Admit it, kooks...America is a Christian nation
Prais...@jeremiah.org
prayer at high school football games. The ruling and the
article illustrated another step in the evolution of American
jurisprudence away from its Christian- historical- constitutional
foundations.
The article boldly took the “myth of separation” a step farther in
that it now claimed that the constitution requires the
“separation of government and religion”. They don’t even try to call
it church and state anymore.
When I first began awakening to the seemingly irrational actions of
the heathen liberal courts, I thought surely it was just ignorance
of the constitution. Surely if they just knew what our Christian
founders intended, they would change their ways.
But there is more to it than that-much more. These are not ignorant or
irrational people. Their reasoning and actions are in
fact very deliberate, logical and consistent,-- when viewed from their
religious perspective. They are evil.
Their decision offered some interesting lessons. It had no
constitutional grounds, nor did it serve the general welfare of
society. It did not even reflect the will of the people. But it did
serve a religious agenda and worldview. The court was
simply exercising its own religious preference. It was choosing
between opposing world views.
But in their zeal to eradicate Christ from law and public life, they
illustrate that it can’t be done. For in disestablishing the
religion of Christianity, they by default establish the religion of
secular humanism. They prove that Religion and government
cannot be separated because there can be no religious neutrality
before God; we’re either for him or against him; and that
the implications of belief and of unbelief are so exceedingly vast
that they ultimately impact every corner of human life and
civilization.
Unbelief & Socialism
We have seen the religion of unbelief in America literally
elaborated into a system and applied in a wholesale social
experiment. We are seeing every societal institution: Church,
state, family, economy, morality, welfare being targeted for
comprehensive reconstruction on humanist foundations, in a
utopian crusade toward the final emancipation and salvation of
mankind.
The state born of unbelief is omnipotent, omnipresent, meddlesome,
centralized, and bureaucratic. It has to be this way
because it’s got a huge job to do. You see, in the absence of God, the
state must become God. The state must fill in as
supreme judge, lawgiver and king, as provider, as comforter of the
afflicted; and without Jesus Christ, the state must
become the “savior” of mankind.
The state born of unbelief cannot be regulated, amended, voted or
vetoed out of existence. Political revisions are temporary
and meaningless because it springs from an underlying religious belief
system and worldview. Conventional political action is
futile so long as the ideas of unbelief remain lodged in the machinery
of public policy.
Political conservatism has always lacked the backbone and vision to
offer a clear and organized alternative. In futility, it has
sought to bring political and social change without Christ or the
Bible, thus seeking to treat the symptoms of the
humanist/socialist state without providing a remedy for its underlying
causes.
We must face the stark reality that its been a religious revolution
that’s wrought America’s decline and only a religious
revolution will restore it!
So what can we do? Where do we start? How do we proceed?
Proverbs tells us:
Prov 15.19”…the way of the righteous is made plain”
Prov 16.3: “Commit thy works unto the Lord, and thy thoughts shall be
established”
Bringing every thought captive
As believers, we are called to bring into captivity every thought into
the obedience of Christ.(2 Cor 10. 5) Christian groups
have honored this calling and today one can attend Christian seminars
in the church, marriage and family, education ,
business, health car, money management, and many other areas. In every
case the Bible calls us to a mode of thinking and
living that is fundamentally different from that of the world. But
what about politics? Surely, God’s all encompassing all
sufficient word couldn’t cover something as worldly as political
action, could it?
The world tells us that the battle is between the Democrats and
Republicans;
between the liberals and the conservatives; the left and the right.
But the Word says Eph 6. 12 “For we wrestle not against flesh and
blood, but against principalities, against powers, against
the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness
in high places”.
The world says we contend through budgets and tax reform and
constitutional amendments; through big tent alliances and
pragmatic political electioneering. If we can just elect a more
conservatives….. 2
But the Word says we contend with truth, faith, prayer, and the sword
of the Spirit, which is the word of God, by speaking
boldly, as I ought to speak; and by “making known the mystery of the
gospel.” Friends, the role of the State is to spread this magnificent
Gospel to the hills and highest mountains.
While the world looks to pragmatism, moderation, consensus and winning
the next election, the Word calls for separation,
unity, vision, dedication, leadership, and a multi-generational frame
of mind.
Martin Luther said:
“If I profess with the loudest voice and the clearest exposition every
portion of the truth of God except precisely that point
which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, then I am
not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be
professing Him. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the
soldier is proved;”
Today the battle rages all around us, and perhaps nowhere more
fiercely than in the political realm. But the war is a religious
war, a world historical religious war for or against the kingdom of
God. It’s time we begin waging war with weaponry meet
for the circumstances.
2 Cor 10. 3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the
flesh:
4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through
God to the pulling down of strong holds;)
5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth
itself against the knowledge of God…
It’s time for Christians to cease trusting and participating in the
parties of the world and in the political wisdom of the world
(conservatism). God doesn’t call His people to adopt the world’s ways
to accomplish His work.
Its time Christians pursue goals and objectives higher than those
deemed acceptable by the world. Lower taxes and a
republican president aren’t going to cut it. Too many Ralph Reed
Christians have been content vying for “a seat at the
table,” when they should have been striving to overturn the table. Its
time Christians cease contenting themselves with the
political bones thrown them by the establishment.
It’s time for Christians to stop living a double life, because a
double minded man is unstable in all his ways. Our task is not to
forge a highway to political victory;
but to discern the pathway of Christian integrity
It’s time for Christians to stop living a double life, and to step out
in faith and illustrate to the world the reality that there
are indeed only two parties: two world-historical parties: the party
of belief and the party of unbelief; the party of self
government under God, and the party of big government under man, the
party of Jesus Christ and the party of Godless
world socialism.
A saying goes: “Great minds talk about ideas, average minds talk about
things, weak minds talk about people.” Religion and
politics are controversial because they represent the very highest
form of ideas: fundamental beliefs.
Conservatives like to talk about things-- you know, (the issues):
taxes, military, education, “family values” (whose family?).
A few even talk about the constitution. But few dare address the clash
of fundamental belief systems as the driving force
behind political trends, and none do so in an organized and
comprehensive manner.
Do we have the courage to carry the political dialogue to its highest
level? Do we have the faith to follow a divine blueprint
which calls for us to completely redefine the political debate?
I believe that when we faithfully answer our calling to bring into
captivity every thought, even every political thought and
deed; when we pursue a divine blueprint for political action, that we
will see politics transformed in a way we’ve never
dreamed.
But if we lack the courage to live or die by one principle; if we fail
to fulfill our vocation of citizenship in a manner becoming
of our faith, if we fail to offer the world a whole new way of
thinking, a whole new way of debating, and a whole new breed
of candidate, then it’s just not worth the effort. As the old sheriff
said in High Noon “It’s all for nothin.’”
Dutch Prime Minister Abraham Kuyper said, “The question is not if the
candidate’s heart is favorable to Christianity; but if he
has Christ as his starting-point even for politics and will speak out
in his name”
I offer myself as state rep not to promote new programs, laws and
bureaucracy, and not to promote conservative reaction
to the same. I offer myself as an alternative, a fundamental
alternative to a secular two party establishment whose self
serving competition for political power has squandered our heritage
and jeopardized our future.
I am neither conservative nor liberal; I represent not the left, right
or the center. I campaign not for my own political
agenda, and not for any special interest group, but for a principled
approach to the government, which draws from the
wisdom of the past and present, applies it to the needs of today, and
looks to the future with great hope and
anticipation.(Christian historical-progressive)?
I campaign for:
Ø the recognition of the God-ordained jurisdictional boundaries
of the family, the church and the state and for a political
order that honors those jurisdictions in all aspects of public
policy;
Ø for the restoration of the civil government to its proper and
limited role as minister of law, justice and national defense:
as defender of life, including the unborn child, of liberty and of
property; and as moral leader and example to the people and
to the nations;
Ø for a nation that honors its national motto by trusting in God
not in systems and which values liberty above social
security.
Ø for restored trust and confidence in leaders as statesmen and
agents of the general welfare; who execute their duties in
the fear of the Lord; as trustees of the law not manipulators of it;
America needs statesmen, not hireling messengers sent
to procure funds from the general treasury for local pork projects and
payoffs to the special interest groups that get them
elected
Ø for renewed respect for the oath of office as a binding promise
to God, man and country, the violation of which
represents the highest form of perjury before the same.
Ø for the promotion of the Gospel answers to all of societies
problems.
Ø for the repeal of every law, tax and government program which
denies, supplants or obstructs the operation of God’s
civil, religious and social order;
Ø for recognition that good government must begin in the heart,
and that if men are not qualified to govern their own
lives, neither are they qualified to govern the lives of others. Only
He that is faithful in a little can be trusted with much.
Ø to expose institutionalized unbelief as incompatible with
security for life, liberty and property, as has been so well
documented by the plight of the unborn in America, and its legacy of
debt, taxation, burdensome regulation, and
meddlesome socialist bureaucracy.
Ø for the replacement of the coercive secular public school
system with an educational system that respects individual
freedom of conscience and reinforces the Biblical role and
responsibility of the family as the educator of youth;
Ø an recognition that all property is God’s and that he has
appointed men its stewards, not government, and not Bill
Clinton; and that the forests exist for the people to use not for the
environmentalists’ private reserve and playground
Ø for renewed respect for constitutional government which has
been established because men in power need boundaries to
restrain them. Thomas Jefferson said to take a single step beyond the
boundaries thus drawn is to take possession of a
boundless field of power no longer subject to any definition. In other
words, watch that first step,-- its a killer.
