This is why Westboro Baptist Church is a joke

[kandrathe]

Do you not see where that argument shifts abruptly from private to government? What the president reads, or says when someone sneezes, is irrelevant. He is entitled to express himself as he pleases, so long as there is no implication of government sanction. When the president declares a "Day of Something," that's government. A "Day of Devotion and Service" would just be religion by cowardly prevarication.

Yes, I see the line. I chose to put it just a few feet further than you do, because I don't see any harm in the President, or any official, expressing themselves even when that appears to be endorsing something. It's their opinion, and we all know that. When it is an executive order, or an Act of congress, then they've crossed the line.

[eppie]

As a libertarian... Any company (everyone) has the right to discriminate, except for those reasons proscribed by law.

I know you think about it this way. But I find that strange. You are so scare of the state because it might force us to do things, like making us pay for a obligatory health insurance or so (except of course when it comes to expressing their faith ), but at the same time you find it normal that companies can do whatever they want. This is strange because I guess you know that you live in a country (and more general we live in a world) where since some time we know the expression too big too fail.
But not only do we have companies that cannot go bankrupt because that will damage our entire economy, we also have companies that can tell us what to do through economic force, which is, you must admit this almost as powerful as political force.
In other words companies decide if someone can pay for their health insurance....are you poor they will sell you something that turns out not to cover for really anyhting. These companies decide what are best (read cheapest) treatment...etc. etc.

So why is it that you don't mind companies running your life, but you do mind when the government has a little too much power (according to your standards). And please don't come up again with this whole theoretical ideal society.....most normal people don't have time or money to make that work for them.

[Jester]

Yes, I see the line. I chose to put it just a few feet further than you do, because I don't see any harm in the President, or any official, expressing themselves even when that appears to be endorsing something. It's their opinion, and we all know that. When it is an executive order, or an Act of congress, then they've crossed the line.

You say "appears to be" as if this was some kind of perceptual illusion. It quite obviously is endorsing religion - the only question is whether that is constitutional or not.

When the presidency makes, ex cathedra (so to speak) a declaration or proclamation, that is different from the president expressing his personal opinion. Specifically, it is different in that one bears the government's imprimatur, and the other does not.

Regardless, this is irrelevant, because the National Day of Prayer was put into *law* during Truman's presidency. That's an Act of Congress. Still think it's constitutional?

---

I'm the one who is advocating the less treacherous middle ground. A middle ground where you focus on the science, but be *sensitive* to people's cultural beliefs. School children are also not one dimensional, and need to process what they learn into their understanding of the whole. What is so threatening about finding a middle ground where normal people can coexist in peace?

Depends on what you actually mean by "sensitive." It's a nice sounding word. What are its functional implications?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Regardless, this is irrelevant, because the National Day of Prayer was put into *law* during Truman's presidency. That's an Act of Congress. Still think it's constitutional?

The law is not constitutional, but the tradition of presidents calling for days of remembrance, going back to George Washington, would be an expression, rather than an edict or law.

And, similarly, a school official, or a student assembly asking for "a moment of silent reflection or prayer" is all inclusive. In government settings, contemporaneous expression would be allowable, but putting it on the agenda would not. And... (see below)

Depends on what you actually mean by "sensitive." It's a nice sounding word. What are its functional implications?

I think we'd agree that the crucial part would be to set guidelines that eliminate hidden agenda's. Neither of us want the teacher in the classroom who's purpose is not teaching the curriculum, but rather promoting any other social or political agenda.

Yet, according to what I wrote above, that person would have every right of free expression. Schools need the authority to hire teachers who deliver knowledge and inspire scholarship, and fire teachers who distract the classroom from its intended curriculum whether that be for social activism or as a pulpit.

However, again, the odd contemporaneous expression of belief is understandable in that students and teachers spend a great deal of time together during the school day. The sensitivity goes both ways, in that we all should attempt to make our social gatherings comfortable for all participants. But, we pat ourselves on the backs for celebrating diversity, and we always say we want people to be real and more transparent, until they are and we'd rather they'd not express themselves openly.

So, during my thinking on this, I imagined a diverse science classroom populated with strict Islamic students from Iran, atheists, agnostics, Hasidic Jews, protestant evangelicals, new immigrants from Kenya, and maybe some Hindu's and Buddhists from India. I thought about how I would attempt to teach the curriculum of evolutionary biology in a manner that would be respectful to the diversity of the group. My first thought was that I would probably craft a letter to invite every parent to come and discuss the curriculum with me in advance of my presentation of it to their children. I would want to hear their concerns, but hold firm to the objective obligation of teaching the curriculum. I would in fact work with each parent to help them augment the teaching at home. In the end, the truth and scientific fact stand on their own merits. However these families want to spin that within their cultural context and belief systems is their own concern.

