... I know there are a lot of them to see. When you do, tell me what you see.

Hearts can be open even when minds slam shut. They are much, MUCH harder to close.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: mousethief
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 04:40 PM

Kat: um, I forgive you. What are you apologizing for?

Oh by the way, Kat, a sincere "thanks" for your efforts to keep this thread on a civil keel. *I* noticed, and I'm glad you have done what you have.

Turning back to the court case in question: It seems to me that people are looking at this not as a court case abuot a group meeting on school grounds, but as a symbol of something large and sinister: pushy prosetylization by conservative Christians. Which is, no doubt, obnoxious.

I have mused about affixing a big icon on my front door (of Mary of course!), and when the prosetylizers come to the door, listening to them a bit, then looking at my watch and excitedly chirping "Excuse me! It's 4:17!" (or whatever the actual time is) -- then kneeling and prostrating before the icon, and kissing it, then standing up, brushing off my knees, and saying, "Now, where were we?"

I forget who said it, but it's true: How come nobody who wants to "share their faith" with me, wants me to "share my faith" with them in return?

alex

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: chip a
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 04:36 PM

Well said Sean M.

:)

Chip A.

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: katlaughing
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 04:33 PM

Sorry, Alex.

SeanM, FWIW, it is my understanding that children had been given permission slips to take home to their parents, in order to attend this particular club which was in this case, that is the Good News Club.

MTed, thanks for pointing that out.

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: mousethief
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 04:11 PM

Thank you, SeanM.

Kat, I'm not sure what you mean about Mudcatters being mean; that was Sue's bailiwick, not mine. The majority of my family and friends are agnostic or atheist. THIS is the America I know. At my high school when I was there, and at my daughter's junior high school now, Christians are a persecuted minority. I know because I persecuted them; she knows because she is one.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: SeanM
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 03:56 PM

Doug;

Actually, you did get my point - not all conservatives are extremeists, nor are all liberals, but both 'wings' have got a significant number of assholes parading around in costumes of various designs, all carrying the banner of intolerance.

I tried making a point earlier, but I believe it may have been lost in my stating - but others have come close to it as well.

I'll say it again. I'm not christian. I am probably just plain ol' agnostic. BUT, I also think that FOR THE ISSUE AS I HAVE SEEN IT PRESENTED IN THE COURT BRIEFS, the Supreme Court made the correct decision.

AS I HAVE BEEN LED TO BELIEVE, the question asked was NOT whether the club should be allowed to proselytize, flyer, sacrifice, martyr or do anything else. The question that the court decided on was whether it was correct for the school to exclude this club from meeting on campus by virtue of the faith they profess. If this is in fact the question (and it is, as I understand the briefs I've read), then the court made the VERY right decision. As has been said before, by defending the rights of the unpopular and minority groups to do the same as other more 'mainstream' organizations do, you empower ALL groups.

Now... It DOES appear that there are satellite issues attendant on this case that while related to the main question, are not integral to the central issue that was decided. I consider this quite similar to the brouhaha over the 'medicinal marijuana' decision - which I also feel was correct GIVEN THE QUESTION ASKED (Not 'should marijuana be legalized' or any variant - the question asked was 'should state legislation take precedence over directly conflicting federal legislation', and their answer was 'no').

Now...

For anyone getting emotional over this, PLEASE try to take a step back and breathe. Then consider...

This decision did NOT legalize prayer in classroom, establish a religion, condone the dissemination of religious materials - or even permission slips - in class or any of the like. The decision simply said it's wrong to discriminate against a group holding meetings in a public facility that is used by other groups for meetings as well. This isn't even a groundbreaking decision. It's a fight that groups like the various gay/lesbian support clubs, the various ethnic support groups, and a host of other 'clubs' have fought over the years.

If you STILL think the court made the wrong choice... strip religion out of the equation entirely (after all, at no point was the Supreme Court asked to rule on religion). Replace Christian with "NAACP"... or "Young Republicans"... or "Red Cross"... or any of a number of other organizations. Pick one that you personally identify with. Now, tell me. Is it still wrong that the court would defend their using the school after hours for meeting purposes?