Ø for the restoration of the federal relationship between the
state and national governments which entrusted but a tiny
handful of powers to the national but reserved the vast majority to
the states;
Ø for the confession of faith in Jesus Christ as a condition of
American citizenship for all current and future peoples, and
deportation and exile for those who refuse or deny the Christ.
Ø for the recognition of God’s providential design for
nationhood, that just as families are the building blocks of a free
and
stable nation, so free and independent nations are the building blocks
of a stable world order;
Ø to expose the myth of religious neutrality before God.
Ø to expose the myth of evolution as it has been applied to law,
government, morality and constitutional principle.
Ø to defend the principles of the Christian faith as the only
sound basis for stable enduring free government and finally,
that only Jesus Christ and not government can provide for the
salvation of mankind.
A fundamental realignment
Far be it from me to say “thus saith the Lord” but, I believe that we
could be witnessing the beginnings of a fundamental
realignment of the political spectrum. Could it be that this tiny
movement that we call the AHP is to play some small role in
God’s providential plan for these end times; a part of a drawing forth
and separation into the hot and cold, those for or
against Christ and His Kingdom?
For as we are called to strike out radically for a Christian “third
way”, neither left, nor right, world leaders are preparing their
own “third way” AKA “progressive governance”, which is in reality the
next step in world socialism.
I believe we are rapidly approaching a time when a left vs right view
of politics will become obsolete. Liberalism as we know
it will collapse under its own weight and conservatism will perish for
want of principle.
The underlying distinction is already there and it begs to be
revealed, but until now it has been blurred beneath the mire of
politics as usual. If we are diligent in our work, if we faithfully
bring every thought into captivity, if we persist in attacking
the opposition on its underlying principle, while masterfully
articulating a vastly superior alternative, I believe we’re in for
some very interesting times.
This campaign is just a beginning. It is an exercise, and I have a
great deal to learn. It won’t be hard to stay humble,
because I will get trounced in debates and embarrassed in the media.
And I hate the idea of loosing my privacy by having my
name posted out on streets and highways. But there is a need and I
believe I have a calling that has brought me here.
In closing, I recall the following exhortation of Abraham Kuyper to
his congregation during his days as a preacher: “Our
calling is to keep what we have in Christ in our own age and not in
the days [of our fathers]. Therefore the theme must be
taken from the present day in a form that is now ready. This task is
formidable, beloved congregation, especially where so
much is neglected. Christ does not tolerate a double life. We must
live one life within ourselves and be driven by one
principle”
George Spelvin
another religion?
How would you like it if we started sponsoring prayers on rugs--aimed at
Mecca--in our schools everyday?
America might have been founded primarily by Christians, but it is home
to peoples of many different faiths and beliefs. Deal with it.
*George Spelvin*
Paul Duca
George Spelvin wrote:
George, I can't wait to watch this PraiseJesus character spend
eternity licking out God's garbage cans (his only source of food) rather
than living with a mansion of gold with a sex-slave wife, and kids who only
exist for him to kick around.
Paul
she...@hotmail.com
itself Prais...@jeremiah.org wrote:
>This month the Supreme court issued a ruling banning student led
>prayer at high school football games.
Yeah god wants it that way. Praise Him.
>The ruling and the article illustrated
...the inherent weakness of a political/social movement disguised as a
religion.
>When I first began awakening
Letting others tell you how to think and what to believe is
"awakening?"
>Surely if they just knew what our Christian
>founders intended
Yes, murdering innocent people for recreation, as in Massachusetts,
1692; lynching blacks in the south, 20th century...
>They are evil.
It'll all be better when you meet a horny young college chick. You'll
stop your whining then.
>But in their zeal to eradicate Christ
Mainstream Xians have a lot of goddamn GALL to imply that their
religion has ANYTHING to do with the teachings of Jesus Christ.
>For in disestablishing the
>religion of Christianity, they by default establish the religion of
>secular humanism.
An absence of something isn't a presence of the same thing. It takes
someone with a primitive mind and primitive religion to argue that
"not A equals A."
Please, keep posting your drivel. It'll keep you busy and away from
children.
Dr. Filth
Larry Householder- Convicted four times of drunk driving. Thanks
Jesus.
Matthew J. Glavin- Busted for indecent exposure while jerking off in
public.
Byron "Low Tax" Looper- sentenced to life in prison without
possibility of parole after being convicted of MURDER.
MURDER! Some "values" these these conservative, family-values
Republiklan leaders have, huh?
Cam Beck
determined by the parents of that school. If it follows their wishes, I have
no problem with it.
I happen to be Christian, and if the school my children attend, by virtue of
the overwhelming choice of the parents attending that school, happens to
adopt a policy of teaching Muslim faith, I should be free to place my
children in a school that better resembles the moral requirements of my
conscience. That's what's meant by the "free exercise of religion." It has
nothing to do with imposing one thing or another on anyone else, and it has
everything to do with self-determination. In order for this to work,
however, we must be free of the government coersion so that we may send our
children to schools of our own choosing.
Cam Beck
webmaster
www.oo-rah.com
"George Spelvin" <gspe...@everywhere.edu> wrote in message
news:39DFAEA0...@everywhere.edu...
Theodore M. Seeber
> This month the Supreme court issued a ruling banning student led
> prayer at high school football games. The ruling and the
> article illustrated another step in the evolution of American
> jurisprudence away from its Christian- historical- constitutional
> foundations.
snip
If you want your kids to pray before football games, there's an easy
option: Send your kids to religious school.
Ted
George Spelvin
>
> The matter of "us" praying on rugs paimed at Mecca would have to be
> determined by the parents of that school. If it follows their wishes, I have
> no problem with it.
>
> I happen to be Christian, and if the school my children attend, by virtue of
> the overwhelming choice of the parents attending that school, happens to
> adopt a policy of teaching Muslim faith, I should be free to place my
> children in a school that better resembles the moral requirements of my
> conscience.
I'm not going to pay for my kid to go to a private school because the
public school is forcing my child to observe Islamic religious
traditions. And I wouldn't expect my Muslim friends to send their kids
to private schools because the public school is forcing their kids to
observe Christian religious traditions.
That's what churches and mosques are for.
That's what's meant by the "free exercise of religion." It has
> nothing to do with imposing one thing or another on anyone else,
Of course it does. No one stops your kid from praying in school. It is
perfectly legal.
What we object to is the school forcing religious tenets on all of the
students. That is a clear violation of the 1st amendment.
and it has
> everything to do with self-determination.
Then send your kids to a private religious school. I don't want to pay
for your kids' religious learning.
In order for this to work,
> however, we must be free of the government coersion so that we may send our
> children to schools of our own choosing.
You are free to do so.
George Spelvin
>
> On Sat, 07 Oct 2000 17:06:56 GMT, Prais...@jeremiah.org
> wrote:
>
> >This month the Supreme court issued a ruling banning student led
> >prayer at high school football games. The ruling and the
> >article illustrated another step in the evolution of American
> >jurisprudence away from its Christian- historical- constitutional
> >foundations.
> >
> >The article boldly took the “myth of separation” a step farther in
> >that it now claimed that the constitution requires the
> >“separation of government and religion”. They don’t even try to call
> >it church and state anymore.
>
The problem is that there are rightwing, religious nutjobs who think
that we should all behave the way they want us to because they have it
all right. They are intollerant, ignorant, sanctimonious, mean, and
annoying.
Theodore M. Seeber
> > I happen to be Christian, and if the school my children attend, by virtue of
> > the overwhelming choice of the parents attending that school, happens to
> > adopt a policy of teaching Muslim faith, I should be free to place my
> > children in a school that better resembles the moral requirements of my
> > conscience.
>
> I'm not going to pay for my kid to go to a private school because the
> public school is forcing my child to observe Islamic religious
> traditions.
Why? Are your religious convictions so weak you can't forgo that new car
every year to afford the tuition? (Actually, tuition at most
"private" schools today is more comparable to a USED car than a new one)
> And I wouldn't expect my Muslim friends to send their kids
> to private schools because the public school is forcing their kids to
> observe Christian religious traditions.
I would, if that's what they wanted.
> That's what churches and mosques are for.
Most of the time.
> > That's what's meant by the "free exercise of religion." It has
> > nothing to do with imposing one thing or another on anyone else,
>
> Of course it does. No one stops your kid from praying in school. It is
> perfectly legal.
Actually, no it isn't anymore. Student led prayer is no longer legal.
> What we object to is the school forcing religious tenets on all of the
> students. That is a clear violation of the 1st amendment.
I disagree. You are free to exercise your religion. YOU ARE NOT FREE
FROM HAVING TO PUT UP WITH OTHER PEOPLE EXERCISING THEIR RELIGION.
> > and it has
> > everything to do with self-determination.
>
> Then send your kids to a private religious school. I don't want to pay
> for your kids' religious learning.
And I would agree with that one. It's not like religious schools are
horridly expensive.
> > In order for this to work,
> > however, we must be free of the government coersion so that we may send our
> > children to schools of our own choosing.