[kandrathe]

I know you think about it this way. But I find that strange. You are so scare of the state because it might force us to do things, like making us pay for a obligatory health insurance or so (except of course when it comes to expressing their faith ), but at the same time you find it normal that companies can do whatever they want.

The state has the guns, and the prisons (and the secret renditions to torture chambers). Walmart can fire me from my job, and sever our relationship, or maybe even prevent me from stepping foot onto their store properties. There is a difference. I tend to look at the relationship the other way around. I'm the commodity, whether that be in employment or in being their customer. If you want to be more employable, then know your value, and work on making yourself a rarer commodity. If you don't like how a company treats its customers, then organize your fellow citizens to action. I recently heard Evan Williams discuss the concept of Carrotmob.

Having consulted and worked inside dozens of the top companies in the world I found that corporate culture is pervasive throughout. If a corporation values and promotes its employees, that translates into valuation of customers, which translates into loyalty. If a corporation exploits its employees, and treats them tyrannically, that translates into how they deal with their customers. Eventually, the bad karma does them in regardless of the discount.

This is strange because I guess you know that you live in a country (and more general we live in a world) where since some time we know the expression too big too fail.

It should hearten you to know that I reject "too big to fail" and I object to bailouts for anyone. And, I reject the idea of the government being the "spender of last resort".

But not only do we have companies that cannot go bankrupt because that will damage our entire economy, we also have companies that can tell us what to do through economic force, which is, you must admit this almost as powerful as political force. In other words companies decide if someone can pay for their health insurance....are you poor they will sell you something that turns out not to cover for really anything. These companies decide what are best (read cheapest) treatment...etc. etc.

Were we to create a level playing field, and remove the insane regulatory mandates and barriers, private health insurance would be widely available and inexpensive.

So why is it that you don't mind companies running your life, but you do mind when the government has a little too much power (according to your standards). And please don't come up again with this whole theoretical ideal society.....most normal people don't have time or money to make that work for them.

It is because if Hartford insurance doesn't want to have a relationship with me, I can negotiate with Blue Cross/Blue Shield, or Aetna. Or, I can choose to take other measures to find the insurance I'm seeking, or the commodity I seek to purchase. If the government has a beef with me, they will force me to comply with their rules, or they will sanction me with fines or imprisonment. My choice is limited to either live within the system, or attempt to leave it. When laws are local, I can move to the other side of town. When the laws are at the state and federal level, then I'm pretty much trapped unless Bora Bora opens up their immigration policies.

And, I think I've stated this clearly before, the real danger is when the government and the corporations collude to rig the system in the corporations favor. In the case of mandated purchase of insurance... Who is that good for again? Isn't it the worst of all options? Without the freedom to choose what and if to buy, you create unrestricted monopoly, and without the government providing it to everyone for "free" you fill the governments pool with those who are rejected by the corporations. And, in the end, both private and public systems will probably fail.

[Jester]

The law is not constitutional, but the tradition of presidents calling for days of remembrance, going back to George Washington, would be an expression, rather than an edict or law.

So, then, if you agree the law is unconstitutional, why do you have a problem with a group of atheists taking the case up, claiming exactly that?

And, similarly, a school official, or a student assembly asking for "a moment of silent reflection or prayer" is all inclusive. In government settings, contemporaneous expression would be allowable, but putting it on the agenda would not.

Surely "a moment of silent reflection" is more than enough? You can do whatever you like - adding prayer to the list is just pointlessly testing the boundaries. Or, more likely in many jurisdictions, making it clear (*wink wink*) that this is really supposed to be a Christian thing.

I think we'd agree that the crucial part would be to set guidelines that eliminate hidden agenda's. Neither of us want the teacher in the classroom who's purpose is not teaching the curriculum, but rather promoting any other social or political agenda.

I'm concerned primarily with the teaching of science, secondarily with the constitutionality of the government endorsing religion, and last, with the elimination of "agenda," whatever that's supposed to mean in biology class.

Yet, according to what I wrote above, that person would have every right of free expression. Schools need the authority to hire teachers who deliver knowledge and inspire scholarship, and fire teachers who distract the classroom from its intended curriculum whether that be for social activism or as a pulpit.

"Social activism" might be unwanted, but it's not unconstitutional. Religious teaching is unconstitutional. These are two different issues. Especially so, since schools have a positive mandate to teach children civic responsibility - shaping the next generation of citizens is one of the functions of schooling. It is also constitutionally permitted.

However, again, the odd contemporaneous expression of belief is understandable in that students and teachers spend a great deal of time together during the school day.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but no, I'm pretty sure there is no "whoopsie daisy" exception to the separation of church and state. Trivial accidents are irrelevant, but bringing your personal religious beliefs into your role as teacher is not.