M

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: M.Ted
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 03:48 PM

For what it's worth in this discussion, the religious persecutions that have occurred down through the ages. at least in Western "Civilization" have been mostly perpetrated by the religious majority onto some religious minority--Kat's point that "Last time I checked, Christianity was still in the majority and not really suffering from any inquisitions", is well taken, but overlooks the fact that Christians have periodically cast out and even exterminated groups of other christians, often in a dispute that revolves around the meaning of a few words in text--

Many religious groups have a deeply ingrained thread of contempt and dislike for certain other religious groups, and often enough, in reality the people and their beliefs are not that different--when push comes to shove, however, this doesn't matter, and the blood is spilled--and blood is blood--

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: katlaughing
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 03:39 PM

Nymph it is then, Amergin! Thanks!

Gosh, BillD, I should just follow along and post "what he said!"

Spaw, I am sorry. Bad timing and a thick head.. they both got in the way.:-)

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: Mary in Kentucky
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 03:33 PM

Even though I sense a troll...I'll bite...

As Gary T said, I think the thought of proselytizing is the real fear here.

As Susan said, it's about taxpayers and community and how people choose to work with or against each other. In my community there are three school systems: city, county, parochial. There are constantly questions about school buses serving the parochial schools, etc. These are not always easy issues, and there can be subtle discriminations concerning scheduling, etc., but cooperation makes it all work.

Concerning the issue of separation of church and state...I theoretically and idealistically come down on the side of as much separation as possible. (translated: I don't want anyone to influence my children in any ideas that I don't hold) But as a classroom teacher I usually saw a complete and total void of any influence at all. The real problem in my experience is APATHY. (and peer pressure)

Let's remember the children, look at what's really happening in the schoolyard and community, get involved. School (like life) ain't what it was when we were there. (no comments, Amergin, about how long ago that was!) Kids and schools need lots of help. So all of us with grand idealistic ideas about how things should be, get in there. Your presence is needed.

whew, all kinds of posts come in while I'm trying to write.

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 03:25 PM

(Thanks Spaw)

A bit hot an muggy here, Donuel. What's it like where you are?

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 03:21 PM

*wondering what I am...am I a pagan?...an atheist?...a scoffer?...never really bothered to work out a label..*

in any case, I would NOT be dancing if a wiccan group were refused meeting space...same rules apply to all as long as the Wiccans weren't trying to recruit.

I think the awkwardness for me, and some others, is that many Christian denominations are EXHORTED to recruit. IF you truly believe, then saving other souls is a high calling. Some people take literally the idea that those without a certain experience are going to hell for eternity, and that anything they can do to reduce the number of those doomed ones is *good*.....They use pschology, peer pressure, appeals to guilt, low-key inducements, (yes, even wonderful music) to get the 'message' out.

It is a fine line where fairness ends and pressure begins in tactics, and we all have different tolerances and sensitivity to it. I have not been a member of an organized religious group for 35 years, but I still am VERY aware of the many levels of pressure to believe, conform, recruit and 'witness'.

I do NOT go out and stop people on the street ot knock on their doors to get them to STOP believing anything, but I get MY door knocked on, and I preached at from street corners, and when a group of admitted evangelicals wants to hold meetings, I ***KNOW*** that they are always looking for new members, and that they have GREAT difficulty understanding why there must be limits put on what they are SURE is a good and holy mission.

It is not easy being a country that both allows freedom of worship, and still limits how & when that worship can take place. I will fight for YOUR right to meet and worship as you please, but I will fight YOU if you seem to be imposing and/or pushing your beliefs on those who did not seek them.

*end of rant*

Subject: RE: BS: Separtion of church & state lessened
From: catspaw49
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 03:17 PM

Two things.....

Good post Carol.

and

That's 2000 religions, not 200.

Spaw