>
> You are free to do so.
As long as you pay for it. My guess is this is a Bush supporting troll.
Ted
--
On this day, the Feast of St. Denis and Companions
http://www.e3mil.com/church_today/message.asp?message_id=&sec_id=4
Theodore Michael Seeber
Coo! he's the remedial beer.
mailto:see...@aracnet.com
Check out the <A
HREF="http://www.aracnet.com/~seebert>IDIC Home Page!</A>
Try our new Biblical Knowledge Quiz, found <A
HREF="http://www.aracnet.com/~seebert/rpv.html>here!</A>
Blessed are the PeaceMakers, for they shall take flack from both sides
-Unofficial UN motto.
Prais...@jeremiah.org
Paul Duca
Prais...@jeremiah.org wrote:
> Jews and Muslims are non-persons unless they repent.
>
Would you still sleep with their womenfolk?
Paul
Mitchell Holman
}
}
}Jews and Muslims are non-persons unless they repent.
}
For a non-person, Barbara Striesand sure seems
to attrack a lot of paying audiences.
Cam Beck
means not being forced to pay for a system that contradicts your religious
beliefs. As it is now, anyone is free to remove his child from public school
and put it into a private one. However, at the same time, he must still pay
for the public school, even though his child is going somewhere else. In
fact, if he chooses NOT to pay the taxes for the public school, his property
may be seized, and he may be imprisoned. That, my friend, is government
coersion.
"George Spelvin" <gspe...@everywhere.edu> wrote in message
news:39E23313...@everywhere.edu...
> Cam Beck wrote:
> >
> > The matter of "us" praying on rugs paimed at Mecca would have to be
> > determined by the parents of that school. If it follows their wishes, I
have
> > no problem with it.
> >
> > I happen to be Christian, and if the school my children attend, by
virtue of
> > the overwhelming choice of the parents attending that school, happens to
> > adopt a policy of teaching Muslim faith, I should be free to place my
> > children in a school that better resembles the moral requirements of my
> > conscience.
>
> I'm not going to pay for my kid to go to a private school because the
> public school is forcing my child to observe Islamic religious
> traditions. And I wouldn't expect my Muslim friends to send their kids
> to private schools because the public school is forcing their kids to
> observe Christian religious traditions.
>
> That's what churches and mosques are for.
Free exercise of religion means nothing if we cannot exercise that religion
both publically and privately that coincides with the demands of our
conscience.
>
> That's what's meant by the "free exercise of religion." It has
> > nothing to do with imposing one thing or another on anyone else,
>
> Of course it does. No one stops your kid from praying in school. It is
> perfectly legal.
>
Legal, yes, but there have been instances where kids have been forced to
remove the ten commandments from their book covers, and there has been at
least one instance where a kid was punished for praying quietly in the
cafeteria.
> What we object to is the school forcing religious tenets on all of the
> students. That is a clear violation of the 1st amendment.
>
No. The first amendment has to deal with the actions of Congress, not states
and local communties, and certainly not the practices of parents.
> and it has
> > everything to do with self-determination.
>
> Then send your kids to a private religious school. I don't want to pay
> for your kids' religious learning.
>
You shouldn't. That's coersion, as I stated above.
> In order for this to work,
> > however, we must be free of the government coersion so that we may send
our
> > children to schools of our own choosing.
>
> You are free to do so.
ibid.
Cam Beck
> Actually, no it isn't anymore. Student led prayer is no longer legal.
>
I would point out that our laws, having been passed by the proper
authorities, clearly support things such as student-led prayer, and even
general school prayer and things of that nature. However, what has happened
over the years is the judicial branch, which does not have legislative
powers, has undermined and punished such actions based on some fallacious
interpretation of the first and fourteenth amendments. Rather than stand up
to the judicial branch, and risk the further expenses of repeated lawsuits,
schools have stopped doing those things that would follow the consciences of
the parents.
None of this would be an issue at all if Congress regulated itself to its
enumerated powers to begin with, since public education is not one of them.
It's been awhile since anyone in the major parties has pointed that out. I
imagine it's because any government instrument has a tendency to want to
grow, expand, and multiply. If it does that, it must necessarily be at the
expense of the governed and at the expense of the document which grants the
government any power at all.
I see what you're saying, though... Effectively, student-led prayer is not
allowed, and a logical conclusion to that would be that it is illegal, but
the fact of the matter is that our laws do, in fact, allow and even
encourage that sort of behavior. It's just that we are being intimidated,
under threat of government punishment, into submission.
z
kid who gets up and does some little Praise Satan number. We'll see how
well the support for student led prayer holds up after that.
In article <K1HE5.23696$Ly1.3...@news5.giganews.com>,
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Theodore M. Seeber
> On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 23:16:44 GMT, Prais...@jeremiah.org
> wrote:
>
> >Jews and Muslims are non-persons unless they repent.
>
> You pompous KKKristian prick! Who do you think you are?
> Your faith is responsible for more murder and misery than
> the others combined and still continues as a plague on this
> planet. Now get out of here!
> ------------------------------------------
Thanks to people like this, a lot of my Jewish relatives in Europe never
got the chance to convert.
Some of my Catholic relatives were eaten up in the same storm.
Ted
--
On this day, the Feast of St. Francis Borgia
Theodore M. Seeber
> > Actually, no it isn't anymore. Student led prayer is no longer legal.
>
> I would point out that our laws, having been passed by the proper
> authorities, clearly support things such as student-led prayer, and even
> general school prayer and things of that nature.
Somebody should tell the high school football teams that got screwed over
by the Supreme Court!
snip lots of good stuff that I agreed with
> I see what you're saying, though... Effectively, student-led prayer is not
> allowed, and a logical conclusion to that would be that it is illegal, but
> the fact of the matter is that our laws do, in fact, allow and even
> encourage that sort of behavior. It's just that we are being intimidated,
> under threat of government punishment, into submission.
Which is why it's time to start thinking about the violent overthrow of
the REAL government in this country: The courts.
Cam Beck
that sort of "prayer" in school, it would be their choice of whether or not
to allow it, provided it did not involve breaking state or federal laws,
such as sacrificing animals or humans and things of that nature.
"z" <gzuc...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8rvfm8$9rf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Can't wait until the 'student led prayer' turn gets to the first Goth
> kid who gets up and does some little Praise Satan number. We'll see how
> well the support for student led prayer holds up after that.
> In article <K1HE5.23696$Ly1.3...@news5.giganews.com>,
> "Cam Beck" <webm...@nospam.oo-rah.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Actually, no it isn't anymore. Student led prayer is no longer
> legal.
> > >
> >
> > I would point out that our laws, having been passed by the proper
> > authorities, clearly support things such as student-led prayer, and
> even
> > I see what you're saying, though... Effectively, student-led prayer
> is not
> > allowed, and a logical conclusion to that would be that it is
> illegal, but
> > the fact of the matter is that our laws do, in fact, allow and even
> > encourage that sort of behavior. It's just that we are being
> intimidated,
> > under threat of government punishment, into submission.
> >
> >
>
>
Theodore M. Seeber
> Can't wait until the 'student led prayer' turn gets to the first Goth
> kid who gets up and does some little Praise Satan number. We'll see how
> well the support for student led prayer holds up after that.
I supported that while I was still in high school. It is the nature of
being a teenager to experiment with such things.
And the government, should not do anything about it.
It's not within the Constitutional powers of the government to prevent
this action.
Ted
--
George Spelvin
>
> On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, George Spelvin wrote:
>
> > > I happen to be Christian, and if the school my children attend, by virtue of
> > > the overwhelming choice of the parents attending that school, happens to
> > > adopt a policy of teaching Muslim faith, I should be free to place my
> > > children in a school that better resembles the moral requirements of my
> > > conscience.
> >
> > I'm not going to pay for my kid to go to a private school because the
> > public school is forcing my child to observe Islamic religious
> > traditions.
>
> every year to afford the tuition? (Actually, tuition at most
> "private" schools today is more comparable to a USED car than a new one)
No, I just don't think the school is the appropriate place for
religion. It's the appropriate place for English, History, Math, etc.
I shouldn't have to send my kid to a private school in order to learn
educational fundamentals. I shouldn't have to send my kid to a private
scholl so s/he isn't being taught garbage.
> > And I wouldn't expect my Muslim friends to send their kids
> > to private schools because the public school is forcing their kids to
> > observe Christian religious traditions.
>
> I would, if that's what they wanted.
Guess what? We pay taxes for private schools. I don't want to pay
taxes to teach kids stuff inappropriate in public schools. If people
want their kids to learn religion, send them to private schools. You
kooks have that choice. My choice is to send my kids to a public school
where there is a separation of church and state (freedom FROM religion).
> > That's what churches and mosques are for.
>
> Most of the time.
What the hell else are they for if not for religious instruction?
> > > That's what's meant by the "free exercise of religion." It has
> > > nothing to do with imposing one thing or another on anyone else,
> >
> > Of course it does. No one stops your kid from praying in school. It is
> > perfectly legal.
>
> Actually, no it isn't anymore. Student led prayer is no longer legal.
Any student can pray anytime s/he wants. Prayer shouldn't be led by
anyone. Why do you need a leader to pray?