I thought about how I would attempt to teach the curriculum of evolutionary biology in a manner that would be respectful to the diversity of the group.

Sounds easy. Step one: Teach evolutionary biology. Step two... there is no step two. Why not? Well, as you say...

In the end, the truth and scientific fact stand on their own merits. However these families want to spin that within their cultural context and belief systems is their own concern.

Their business. Not school business.

-Jester

[eppie]

And, I think I've stated this clearly before, the real danger is when the government and the corporations collude to rig the system in the corporations favor. In the case of mandated purchase of insurance... Who is that good for again? Isn't it the worst of all options? Without the freedom to choose what and if to buy, you create unrestricted monopoly, and without the government providing it to everyone for "free" you fill the governments pool with those who are rejected by the corporations. And, in the end, both private and public systems will probably fail.

Funny that you say this. I agree on this one. In the Netherlands we chose to go this road. Of course we had obligatory health care which was run by a state insurance company which wasn't working for profit. Then we decided to Americanize our health insurance. Yeee free market, look at that there we have 25 health insurance companies....yee competition......oooo boy this will be so good for prices.........and then came the disappointment.....within two years mergers gave us not a choice out of 25 but maybe 3 different companies.......monthly payments went up etc. etc.
The only thing that changed that there are more managers now, who can let the people that do the work work more effectively (harder) and so can give themselves real big bonuses.

Well it isn't all so bad....the government has some good rules; such as everybody has the right to get a health insurance and you can't be denied because you have a disease at the time you are applying. Also monthly payments have some kind of maximum.
So I don't think that in your case (the private insurers are already there) there will be a change for the worse.

And anyway.....how scared you may be of your government, no-one stops you from emigrating right? If you come to western Europe you also don't have to worry for torture anymore.

[kandrathe]

And anyway.....how scared you may be of your government, no-one stops you from emigrating right? If you come to western Europe you also don't have to worry for torture anymore.

Not yet.

In the Netherlands we chose to go this road.

There is a role for government to regulate by creating and maintaining a level playing field. This would include such things as not denying pre-existing conditions, and following through on the contract. And, I think it would be useful to have the industry self regulate to establish product standards.

But, insurance is really boring. I think it's more important to focus on making health care cheap, and widely available.

[eppie]

But, insurance is really boring. I think it's more important to focus on making health care cheap, and widely available.

Well the problem with the insurance situation in the Neherlands (and I guess it is the same as in the US) is that insurance companies work with certain hospitals that they choose because they do 'a good job' but most of all do it cheap....probably because they make big contracts, lowering the price.
So the client cannot choose. Now it is true that this should not be an issue if you are sure you get good care, but once money starts deciding about your health things can become really scary.

The money needs to come from somewhere.....and because there is a whole new layer of managers added into the system (who get big pay checks) we are talking about even more money. What this basically means is lowers salaries and worse working conditions for medical staff. (and in NL the base salaries of doctors are not so high as in the US to begin with).
At least when the government runs an ineffective system (employing 10 nurses while you only need 5) the extra costs go to salaries of people that need a job anyway. If a private system has higher costs, the money goes to bonuses, and commercials.

MAking health care cheap is going to be difficult when people are getting older and older. And there is a whole technical issue there (cheaper medicine, cheaper equipment etc.)

[Taem]

It's not about teaching children Atheism, but just teaching them science. It's up to the parents to indoctrinate their children into their own belief structure. Why you even bring up schools teaching kids Atheism is beyond me... trying to make a point Kath? Because it's not about schools teaching "either or", it's about them leaving religion out of schools - a concept seemingly beyond your comprehension so far in this thread.

And... I'm the one who is advocating the less treacherous middle ground. A middle ground where you focus on the science, but be *sensitive* to people's cultural beliefs. School children are also not one dimensional, and need to process what they learn into their understanding of the whole. What is so threatening about finding a middle ground where normal people can coexist in peace?

You are aware, aren't you, that the "native" indigenous people here in this country cannot express their religious beliefs (which include in some cultures of smoking marijuana or eating peyote) in the same way as the crusading conquerors that have made America exactly what it is. Would you want your children practicing VooDoo in school, made very popular in parts of Louisiana due to the large amount of immigrants that brought it over. All your talk is nothing more than rhetoric. You speak high and mighty of your ideals but you don't even think before you talk! If you were serious about being sensitive to individuals cultural beliefs in schools in regards to religion, then be prepared for the backlash of cultural ideals clashing of the likes that have never been seen. The only reason Christianity is mainstream for the most part here is because it was pushed and pushed by the majority of the leaders. Tell me, why is it you are only supporting teaching Christianity in schools and not other religions beliefs of creation when you talk about being "sensitive" to peoples cultural religious beliefs? Your full of it Kath. Just another crusader in our midst.

[kandrathe]

You are aware, aren't you, that the "native" indigenous people here in this country cannot express their religious beliefs (which include in some cultures of smoking marijuana or eating peyote) in the same way as the crusading conquerors that have made America exactly what it is. Would you want your children practicing VooDoo in school, made very popular in parts of Louisiana due to the large amount of immigrants that brought it over.

Right. All over Louisiana, the children are practicing voodoo... Maybe you have some statistics on the percentage of people who practice this? I'm just wondering how big an issue that might be... Your implications seem a bit sensational, as voodoo or hoodoo, (the mishmash of African and Catholic spirituality), is more of a tourist attraction for visitors to New Orleans.

As for Native Americans... of course they should be allowed to practice their spirituality. And, for the record, I don't believe in the criminalization of drug use, or in any "vice".

This book is more the gist of what I'm talking about, The Culture of Disbelief: How American Law and Politics Trivialize Religious Devotion. I'm very willing to have my "extreme" position on religious issues be lumped together with people like Professor Stephan L. Carter.

All your talk is nothing more than rhetoric. You speak high and mighty of your ideals but you don't even think before you talk! If you were serious about being sensitive to individuals cultural beliefs in schools in regards to religion, then be prepared for the backlash of cultural ideals clashing of the likes that have never been seen.

Rhetoric = "skill in the effective use of speech " Thank you. Nope. No thinking at at all. I just set my fingers to the keyboard and voila! It's a mystery. I'm serious about allowing cultural diversity. I'm the one calling for a massive increase in immigration the the USA. I'm ready for the backlash.

The only reason Christianity is mainstream for the most part here is because it was pushed and pushed by the majority of the leaders. Tell me, why is it you are only supporting teaching Christianity in schools and not other religions beliefs of creation when you talk about being "sensitive" to peoples cultural religious beliefs? Your full of it Kath. Just another crusader in our midst.

I think another contribution to the popularity of Christianity is the large number of people who emigrated here who practice it. It was important for my great grandmother in particular who was persecuted for her faith back in Europe. She and some of the others in rural Minnesota donated the land and what money they could from their farming to build a church of their denomination here in America in the late 1860's.

I support teaching all religions. I happen to be a Christian, but in principle, I have little against most of the other faiths. I will admit that I'm biased against fundamentalism of all kinds, whether it be Judaic, Christian, or Islamic... By their choice, I'm de facto opposed to New Atheism, but I've don't have a problem with the "live and let live" people of any persuasion, whether they believe or not. In the past discussions on this topic, the bottom line for me has been that society needs a common code for moral and ethical behavior, and for most Americans, that code has stemmed from their religious upbringing. It was for me, but I rejected it when I was in college, and for along time I sought to replace it through the study of philosophy, until I came back to it in my late 20's with a more open mind.

I'm also a big fan of the Dalai Lama... If that matters to you.... He said, "With the ever-growing impact of science on our lives, religion and spirituality have a greater role to play by reminding us of our humanity. There is no contradiction between the two. Each gives us valuable insights into the other. Both science and the teachings of the Buddha tell us of the fundamental unity of all things. This understanding is crucial if we are to take positive and decisive action on the pressing global concern with the environment. I believe all religions pursue the same goals, that of cultivating human goodness and bringing happiness to all human beings. Though the means might appear different the ends are the same." -- Nobel acceptance speech (1989)

A crusader. Hmmm. There are some good and bad connotations in that. I believe you meant it in the derogatory name calling sense. But, in a certain sense, I am a crusader. Currently, I'm fighting for making college more affordable. I'm fighting for expanding opportunities for minorities, and improving overall cultural competence at the college where I work. I've volunteered to mentor struggling international students who have trouble adapting to our culture. I'm working on including an annual program self assessment for college in the high schools programs in my State. I use my position in the college administration to help identify institutional failure. In my neighborhood, I'm pretty active in helping to preserve the freedom of myself and my neighbors. I just view that as good citizenship, and I try to live myself as I would expect from those others around me.

So... Maybe I'm just an old wind bag... But, I feel my wind bagginess is helping to make a difference in improving peoples lives around me. You might disagree with me, and I take it you do, but there is no need to get all mad and call me names... Is there?

Wow. I just reread what I wrote. How did I do that?

[kandrathe]

Well the problem with the insurance situation in the Netherlands (and I guess it is the same as in the US) is that insurance companies work with certain hospitals that they choose because they do 'a good job' but most of all do it cheap....probably because they make big contracts, lowering the price.