> > What we object to is the school forcing religious tenets on all of the
> > students. That is a clear violation of the 1st amendment.
>
> I disagree. You are free to exercise your religion. YOU ARE NOT FREE
> FROM HAVING TO PUT UP WITH OTHER PEOPLE EXERCISING THEIR RELIGION.
You are FREE FROM THE GOVERNMENT MAKING YOU EXERCISE A RELIGION. A
public school is a part of the government. No establishment of religion
(1st amendment). I'm afraid the Constitution and the Supreme Court side
with me on this one and against you.
> > > and it has
> > > everything to do with self-determination.
> >
> > Then send your kids to a private religious school. I don't want to pay
> > for your kids' religious learning.
>
> And I would agree with that one. It's not like religious schools are
> horridly expensive.
Then what's your arguement?
> > > In order for this to work,
> > > however, we must be free of the government coersion so that we may send our
> > > children to schools of our own choosing.
> >
> > You are free to do so.
>
> As long as you pay for it. My guess is this is a Bush supporting troll.
> Ted
I wouldn't vote for Bush if you held a gun to my head.
*George Spelvin*
George Spelvin
You have confirmed my suspicions . . . rightwing nutjob.
*George Spelvin*
George Spelvin
Oh, by the way, Jesus was a Jew who never repented for it.
*George Spelvin*
George Spelvin
>
> "Free from government coersion" to determine where your child goes to school
> means not being forced to pay for a system that contradicts your religious
> beliefs.
You are, of course, incorrect. You are free to send your kid wherever
you want. You cannot determine how your tax money is spent, other than
vote.
My beliefs are anti-war, but no one asks me if I want my tax dollars
going to the military.
As it is now, anyone is free to remove his child from public school
> and put it into a private one. However, at the same time, he must still pay
> for the public school, even though his child is going somewhere else. In
> fact, if he chooses NOT to pay the taxes for the public school, his property
> may be seized, and he may be imprisoned. That, my friend, is government
> coersion.
Then vote for someone else or keep writing those legislators or move.
> "George Spelvin" <gspe...@everywhere.edu> wrote in message
> >
> > I'm not going to pay for my kid to go to a private school because the
> > public school is forcing my child to observe Islamic religious
> > traditions. And I wouldn't expect my Muslim friends to send their kids
> > to private schools because the public school is forcing their kids to
> > observe Christian religious traditions.
> >
> > That's what churches and mosques are for.
>
> Free exercise of religion means nothing if we cannot exercise that religion
> both publically and privately that coincides with the demands of our
> conscience.
You are free to exercise your religion both publically and privately.
But a government funded school can't force religious teachings. That's
coercion.
> > That's what's meant by the "free exercise of religion." It has
> > > nothing to do with imposing one thing or another on anyone else,
> >
> > Of course it does. No one stops your kid from praying in school. It is
> > perfectly legal.
> >
>
> Legal, yes, but there have been instances where kids have been forced to
> remove the ten commandments from their book covers, and there has been at
> least one instance where a kid was punished for praying quietly in the
> cafeteria.
Evidence?
> > What we object to is the school forcing religious tenets on all of the
> > students. That is a clear violation of the 1st amendment.
> >
>
> No. The first amendment has to deal with the actions of Congress, not states
> and local communties, and certainly not the practices of parents.
The first amendment has to deal with the actions of lawmakers, whether
federally or in the states. State governments are subservient to the
federal government.
> > and it has
> > > everything to do with self-determination.
> >
> > Then send your kids to a private religious school. I don't want to pay
> > for your kids' religious learning.
> >
>
> You shouldn't. That's coersion, as I stated above.
Then there is no disagreement here.
> > In order for this to work,
> > > however, we must be free of the government coersion so that we may send
> our
> > > children to schools of our own choosing.
> >
> > You are free to do so.
>
> ibid.
--
*George Spelvin*
Theodore M. Seeber
> "Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
> > > That's what churches and mosques are for.
> >
> > Most of the time.
>
> What the hell else are they for if not for religious instruction?
Control of society is the purpose of religion. To have good citizens you
MUST teach some religious principles. The churches and the mosques are
good enough for most of this; but without some common denominators in
religious belief, you end up with NONE of the benifits of religion for
society as a whole.
> > > Of course it does. No one stops your kid from praying in school. It is
> > > perfectly legal.
> >
> > Actually, no it isn't anymore. Student led prayer is no longer legal.
>
> Any student can pray anytime s/he wants. Prayer shouldn't be led by
> anyone. Why do you need a leader to pray?
Anybody meditating in a group setting.
And once again, Student Led prayer of any sort is frowned upon by the
court system (I answered another post which pointed out that there's no
actual law against it).
> > > What we object to is the school forcing religious tenets on all of the
> > > students. That is a clear violation of the 1st amendment.
> >
> > I disagree. You are free to exercise your religion. YOU ARE NOT FREE
> > FROM HAVING TO PUT UP WITH OTHER PEOPLE EXERCISING THEIR RELIGION.
>
> You are FREE FROM THE GOVERNMENT MAKING YOU EXERCISE A RELIGION.
No you're not. That's not in the first ammendment. No laws establishing
OR PREVENTING THE FREE EXERCISE OF religion.
> A
> public school is a part of the government. No establishment of religion
> (1st amendment). I'm afraid the Constitution and the Supreme Court side
> with me on this one and against you.
The Supreme Court is. The Constitution is not, which is why the Supreme
Court is an illigitimate government worthy only of rebellion against.
> > And I would agree with that one. It's not like religious schools are
> > horridly expensive.
>
> Then what's your arguement?
My argument is on your wish to censor all religion from public schools.
According to the first Ammendment (Supreme Court's wierd interpretation
notwithstanding) we can't censor ANYTHING from the public schools.
Ted
Cam Beck
percentage of your income, at a rate that they determine, before you put an
ounce of food in your or your childrens' mouths. So if that's true, how much
of your income do they control?
Every cent. And if you think that if government, in general, or our
government, in particular, means to always keep your tax rate at a
"reasonable" level, go back and check the 77% top tax rate in 1917.
So what do we call it when someone controls 100% of the fruits of our labor?
Generally, that's called slavery. Whether the chains are heavy or light, as
long as someone else controls the fruits of our labor, we are slaves. That
is coersion.
Therefore we cannot truly be free until we can individually control the rate
of our own taxation. The only way to do that is to abolish the income tax
entirely, and to fund the government the way it was originally funded --
through tarrifs, duties, and excise taxes. Go to www.fairtax.org to read a
proposal already on the table. I don't agree with every single provision of
H.R. 2525, but it's far better than anything else that has been proposed,
that I am aware of.
"George Spelvin" <gspe...@everywhere.edu> wrote in message
news:39E37D47...@everywhere.edu...
> Cam Beck wrote:
> >
> > "Free from government coersion" to determine where your child goes to
school
> > means not being forced to pay for a system that contradicts your
religious
> > beliefs.
>
> You are, of course, incorrect. You are free to send your kid wherever
> you want. You cannot determine how your tax money is spent, other than
> vote.
>
> My beliefs are anti-war, but no one asks me if I want my tax dollars
> going to the military.
>
Being anti-war and being anti-defense are two different things. Being
anti-war, which I'm guessing you mean anti-aggression, is admirable. I
presume you are not anti-defense. Are you? Defense is one of the reasons
government is formed. How do you propose we defend ourselves with no
military? Please note that I make no mention of any past or present military
action. I'm speaking in general terms.
> As it is now, anyone is free to remove his child from public school
> > and put it into a private one. However, at the same time, he must still
pay
> > for the public school, even though his child is going somewhere else. In
> > fact, if he chooses NOT to pay the taxes for the public school, his
property
> > may be seized, and he may be imprisoned. That, my friend, is government
> > coersion.
>
> Then vote for someone else or keep writing those legislators or move.
>
>
> > "George Spelvin" <gspe...@everywhere.edu> wrote in message
>
> > >
> > > I'm not going to pay for my kid to go to a private school because the
> > > public school is forcing my child to observe Islamic religious
> > > traditions. And I wouldn't expect my Muslim friends to send their
kids
> > > to private schools because the public school is forcing their kids to
> > > observe Christian religious traditions.
> > >
> > > That's what churches and mosques are for.
> >
> > Free exercise of religion means nothing if we cannot exercise that
religion
> > both publically and privately that coincides with the demands of our
> > conscience.
>
> You are free to exercise your religion both publically and privately.
> But a government funded school can't force religious teachings. That's
> coercion.
>
> > > That's what's meant by the "free exercise of religion." It has
> > > > nothing to do with imposing one thing or another on anyone else,
> > >
> > > Of course it does. No one stops your kid from praying in school. It
is
> > > perfectly legal.
> > >
> >
> > Legal, yes, but there have been instances where kids have been forced to
> > remove the ten commandments from their book covers, and there has been
at
> > least one instance where a kid was punished for praying quietly in the
> > cafeteria.
>
> Evidence?
>
Will it make a difference if I provide it? If so, I'll cite a reference
tomorrow.
> > > What we object to is the school forcing religious tenets on all of the
> > > students. That is a clear violation of the 1st amendment.
> > >
> >
> > No. The first amendment has to deal with the actions of Congress, not
states
> > and local communties, and certainly not the practices of parents.