We are still suffering from the government imposition of the HMO concept. A doctor who sets up a general practice is pretty much forced to associate with an HMO who route the patients (along with the government programs).

So the client cannot choose. Now it is true that this should not be an issue if you are sure you get good care, but once money starts deciding about your health things can become really scary.

It is scary. Money will make the decisions whether it is the individual, the insurance company, or the government. I prefer to give the decisions to the individual. I would prefer the government, or the insurance company to just set the price that they will cover on a procedure. It works that way for my dental work, and it works fairly well. I end up paying less for insurance, and less out of pocket and getting the level of care I expect.

The money needs to come from somewhere.....and because there is a whole new layer of managers added into the system (who get big pay checks) we are talking about even more money. What this basically means is lowers salaries and worse working conditions for medical staff. (and in NL the base salaries of doctors are not so high as in the US to begin with).

Exactly. Insurance, HMO's, administrative overhead, just drive up the costs, or drive down the salaries (if prices are fixed). We need individuals to have direct relationships with health care providers.

At least when the government runs an ineffective system (employing 10 nurses while you only need 5) the extra costs go to salaries of people that need a job anyway.

Thinking like a socialist. The way I see that inefficiency is that the costs for the patient are double (as someone will pay for it, either directly or as taxes).

If a private system has higher costs, the money goes to bonuses, and commercials.

I would advocate the ability to shop around and get the best deal you can. In a private system, inefficiency or excessive bonuses and salaries leads to bankruptcy when your customers move to the doctor that provides the same quality, and better service at a lower price. There is a role for government, and industry self oversight to ensure patient care is kept adequate.

Making health care cheap is going to be difficult when people are getting older and older. And there is a whole technical issue there (cheaper medicine, cheaper equipment etc.)

Yes, the demographics are against us. We needed to get more students into more doctor and nursing programs 10 years ago. The college where I work is looking to begin a medical and nursing school, however there is a huge shortage in Ph.d educators in the field as well. Demand is very high, and will be growing higher over the next 20 years.

[Taem]

Right. All over Louisiana, the children are practicing voodoo...

You are aware I said "parts", meaning small areas not related to the whole, correct? Also, I said that to emphasize my next point about freedom of expression and religion in regards to only teaching one religions view of creation. I guess you missed the point on that one.

As for Native Americans... of course they should be allowed to practice their spirituality. And, for the record, I don't believe in the criminalization of drug use, or in any "vice".

They do have freedom... on their lands (reservations). This is common knowledge. Of course I was not talking about that, but about our state and federal requirement that all children go to school. Now I don't know of many Indian reservations that also act as schools, but I'm willing to bet they'd be few and far between. So these native American Indians, how about teaching about (no sarcasm intended) mother Earth and Father sky how all things came to be in school?

Rhetoric = "skill in the effective use of speech "

My point is made. It is my opinion that you are "full-of-hot-air" in your principles, doing nothing but talking, but not listening, which is why I used that word. Good for you for figuring it out.

I'm serious about allowing cultural diversity. I'm the one calling for a massive increase in immigration the the USA. I'm ready for the backlash.

[...]

I support teaching all religions. I happen to be a Christian, but in principle, I have little against most of the other faiths. I will admit that I'm biased against fundamentalism of all kinds, whether it be Judaic, Christian, or Islamic...

You say this, but your ideals speak differently. If you are serious, then perhaps what you are actually suggesting is a separate in-depth Religious Studies class offered at the Jr. High and High School level, mandatory, but STILL SEPARATE FROM SCIENCE! I still say our schools have no place teaching any sort of religion in them.

A crusader. Hmmm. There are some good and bad connotations in that. I believe you meant it in the derogatory name calling sense.

I meant it as it sounds; someone who pushes their principles upon others for the sake of unification (in theory), but it never ends up that way.

and I try to live myself as I would expect from those others around me.

And if their beliefs conflict with yours? And no, I not talking about just a difference of opinion. I think you'd like to think of yourself as accepting, open-armed, and tolerant in practice, but in reality your view of tolerance is only acceptable if your world views are mainstream. How about if all other religions were taught in school, except for Christianity, would you be alright with that? I'm willing to bet not, because that goes against what you believe. The truth is clear as day, I just don't know if you'll ever see it.

[kandrathe]

You are aware I said "parts", meaning small areas not related to the whole, correct? Also, I said that to emphasize my next point about freedom of expression and religion in regards to only teaching one religions view of creation. I guess you missed the point on that one.

No, I got it. I was making a point in how silly things get when you look into the realities, rather than the Hollywood hype. I guess you missed my nuance. You said, "Would you want your children practicing VooDoo in school, made very popular in parts of Louisiana due to the large amount of immigrants that brought it over." {bold parts by me} So I attempted to do some research on how prevalent voodoo was in Louisiana, or the entire US. I came up empty, and so I asked you to clarify rather than assume you were trying to "horrify me" with the "evil practice of voodoo". But, my supposition is/was that you were attempting to set a trap for me. But, I didn't fall into your alarmist trap, because I happen to know more about voodoo than you thought I did, and because I may not be the ignorant intolerant SOB you really want to make me out to be.

They do have freedom... on their lands (reservations). This is common knowledge. Of course I was not talking about that, but about our state and federal requirement that all children go to school. Now I don't know of many Indian reservations that also act as schools, but I'm willing to bet they'd be few and far between. So these native American Indians, how about teaching about (no sarcasm intended) mother Earth and Father sky how all things came to be in school?

Actually, I'm opposed to the US government (past and present) and how the BIA has treated them, and the so-called "trust" fund, and its mismanagement by the US government. I'd rather we just got out of their business altogether, and afford them the full implications of nation. And, I've said it before, I think we should give back at least all the sacred sites we've stolen from them, like Mt. Rushmore...

My point is made. It is my opinion that you are "full-of-hot-air" in your principles, doing nothing but talking, but not listening, which is why I used that word. Good for you for figuring it out.

I guess my density is in question. Your assumptions reveal your nature, not mine.

You say this, but your ideals speak differently. If you are serious, then perhaps what you are actually suggesting is a separate in-depth Religious Studies class offered at the Jr. High and High School level, mandatory, but STILL SEPARATE FROM SCIENCE! I still say our schools have no place teaching any sort of religion in them.

Which is your opinion, and you are free to it. What I'm suggesting is that IF a school wants to teach optionally something that contains religious themes, it is not necessarily unconstitutional, so long as no one gets excluded, including the irreligious. So, yes, a comparative religions class as a part of a social studies curriculum would be entirely acceptable. Or, allowing Christian students to have a bible study on school premises. Or, allowing Islamic students time to go say prayers at their appointed times...

I meant it as it sounds; someone who pushes their principles upon others for the sake of unification (in theory), but it never ends up that way.

Right, as an insult. And, if by push, you mean talk, then yes, I do talk about what I believe. Would you rather I not talk? You'd like me silenced? I get it.

And if their beliefs conflict with yours? And no, I not talking about just a difference of opinion. I think you'd like to think of yourself as accepting, open-armed, and tolerant in practice, but in reality your view of tolerance is only acceptable if your world views are mainstream.

And... your assumptions and prejudices are showing again. I can only say that I, like everyone I know, advocates for what they believe. To do otherwise would be disingenuous, and fraudulent. I can only tell you what I believe, including tolerance, and I hoped to demonstrate (with current examples) that for me it's not just empty words. Call me a liar if you like.

How about if all other religions were taught in school, except for Christianity, would you be alright with that? I'm willing to bet not, because that goes against what you believe.

Odd question. I think a better one would be what I would do if only Christianity were taught. You won't believe this, but I'd also fight for justice (as I see it).

The truth is clear as day, I just don't know if you'll ever see it.

Yes, you are calling me a crusader, and a liar. And... through our brief association on this forum, you know me better than I know myself. Were I to be as brilliant as you seem to portray yourself, maybe someday I'll understand myself. Until then, I'll just have to accept myself the way I am.

[kandrathe]

So, then, if you agree the law is unconstitutional, why do you have a problem with a group of atheists taking the case up, claiming exactly that?

I don't have a problem with the basis of their lawsuit. My use of the example to FIT was to highlight that there are groups, like the Freedom From Religion Foundation, who seek to scrub religion from society when practiced in public.

Surely "a moment of silent reflection" is more than enough? You can do whatever you like - adding prayer to the list is just pointlessly testing the boundaries. Or, more likely in many jurisdictions, making it clear (*wink wink*) that this is really supposed to be a Christian thing.

Maybe, but again, what's the harm in acknowledging that a great number of people are variously religious. Just as a toast would assume everyone drinks alcohol. I don't, so I always have that awkward moment of trying to find a filled water glass. But, just because I choose to refrain from alcohol doesn't mean I want to ban toasting, or foist my beliefs on others. My reasons are my own, and are more related to the unimpeachable example I seek to set for my own children.

I'm concerned primarily with the teaching of science, secondarily with the constitutionality of the government endorsing religion, and last, with the elimination of "agenda," whatever that's supposed to mean in biology class.

So, we're good on the first one...

"Social activism" might be unwanted, but it's not unconstitutional. Religious teaching is unconstitutional. These are two different issues. Especially so, since schools have a positive mandate to teach children civic responsibility - shaping the next generation of citizens is one of the functions of schooling. It is also constitutionally permitted.