>
> The first amendment has to deal with the actions of lawmakers, whether
> federally or in the states. State governments are subservient to the
> federal government.
>
Read the Constitution again -- particularly the first amendment. It
specifically names Congress. Also, while you're there, you may as well check
out the tenth amendment, which reserves all powers not "herein granted" or
otherwise prohibited to the states or to the people. By your logic, every
power the federal government does not have, neither would the states. That
is a baseless assumption, and in contradiction to the plain language of the
Constitution and every one of our founding documents. Even the Federalists
and anti-Federalists agreed that federal powers are specific and limited,
and the state powers are numerous and indefinite.
Granted, the Constitution is the "law of the land," but the powers granted
by the Constitution are limited to what is stated. Unless there is contains
language that specifically prohibits the states or local communities from
passing such legislation, they are free to do so.
Congress and only Congress, which consists of the Senate and the House of
Representatives, is prohibited from making those laws. That's why it says
"CONGRESS shall make no law..."
> > > and it has
> > > > everything to do with self-determination.
> > >
> > > Then send your kids to a private religious school. I don't want to
pay
> > > for your kids' religious learning.
> > >
> >
> > You shouldn't. That's coersion, as I stated above.
>
> Then there is no disagreement here.
>
Good. I'm glad we do agree on something. :)
Theodore M. Seeber
> The current tax code is coersive by nature. The government takes a
> percentage of your income, at a rate that they determine, before you put an
> ounce of food in your or your childrens' mouths. So if that's true, how much
> of your income do they control?
All of it. After all, they created the monetary system.
> Every cent. And if you think that if government, in general, or our
> government, in particular, means to always keep your tax rate at a
> "reasonable" level, go back and check the 77% top tax rate in 1917.
Or the 95% top tax rate in 1953.
> So what do we call it when someone controls 100% of the fruits of our labor?
Creation of a monetary system.
> Generally, that's called slavery. Whether the chains are heavy or light, as
> long as someone else controls the fruits of our labor, we are slaves. That
> is coersion.
Wage slavery, yes.
> Therefore we cannot truly be free until we can individually control the rate
> of our own taxation. The only way to do that is to abolish the income tax
> entirely, and to fund the government the way it was originally funded --
> through tarrifs, duties, and excise taxes. Go to www.fairtax.org to read a
> proposal already on the table. I don't agree with every single provision of
> H.R. 2525, but it's far better than anything else that has been proposed,
> that I am aware of.
Been there. It ignores the fact that money belongs to the government,
just like all other anti-tax sites.
I've got a great way to avoid taxes for you:
Bater for everything. Don't use money at all.
Normand Chouinard
inconsistent with our national moral code of equality, life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness would not be protected even if somehow parents made
that choice.
For all practical purposes, it is a non issue.
Cam Beck <webm...@nospam.oo-rah.com> wrote in message
news:fFHE5.19841$UP5.3...@news6.giganews.com...
> Although I think that would be tragic and dangerous, if the parents want
> that sort of "prayer" in school, it would be their choice of whether or
not
> to allow it, provided it did not involve breaking state or federal laws,
> such as sacrificing animals or humans and things of that nature.
>
>
> "z" <gzuc...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8rvfm8$9rf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > Can't wait until the 'student led prayer' turn gets to the first Goth
> > kid who gets up and does some little Praise Satan number. We'll see how
> > well the support for student led prayer holds up after that.
> > In article <K1HE5.23696$Ly1.3...@news5.giganews.com>,
> > "Cam Beck" <webm...@nospam.oo-rah.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Actually, no it isn't anymore. Student led prayer is no longer
> > legal.
> > > >
> > >
Theodore M. Seeber
> I disagree. I think religious expressions that are diametrically
> inconsistent with our national moral code of equality, life, liberty, and
> the pursuit of happiness would not be protected even if somehow parents made
> that choice.
How would a teenager experimenting with something outside of the norm be
"inconsistent with our national moral code of equality, life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness"? I would think that such a national moral code
would downright DEMAND religious experimentation be available.
e_li...@my-deja.com
that of any other organized religion, and we certainly do not need an
established constitutional moral code.
Organized religions, especially Christians, over the last 2,000 years,
have perputrated an extreme amount of harm with their moral code of
instant salvation. What we don't need is more of the harm and violence
which they have writhered in and created over the last two millenia.
We don't need to turn the clock backwards, and a national moral code is
turning the clock backwards.
Turning this nation over to the rule of the radical right elements of
this Nation, is sure suicide to our liberties and freedoms.
E. Liberta
In article <Pine.LNX.4.21.0010111405480.26395-
100...@shell1.aracnet.com>,
Theodore M. Seeber
> We don't need anymore of the so called moral code of the Christians, or
> that of any other organized religion, and we certainly do not need an
> established constitutional moral code.
Sounds to me that you're putting the right to liberty above the right to
happiness.
> Organized religions, especially Christians, over the last 2,000 years,
> have perputrated an extreme amount of harm with their moral code of
> instant salvation. What we don't need is more of the harm and violence
> which they have writhered in and created over the last two millenia.
Yeah, sure. We believe that almost as much as we believe the lie that the
world is overpopulated (all one needs to do is take a cross-country plane
trip at night to see the lie inherant in that claim).
> We don't need to turn the clock backwards, and a national moral code is
> turning the clock backwards.
Is it? Or is it turning the clock forwards to a time when liars and
cheats can no longer take away our personal liberty and rights?
> Turning this nation over to the rule of the radical right elements of
> this Nation, is sure suicide to our liberties and freedoms.
Sure, as long as your "liberty" is to take away the liberties of unborn
children, or your "freedoms" are to destroy other people's lives.
This is EXACTLY why the Founding Fathers claimed that this experiment
would only work with moral people.
Ted
Rockett Crawford
"Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2000 e_li...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > We don't need anymore of the so called moral code of the Christians, or
> > that of any other organized religion, and we certainly do not need an
> > established constitutional moral code.
>
> Sounds to me that you're putting the right to liberty above the right to
> happiness.
A person can't pursue happiness if their liberties are taken away
by a theocracy. Lookup Victorianism.
> > Organized religions, especially Christians, over the last 2,000 years,
> > have perputrated an extreme amount of harm with their moral code of
> > instant salvation. What we don't need is more of the harm and violence
> > which they have writhered in and created over the last two millenia.
>
> Yeah, sure. We believe that almost as much as we believe the lie that the
> world is overpopulated (all one needs to do is take a cross-country plane
> trip at night to see the lie inherant in that claim).
You don't seem to understand what the overpopulation problem is. It is
has to do with shortages of resources and contributions to pollution.
If you would go to Mexico City and spend a few days I think you
would understand what I am saying much better.
> > We don't need to turn the clock backwards, and a national moral code is
> > turning the clock backwards.
>
> Is it? Or is it turning the clock forwards to a time when liars and
> cheats can no longer take away our personal liberty and rights?
He is saying that the "moral codes" of the bible are primitive and
out of date in enlightened societies.
> > Turning this nation over to the rule of the radical right elements of
> > this Nation, is sure suicide to our liberties and freedoms.
>
> Sure, as long as your "liberty" is to take away the liberties of unborn
> children, or your "freedoms" are to destroy other people's lives.
First off, a fertilized egg is not an "unborn child." As far as "destroying"
other people lives, that is what Christianity does, especially fundamentalism.
It destroys the ability to think about the world logically and creates the
illusion of a black and white world of "good" and "evil" people when people
need to instead be getting along.
> This is EXACTLY why the Founding Fathers claimed that this experiment
> would only work with moral people.
I have a feeling they didn't discuss the subject with their slaves.
Capella #5
150 bible errors, contradictions, atrocities, failed prophecies, etc...
http://web2.airmail.net/capella/aguide
George Spelvin
> > > > That's what churches and mosques are for.
> > >
> > > Most of the time.
> >
> > What the hell else are they for if not for religious instruction?
>
> Control of society is the purpose of religion. To have good citizens you
> MUST teach some religious principles. The churches and the mosques are
> good enough for most of this; but without some common denominators in
> religious belief, you end up with NONE of the benifits of religion for
> society as a whole.
You are getting kooky on my man. Nevermind the detriments of religion .
. . public schools are for math and geology and grammar, etc., not for
religious instruction.
> > Any student can pray anytime s/he wants. Prayer shouldn't be led by
> > anyone. Why do you need a leader to pray?
>
> Anybody meditating in a group setting.
> And once again, Student Led prayer of any sort is frowned upon by the
> court system (I answered another post which pointed out that there's no
> actual law against it).
Like I said, any student can pray anytime.
> > You are FREE FROM THE GOVERNMENT MAKING YOU EXERCISE A RELIGION.
>
> No you're not. That's not in the first ammendment. No laws establishing
> OR PREVENTING THE FREE EXERCISE OF religion.
That's what I said. Please tell me what religion the government makes
you exercise. Sometimes you can't not ESTABLISH and not prevent at the
same time.
No one keeps a student from freely exercising his/her religion. A
public institution can not also establish a religious teaching. Thanks
for pointing it out.
> > A
> > public school is a part of the government. No establishment of religion
> > (1st amendment). I'm afraid the Constitution and the Supreme Court side
> > with me on this one and against you.
>
> The Supreme Court is. The Constitution is not, which is why the Supreme
> Court is an illigitimate government worthy only of rebellion against.