I guess what I was trying to get at, and I guess it was vague, was that if a science teacher's agenda is to promote atheism, that it is as egregious to me as promoting creationism.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but no, I'm pretty sure there is no "whoopsie daisy" exception to the separation of church and state. Trivial accidents are irrelevant, but bringing your personal religious beliefs into your role as teacher is not.

Yeah, that is exactly what I was getting at. If we're having an open discussion of social matters (what have you) in a high school class with a potpourri of beliefs, the teachers opinions will show, and I'm OK with that. I don't know how if its possible, or desirable for teachers to hide their values and beliefs. So, promoting their beliefs, or proselytizing, no. But, in order to be authentic, you need to be yourself.

[FireIceTalon]

Society does indeed need a common set of rules and ethics to abide by, but it shouldn't be based on a religion, as so many citizens here seem to think. Because that implies that you need to be religious to be moral, and that simply isn't the case. As an atheist, I have my own set of values, but I'm also pragmatic and realize that there are universally right and wrong actions, that should be seen as conventional wisdom in a rule of law society. We don't need an establishment of any type of religion to promote this, and in fact, I'm going to agree with Nietzsche and say that such establishments only create a "herd mentality" (which has indeed happened in the USA, a form of mental slavery if you will). At its best, a religious establishment as the code of ethics and morality for society creates divisiveness within that society, and between different societies themselves. At its worst, it undermines democracy.

[Taem]

Believe it or not, I'm not trying to paint you as a villain, nor ignorant. My beef is not with you directly, but what I perceive to be your philosophy on religion in school. What I've been posting has been in response to what I've been getting back from you; I guess you could say I was using "your own words against you," but this sounds accusatory. I'm not trying to pick a fight. The reality is, I simply don't think we are going to agree on this subject. The parts I no longer wish to discuss I did not quote.

I was making a point in how silly things get when you look into the realities, rather than the Hollywood hype. I guess you missed my nuance. I attempted to do some research on how prevalent voodoo was in Louisiana, or the entire US. I came up empty, and so I asked you to clarify rather than assume you were trying to "horrify me" with the "evil practice of voodoo". But, my supposition is/was that you were attempting to set a trap for me. But, I didn't fall into your alarmist trap,

You are correct, and I often don't realize I do it when I talk (or when I write apparently). I suppose I should apologize to you for setting the [obvious] bait, and to boot, with an unsubstantiated claim. While I was using the concept of the Voodoo religion to make a point, I shouldn't have used it the way I did, and regardless of what I said, my intent was not to make you out to sound ignorant. Please don't feel that way because I do enjoy our discussions, and feel you are a very intelligent person.

Actually, I'm opposed to the US government (past and present) and how the BIA has treated them, and the so-called "trust" fund, and its mismanagement by the US government. I'd rather we just got out of their business altogether, and afford them the full implications of nation. And, I've said it before, I think we should give back at least all the sacred sites we've stolen from them, like Mt. Rushmore...

A beautiful thought. One I agree with in principle, but not logistically.

Would you rather I not talk? You'd like me silenced?

I guess I started this, but I'll also end it right here! I never suggested you stop talking. I'm glad your comfortable enough to speak your mind, and that we live in a country in which we can do such a thing. I enjoy our discussions. What I was insinuating seemed obvious to me, but is not worth pursuing any further. Let this part of the conversation die here.

And... your assumptions and prejudices are showing again.

I am not prejudiced toward any religion in particular. This is a pretty broad statement you accuse me of. I'm asking that you clarify your position in assuming I am prejudiced towards either you or some faith in particular.

For clairification purposes, I'm adding a quick comment here, but I don't wish to discuss this anymore in this thread please: I'll reiterate that my beef is with religion in schools, not with any religion in particular.

Yes, you are calling me a crusader, and a liar. And... through our brief association on this forum, you know me better than I know myself. Were I to be as brilliant as you seem to portray yourself, maybe someday I'll understand myself. Until then, I'll just have to accept myself the way I am.

This mudslinging stops here! My assertions on your behavior in the attempts at furthering my points were rude and perhaps even juvenile, I won't deny it, but I was not calling your character into question, nor claiming to know the correct answer to religion in schools, or some magical zen that everyone must attain. I'm feeling very frustrated and upset with you that you would twist my words to say such things, and essentially take what I'm saying and turn it into your own personal joke. Your words directly affected me.

This particular vain of the discussion can only lead to more name-calling and baseless accusations - lets agree to end it here!

[kandrathe]

Hatchet buried.

I'm asking that you clarify your position in assuming I am prejudiced towards either you or some faith in particular.

I felt you prejudged me. And, no, it was not a personal joke. You presumed many times to know my mind, and I reflected your words back to show you how they sounded to me.