You're really getting kooky now.
> > > And I would agree with that one. It's not like religious schools are
> > > horridly expensive.
> >
> > Then what's your arguement?
>
> My argument is on your wish to censor all religion from public schools.
Just want to keep a government funded school from establishing a
religion.
> According to the first Ammendment (Supreme Court's wierd interpretation
> notwithstanding) we can't censor ANYTHING from the public schools.
Nothing is censored, religion cannot be established. We can discuss
religion in school, just can't pressure people into practicing it.
Nothing weird about it.
Theodore M. Seeber
>
>
> "Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 11 Oct 2000 e_li...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > We don't need anymore of the so called moral code of the Christians, or
> > > that of any other organized religion, and we certainly do not need an
> > > established constitutional moral code.
> >
> > Sounds to me that you're putting the right to liberty above the right to
> > happiness.
>
> A person can't pursue happiness if their liberties are taken away
> by a theocracy. Lookup Victorianism.
A great model of society, that.
"See no evil", and in doing so, spread the evil around because it isn't
opposed at all.
Victorian society was liberty taken to the extreme.
> > Yeah, sure. We believe that almost as much as we believe the lie that the
> > world is overpopulated (all one needs to do is take a cross-country plane
> > trip at night to see the lie inherant in that claim).
>
> You don't seem to understand what the overpopulation problem is.
I understand far more than you think.
> It is
> has to do with shortages of resources and contributions to pollution.
No it doesn't. It has to do with particular leaders likeing money more
than people. There is no true shortage of resources, we raise enough food
to feed another 2.5 billion more than our current population. There's no
real pollution problem either, just an energy industry that's overly
dependant upon oil.
> If you would go to Mexico City and spend a few days I think you
> would understand what I am saying much better.
Been there. Ever been 20 miles outside of Mexico city? Lush forests,
living is easy, there's no polution and very few people either.
> > > We don't need to turn the clock backwards, and a national moral code is
> > > turning the clock backwards.
> >
> > Is it? Or is it turning the clock forwards to a time when liars and
> > cheats can no longer take away our personal liberty and rights?
>
> He is saying that the "moral codes" of the bible are primitive and
> out of date in enlightened societies.
Which only goes to show that he doesn't understand the moral codes that
exist in the Bible.
> > > Turning this nation over to the rule of the radical right elements of
> > > this Nation, is sure suicide to our liberties and freedoms.
> >
> > Sure, as long as your "liberty" is to take away the liberties of unborn
> > children, or your "freedoms" are to destroy other people's lives.
>
> First off, a fertilized egg is not an "unborn child."
Care to actually try to prove that? If it wasn't, you wouldn't be alive.
> As far as "destroying"
> other people lives, that is what Christianity does, especially fundamentalism.
Not a bit, when correctly practiced. (fundamentalism does not practice it
correctly).
> It destroys the ability to think about the world logically and creates the
> illusion of a black and white world of "good" and "evil" people when people
> need to instead be getting along.
You can't get along with a man who's to hyped up on drugs to get along.
> > This is EXACTLY why the Founding Fathers claimed that this experiment
> > would only work with moral people.
>
> I have a feeling they didn't discuss the subject with their slaves.
Probabally not. Your point being?
Also, what makes you think you are not a slave today?
Theodore M. Seeber
> "Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
>
> > > > > That's what churches and mosques are for.
> > > >
> > > > Most of the time.
> > >
> > > What the hell else are they for if not for religious instruction?
> >
> > Control of society is the purpose of religion. To have good citizens you
> > MUST teach some religious principles. The churches and the mosques are
> > good enough for most of this; but without some common denominators in
> > religious belief, you end up with NONE of the benifits of religion for
> > society as a whole.
>
> You are getting kooky on my man.
But at least I write in English. (Instead of elbonics)
> Nevermind the detriments of religion .
> . . public schools are for math and geology and grammar, etc., not for
> religious instruction.
Used to be that they were for developing intelligent citizens for a
democracy. A long time ago. Being a good citizen does include those
other subjects, but it also includes basic morality and legal theory.
> > Anybody meditating in a group setting.
> > And once again, Student Led prayer of any sort is frowned upon by the
> > court system (I answered another post which pointed out that there's no
> > actual law against it).
>
> Like I said, any student can pray anytime.
Theoretically. Just don't do it allowed.
> > > You are FREE FROM THE GOVERNMENT MAKING YOU EXERCISE A RELIGION.
> >
> > No you're not. That's not in the first ammendment. No laws establishing
> > OR PREVENTING THE FREE EXERCISE OF religion.
>
> That's what I said. Please tell me what religion the government makes
> you exercise. Sometimes you can't not ESTABLISH and not prevent at the
> same time.
My point is that you should not be ables to stop the student from praying
aloud.
> No one keeps a student from freely exercising his/her religion.
Except the Supreme Court, in case you missed the last case of it.
A high school football team in Texas voluntarily was saying a prayer
before every game. Together. Led by a student, not the coach.
You know what the Supreme Court said about that?
> > The Supreme Court is. The Constitution is not, which is why the Supreme
> > Court is an illigitimate government worthy only of rebellion against.
>
> You're really getting kooky now.
You seem to like that word, despite the fact that it isn't in the
dictionary.
> > According to the first Ammendment (Supreme Court's wierd interpretation
> > notwithstanding) we can't censor ANYTHING from the public schools.
>
> Nothing is censored, religion cannot be established.
It wasn't established at the football game. Just a prayer before the game
amongst the players.
> We can discuss
> religion in school, just can't pressure people into practicing it.
You can't discuss religion in school. The teacher mentioning even the
vaguest religious terms will get a lawsuit from the atheists.
Richard Byrnes
"Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2000 e_li...@my-deja.com wrote:
> We don't need anymore of the so called moral code of the Christians, or
> that of any other organized religion, and we certainly do not need an
> established constitutional moral code.
Sounds to me that you're putting the right to liberty above the right to
happiness.
> Organized religions, especially Christians, over the last 2,000 years,
> have perputrated an extreme amount of harm with their moral code of
> instant salvation. What we don't need is more of the harm and violence
> which they have writhered in and created over the last two millenia.
Yeah, sure. We believe that almost as much as we believe the lie that the
world is overpopulated (all one needs to do is take a cross-country plane
trip at night to see the lie inherant in that claim).
> We don't need to turn the clock backwards, and a national moral code is
> turning the clock backwards.
Is it? Or is it turning the clock forwards to a time when liars and
cheats can no longer take away our personal liberty and rights?
> Turning this nation over to the rule of the radical right elements of
> this Nation, is sure suicide to our liberties and freedoms.
Sure, as long as your "liberty" is to take away the liberties of unborn
children, or your "freedoms" are to destroy other people's lives.
One small question...I assume when you talk about the liberty of unborn children you are refering to abortion, what if the mothers life is endangered by the pregnancy? What if in addition to the mother's life being endangered, the "unborn child" had little or no chance of being born alive, or surviving long after birth? And what is your stance on the death penalty. thanks for your reply
This is EXACTLY why the Founding Fathers claimed that this experiment
would only work with moral people.
Ted
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.21.0010111405480.26395-
> 100...@shell1.aracnet.com>,
> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@aracnet.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, Normand Chouinard wrote:
> >
> > > I disagree. I think religious expressions that are diametrically
> > > inconsistent with our national moral code of equality, life,
> liberty, and
> > > the pursuit of happiness would not be protected even if somehow
> parents made
> > > that choice.
> >
> > How would a teenager experimenting with something outside of the norm
> be
> > "inconsistent with our national moral code of equality, life,
> liberty, and
> > the pursuit of happiness"? I would think that such a national moral
> code
> > would downright DEMAND religious experimentation be available.
> >
> > Ted
> > --
> > On this day, the Feast of St. Francis Borgia
> > http://www.e3mil.com/church_today/message.asp?message_id=&sec_id=4
> > Theodore Michael Seeber
> > Coo! he's the remedial beer.
> > mailto:see...@aracnet.com
> > Check out the <A
> > HREF="http://www.aracnet.com/~seebert>IDIC Home Page!</A>
> > Try our new Biblical Knowledge Quiz, found <A
> > HREF="http://www.aracnet.com/~seebert/rpv.html>here!</A>
> > Blessed are the PeaceMakers, for they shall take flack from both sides
> > -Unofficial UN motto.
> >
> >
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
--
Richard Byrnes
Curious, I seem to remember discussing religion in school...in fact
I once had to sit through a lecture by a parent "volunteer" on the power
of the lord...hmm no lawsuit there. Maybe the "atheists" just weren't
paying attention. Also there is such a thing as peer pressure, maybe
you've heard of it...and I'm pretty sure presure to conform to a specific
religion (the spanish inquisition comes to mind as an extreme example)
should be discouraged in public schools.
Rockett Crawford
"Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, Rockett Crawford wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > "Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
> >
>
> > > Yeah, sure. We believe that almost as much as we believe the lie that the
> > > world is overpopulated (all one needs to do is take a cross-country plane
> > > trip at night to see the lie inherant in that claim).
> >
> > You don't seem to understand what the overpopulation problem is.
>
> I understand far more than you think.
>
> > It is
> > has to do with shortages of resources and contributions to pollution.