[kandrathe]

Society does indeed need a common set of rules and ethics to abide by, but it shouldn't be based on a religion, as so many citizens here seem to think. Because that implies that you need to be religious to be moral, and that simply isn't the case.

It's not that black and white. St. Thomas Aquinas is essentially the guy who wrote the book on ethics within the early Christian church, but he stood on the shoulders of Aristotle. Modern philosophers, like John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, or more recently, Phillipa Foot, stand on the shoulders of Thomas Aquinas. So, you might reject the portions of St. Thomas's work that relate to divine law, but his work on natural law, and human law are still relevant. In her book, Natural Goodness, Foot shows how justice and benevolence "suit" human beings, and there is no reason to accept the critique of Nietzsche in this case (she specifically addresses his work). Her life work is the exploration of why we should be moral. What you seem to oppose is the concept of supernatural deity, and not necessarily religion, such as say, Confucianism, or Taoist philosophy. So, I guess my point is that both the schools of western and eastern philosophy are grounded in religious scholarship.

As an atheist, I have my own set of values, but I'm also pragmatic and realize that there are universally right and wrong actions, that should be seen as conventional wisdom in a rule of law society.

And, I would say they have an origin somewhere. The universe didn't just speak to you about it's life rules. If nothing else, you are constrained by the "rules of our society" which are Judeo-Christian in origin. Were you to have been raised in one of the Korowai tribe of south-eastern Papua you might have an entirely different moral and ethical code. Which one would be the right one?

We don't need an establishment of any type of religion to promote this, and in fact, I'm going to agree with Nietzsche and say that such establishments only create a "herd mentality" (which has indeed happened in the USA, a form of mental slavery if you will).

And... I would say the herd mentality is good for a society when it subscribes to those mores and ethics that result in "goodness". China has experienced periods of peaceful coexistence for as much as 500 years at a time. It depends on what you view as an "ideal" for your society. I find the biggest flaw with Nietzsche is that all there is in his view are interpretations, but no original message, there are no truths because its based on perspective, there is no objective reality, only a subjective individual perspective.

Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote, "By assigning value and spiritual ideals to private subjectivity, the materialistic world view ... threatens to undermine any secure objective foundation for morality. The result is the widespread moral degeneration that we witness today. To counter this tendency, mere moral exhortation is insufficient. If morality is to function as an efficient guide to conduct, it cannot be propounded as a self-justifying scheme but must be embedded in a more comprehensive spiritual system which grounds morality in a transpersonal order. Religion must affirm, in the clearest terms, that morality and ethical values are not mere decorative frills of personal opinion, not subjective superstructure, but intrinsic laws of the cosmos built into the heart of reality."

The idea of mental slavery might apply to the shallow practice of "blind faith" with an empty mind, but that is not what I would view as a true adherent of any religion. If they don't know what it's about, then they do not believe in anything except doing what they are told. I would say that everyone needs to learn how to engage in critical thinking.

At its best, a religious establishment as the code of ethics and morality for society creates divisiveness within that society, and between different societies themselves.

Well, I wouldn't say that is "at its best". At it's best it promotes social harmony. I would consider the Dalai Lama as a modern example of what we might aspire to in consideration of social harmony.

At its worst, it undermines democracy.

You will need to elaborate.

[eppie]

Thinking like a socialist. The way I see that inefficiency is that the costs for the patient are double (as someone will pay for it, either directly or as taxes).

Well, it is a fact that countries with more social societies (better social security system) have overal higher living standards and much lower amount of people below the poverty line.
TAxing and using taxing for schooling and health care will allow everybody to have the same chance and that means everybody can develop himself to the fullest. The more kids with a good education the more society benefits.

There is enough inefficiency in the business world but it is hidden better because companies can very easy just fire 20% of their workforce and the company will survive again. That this is not ideal for people to build a stable life in which they can raise their children is obvious. So I much rather hgave some inefficiency in the government then companies benefiting from my health.


Most problems you have in the US with healthcare are caused becaue of the involvement of the private sector, not because of the government.
Doctors will do 100s of tests on a patient that has a good insurance (because they make more money) even though the test are not really necessary. That allows them at the same time to not care too much about the uninsured ones......there is work enough anyway.

In a fairy tale world it would indeed be great that every person himself could choose exactly the care that he needs.....but seriously....what percentage of the population actually has the intelligence and knowledge to do this?? And even then.....how do you insure??? For dental you can easily say; I save 100 dollar per month, and normally this would be enough for those few times I need some serious dental care......but what if you get cancer? Almost nobody can take this cost by himself, so people need to be insured, so people that never get sick pay for the people that do.......it is just like socialism.