>
> No it doesn't. It has to do with particular leaders likeing money more
> than people. There is no true shortage of resources, we raise enough food
> to feed another 2.5 billion more than our current population.
Tell that to the billions of people living in cardboard shelters
that can't get a job because there are none.
> There's no
> real pollution problem either, just an energy industry that's overly
> dependant upon oil.
Again, you need to go to Mexico city and drink from their rivers.
After that come to Dallas and notice the nice inversion layer
over our city on hot days.
Detectors on a mountain in Hawaii have been measuring an
increase in CO2 since the 50s. We have already raised the
temperature of the earth 1 degree. Etc...
> > If you would go to Mexico City and spend a few days I think you
> > would understand what I am saying much better.
>
> Been there. Ever been 20 miles outside of Mexico city? Lush forests,
> living is easy, there's no polution and very few people either.
You must have gone to another Mexico city. The one I know of
has severely polluted rivers, masses of people living in cardboard
boxes and on multi-year waiting lists to get a job.
This didn't come about until Reagan under pressure from the
religious right 20 years ago cut off funding to planned parenthood
and the citizens of Mexico City no longer received birth control.
>
> > > > We don't need to turn the clock backwards, and a national moral code is
> > > > turning the clock backwards.
> > >
> > > Is it? Or is it turning the clock forwards to a time when liars and
> > > cheats can no longer take away our personal liberty and rights?
> >
> > He is saying that the "moral codes" of the bible are primitive and
> > out of date in enlightened societies.
>
> Which only goes to show that he doesn't understand the moral codes that
> exist in the Bible.
No, I think it shows that you are rationalizing them away. The bible
says it's good to beat people and wound them. It says that women
have inferior judgment to men because Eve was deceived and that
women should not teach or have authority over a man, but should
be silent and learn at home from their husbands.
The bible says to kill your loved ones if they worship the wrong
god. It also says to kill children who are disrespectful.
It mentions that beating children with a rod is good for them.
It also says that if you strike your male or female slave and
they die right away the master should be punished, but if they
hang on for a day or two, it's all right.
Etc...
>
> > > > Turning this nation over to the rule of the radical right elements of
> > > > this Nation, is sure suicide to our liberties and freedoms.
> > >
> > > Sure, as long as your "liberty" is to take away the liberties of unborn
> > > children, or your "freedoms" are to destroy other people's lives.
> >
> > First off, a fertilized egg is not an "unborn child."
>
> Care to actually try to prove that? If it wasn't, you wouldn't be alive.
Sperm and eggs are "alive." The cells I scratch out of my ears everyday
used to be alive, but I wouldn't consider it aborting several unborn children
every time I do it.
>
> > As far as "destroying"
> > other people lives, that is what Christianity does, especially fundamentalism.
>
> Not a bit, when correctly practiced. (fundamentalism does not practice it
> correctly).
>
> > It destroys the ability to think about the world logically and creates the
> > illusion of a black and white world of "good" and "evil" people when people
> > need to instead be getting along.
>
> You can't get along with a man who's to hyped up on drugs to get along.
I guess that's an example of your's of an "evil" person?
> > > This is EXACTLY why the Founding Fathers claimed that this experiment
> > > would only work with moral people.
> >
> > I have a feeling they didn't discuss the subject with their slaves.
>
> Probabally not. Your point being?
Ok, I'll play...According to today's more enlightened thinking, a person that
owns a slave is not very nice.
> Also, what makes you think you are not a slave today?
I guess you must be referring to an invisible satan? No,
I am not a slave. I am free to work wherever I want
if I can and do most anything I want as long as it
doesn't hurt others (at least until the US becomes a
theocracy).
George Spelvin
>
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, George Spelvin wrote:
>
> > "Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > Most of the time.
> > > >
> > > > What the hell else are they for if not for religious instruction?
> > >
> > > Control of society is the purpose of religion. To have good citizens you
> > > MUST teach some religious principles. The churches and the mosques are
> > > good enough for most of this; but without some common denominators in
> > > religious belief, you end up with NONE of the benifits of religion for
> > > society as a whole.
> >
>
> But at least I write in English. (Instead of elbonics)
What is "elbonics"? Do you mean Ebonics?
> > Nevermind the detriments of religion .
> > . . public schools are for math and geology and grammar, etc., not for
> > religious instruction.
>
> Used to be that they were for developing intelligent citizens for a
> democracy. A long time ago. Being a good citizen does include those
> other subjects, but it also includes basic morality and legal theory.
No public school has any authority to teach morality. Legal theory is a
valid class, but not morals. That's what the home and the religious
institutions are for.
I certainly don't want my children taught morals I don't agree with.
> > Like I said, any student can pray anytime.
>
> Theoretically. Just don't do it allowed.
They can do it "aloud" if they wish.
> > That's what I said. Please tell me what religion the government makes
> > you exercise. Sometimes you can't not ESTABLISH and not prevent at the
> > same time.
>
> My point is that you should not be ables to stop the student from praying
> aloud.
Students may pray aloud if they want. What isn't aloud are school-wide
prayers led by a person in which everone is coerced into participating.
It amounts to the school "establishing" a religious practice, which is
unconstitutional.
> > No one keeps a student from freely exercising his/her religion.
>
> Except the Supreme Court, in case you missed the last case of it.
>
> A high school football team in Texas voluntarily was saying a prayer
> before every game. Together. Led by a student, not the coach.
Over the loud speaker.
Furthermore, such a situtation, while exercising religion, also creates
a situtation whereby others are placed in the position of having to
exercise that religion. If you have a right to exercise your religion,
I have a right not to.
I have a right to free speech, unless that speech infringes on another's
rights. You have a right to practice your religion, but not to force me
to do so.
> You know what the Supreme Court said about that?
>
> > > The Supreme Court is. The Constitution is not, which is why the Supreme
> > > Court is an illigitimate government worthy only of rebellion against.
> >
> > You're really getting kooky now.
>
> You seem to like that word, despite the fact that it isn't in the
> dictionary.
"something unusual, peculiar, or foolish."--Random House.
"kook-y or kook-ie (kke) adj. kooki-er, kooki-est [Slang] of or
characteristic of a kook; silly, eccentric, crazy, etc. --kooki-ness
n."--Comptom's.
"having the characteristics of a kook : CRAZY, OFFBEAT"--Webster's.
"Characteristic of a kook; strange or crazy."--American Heritage.
Care to try again?
> > We can discuss
> > religion in school, just can't pressure people into practicing it.
>
> You can't discuss religion in school. The teacher mentioning even the
> vaguest religious terms will get a lawsuit from the atheists.
Tell that to the faculty of the departments of religious studies at the
various state universities. When I was in school, I took religious
studies classes. I remember religion being discussed almost every day.
*George Spelvin*
George Spelvin
>One small question...I assume when you talk about the liberty of unborn
>children you are refering to abortion, what if the mothers life is endangered
>by the pregnancy? What if in addition to the mother's life being endangered,
>the "unborn child" had little or no chance of being born alive, or surviving
>long after birth?
Apparently Theodore doesn't believe in the mother's liberty.
Cam Beck
Since there weren't any specific rituals cited, I was speaking in very
general terms, presuming that whoever was practicing their "religion" was
not violating any laws. Self-determination relies on the principle that we
remain free to make our own rules and our own decisions respecting those
matters that most affect our lives.
Your second observation is correct, but judging from some posts on this
thread, I fear that it may not remain a non-issue for much longer. For
instance, I've heard numerous times that we cannot legislate morality. Well
then I guess all those laws against killing and stealing are way off-base,
aren't they?
Firstly, morality is nothing but adhering to a set of principles which
dictates the difference between right and wrong. That being said, it is also
true that doing something is either right or wrong, but doesn't neccessarily
have to be "good" or "evil." Certainly there can be reasonably good and
tangible benefits to nearly any action we would consider taking as a nation.
Just think of the economic boom we would experience if we would only invade
the entire Middle East and take over their oil fields. Not only would the
economic benefits not be as great because of the worldwide recoil for our
actions, but we will not do so because, barring an attack by an enemy on our
allies or our country, we typically restrain from invading other nations'
sovereignty uninvited (Kosovo notwithstanding). The reason we do or don't
follow through is, to us, morally, it is wrong when we hold the action up to
the scrutiny of our collective morality.
To be moral is basically to constantly do what is right. To abandon morality
is to abandon the standards to which we judge what is right. Given that
morality is, to some measure, subjective, we must therefore, instead of
cringing when we hear the words "moral" or "morality," attempt to examine
what the speaker is saying to see if it also applies to our set of morals,
and why. That is not "imposing morality," but is simply utilizing our own
experience and sense of justice in applying a standard which controls our
actions as a nation. To the degree that we must guard, in our laws, against
moral hazards that may destroy the fabric of our founding principles, I
agree with you. However, we must be careful we are consistent in the
application of our laws. In other words, we should not punish someone for a
religious belief, provided they are exercising that religion in a way that
does not violate those principles.
Secondly, all the laws a republic can pass will never be effective unless
the people therein are moral and willing to obey those laws. That means that
even if we did pass a general law such as, "Everyone shall be moral," it
would be worthless if no one obeyed the law. Although restrictive laws may
give men pause when they consider an action, human laws do not, by
definition, control human behavior. They are only effective if they are
enforced by the collective will of a just society. That necessarily means
that there is a consequence for acting outside of the norms of those laws.
Great to see you again!
Cam Beck
webmaster
www.oo-rah.com
"Normand Chouinard" <ttn...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:39e4d...@news1.prserv.net...
> I disagree. I think religious expressions that are diametrically
> inconsistent with our national moral code of equality, life, liberty, and
> the pursuit of happiness would not be protected even if somehow parents
made
> that choice.
>
Theodore M. Seeber
> "Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
>
> > > You don't seem to understand what the overpopulation problem is.
> >
> > I understand far more than you think.
> >
> > > It is
> > > has to do with shortages of resources and contributions to pollution.
> >
> > No it doesn't. It has to do with particular leaders likeing money more
> > than people. There is no true shortage of resources, we raise enough food
> > to feed another 2.5 billion more than our current population.
>
> Tell that to the billions of people living in cardboard shelters
> that can't get a job because there are none.
A grand example of particular leaders liking money more than people.
It's perfectly possible for everybody in society to have a job. Just have
to put the money into education so that they know how to do something
worthwhile. But instead, the leaders fill their bank accounts and ignore
education spending.
> > There's no
> > real pollution problem either, just an energy industry that's overly
> > dependant upon oil.
>
> Again, you need to go to Mexico city and drink from their rivers.
Why would anybody want to drink from a river?
> After that come to Dallas and notice the nice inversion layer
> over our city on hot days.
Overdependance on oil rather than a sustainable energy system.
> Detectors on a mountain in Hawaii have been measuring an
> increase in CO2 since the 50s. We have already raised the
> temperature of the earth 1 degree. Etc...
Once again, overdependance on oil rather than a sustainable energy
system. Read what I write, then you won't look so stupid.
> > > If you would go to Mexico City and spend a few days I think you
> > > would understand what I am saying much better.
> >
> > Been there. Ever been 20 miles outside of Mexico city? Lush forests,
> > living is easy, there's no polution and very few people either.
>
> You must have gone to another Mexico city. The one I know of
> has severely polluted rivers, masses of people living in cardboard
> boxes and on multi-year waiting lists to get a job.
Yes, and they should leave.
> This didn't come about until Reagan under pressure from the
> religious right 20 years ago cut off funding to planned parenthood
> and the citizens of Mexico City no longer received birth control.
That isn't the problem. The problem is greedy rich people who think they
don't need to create jobs, or pay for education.
> > > He is saying that the "moral codes" of the bible are primitive and
> > > out of date in enlightened societies.
> >
> > Which only goes to show that he doesn't understand the moral codes that
> > exist in the Bible.
>
> No, I think it shows that you are rationalizing them away.
No, you don't understand them.
> The bible
> says it's good to beat people and wound them.
Ever hear of surgical hospitals?
> It says that women
> have inferior judgment to men because Eve was deceived and that
> women should not teach or have authority over a man, but should
> be silent and learn at home from their husbands.
Actually, that's not what it says. Go back and read the WHOLE CHAPTER
sometime.
> The bible says to kill your loved ones if they worship the wrong
> god. It also says to kill children who are disrespectful.
Better than locking them away to rot in jail.
> It mentions that beating children with a rod is good for them.
It is.
> It also says that if you strike your male or female slave and
> they die right away the master should be punished, but if they
> hang on for a day or two, it's all right.
>
> Etc...
Which is the correct point of view, and one practiced by American Business
today.
> > > First off, a fertilized egg is not an "unborn child."
> >
> > Care to actually try to prove that? If it wasn't, you wouldn't be alive.
>
> Sperm and eggs are "alive." The cells I scratch out of my ears everyday
> used to be alive, but I wouldn't consider it aborting several unborn children
> every time I do it.
Apples and oranges. Sperm and eggs apart are no more alive than the cells
you scratch out of your ears. A fertilized egg, however, has become
something different. It has a different genetic code than either the
sperm alone or the egg alone. It has a different genetic code than the
mother. And it is alive. And it is a child. Just a very very very small
one.
> > You can't get along with a man who's to hyped up on drugs to get along.
>
> I guess that's an example of your's of an "evil" person?
No. Just a symptom of society gone wrong.
> > > > This is EXACTLY why the Founding Fathers claimed that this experiment
> > > > would only work with moral people.
> > >
> > > I have a feeling they didn't discuss the subject with their slaves.
> >
> > Probabally not. Your point being?
>
> Ok, I'll play...According to today's more enlightened thinking, a person that
> owns a slave is not very nice.
Yet there are still slave owners today. We call them businessmen.
The only difference is that the slave owners of old had to pay enough for
room, board and medical care. The slave owners today get away with
"minimum wage", which is much less.
> > Also, what makes you think you are not a slave today?
>
> I guess you must be referring to an invisible satan?
Nope. I'm refering to a government that sustains an ecconomic system
where if you don't work, you don't eat.
> No,
> I am not a slave. I am free to work wherever I want
> if I can and do most anything I want as long as it
> doesn't hurt others (at least until the US becomes a
> theocracy).
Wrong. Under current US Law, you have the ability to APPEAR to be free,
including hurting others, BUT YOU ARE NOT FREE NOT TO WORK, NOR ARE YOU
TRULY FREE TO DO ANYTHING YOU WANT.
> Capella #5
> 150 bible errors, contradictions, atrocities, failed prophecies, etc...
> http://web2.airmail.net/capella/aguide
All of which I've been through before, and all of which can be shown to be
a severe lack of understanding of the culture at the time that book of the
Bible was written.
But such people aren't interested in Truth, only in freedom.
Ted
--
On this day, the Feast of St. Hedwig
Duchess of Charity
Theodore M. Seeber
> "Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, George Spelvin wrote:
> >
> > > You are getting kooky on me man.
> >
> > But at least I write in English. (Instead of elbonics)
>
> What is "elbonics"? Do you mean Ebonics?
I've seen it spelled both ways. I figured, given the grammar, that it
doesn't actually have official spelling rules.
> > > Nevermind the detriments of religion .
> > > . . public schools are for math and geology and grammar, etc., not for
> > > religious instruction.
> >
> > Used to be that they were for developing intelligent citizens for a
> > democracy. A long time ago. Being a good citizen does include those
> > other subjects, but it also includes basic morality and legal theory.
>
> No public school has any authority to teach morality. Legal theory is a
> valid class, but not morals.
Without morals, legal theory is bullshit. Morality is the BASIS for legal
theory.
> > Except the Supreme Court, in case you missed the last case of it.
> >
> > A high school football team in Texas voluntarily was saying a prayer
> > before every game. Together. Led by a student, not the coach.
>
> Over the loud speaker.
So what? What's wrong with that?
> Furthermore, such a situtation, while exercising religion, also creates
> a situtation whereby others are placed in the position of having to
> exercise that religion.
How so? Does the loudspeaker have a component that injects thoughts into
the brain? What's to prevent one from simply thinking to themselves "this
is bullshit, I think I'll go to the concessions stand and get a hot dog"?
> If you have a right to exercise your religion,
> I have a right not to.
Why? Where do you see that in the constitution?
> I have a right to free speech, unless that speech infringes on another's
> rights.
I see no such limitation in the constitution.
> You have a right to practice your religion, but not to force me
> to do so.
Not according to the constitution.
> > You can't discuss religion in school. The teacher mentioning even the
> > vaguest religious terms will get a lawsuit from the atheists.
>
> Tell that to the faculty of the departments of religious studies at the
> various state universities.
State universities in my state do NOT have religious studies. They were
removed after a 1985 lawsuit.
John LaVoy
"Theodore M. Seeber" wrote, probably without intending to be funny:
> Furthermore, such a situtation, while exercising religion, also creates
> > a situtation whereby others are placed in the position of having to
> > exercise that religion.
>
> How so? Does the loudspeaker have a component that injects thoughts into
> the brain?
This is exactly what a loudspeaker is! It's called sound and hearing.
> What's to prevent one from simply thinking to themselves "this
> is bullshit, I think I'll go to the concessions stand and get a hot dog"?
The point being that I shouldn't have to go to the concession stand and get a
hot dog so you can proselytize.
> > If you have a right to exercise your religion,
> > I have a right not to.
>
> Why? Where do you see that in the constitution?
Same place the Supreme Court saw it.
> > I have a right to free speech, unless that speech infringes on another's
> > rights.
>
> I see no such limitation in the constitution.
Its in pretty much the same place where the Supreme Court sees it.
> > You have a right to practice your religion, but not to force me
> > to do so.
>
> Not according to the constitution.
This makes no sense.
Normand Chouinard
<e_li...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8s2o69$21p$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> We don't need anymore of the so called moral code of the Christians, or
> that of any other organized religion, and we certainly do not need an
> established constitutional moral code.
>
If you are rejecting our moral code that our rights of equality, life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness which are endowed by the Creator,
aren't you a bit afraid that those rights would be trampled? If man
determines who has rights and who does not (see abortion), then will not the
strongest and most powerful determine our fate?
The founders, who were experts in religious and political oppression, knew
'self evidently' that our rights come from the immutable hand of the Creator
or else we would simply be another might makes right tyranny which has been
the fate of 99% of mankind's history.
Our founders and statesmen knew that freedom required responsibility for our
actions, i.e. a moral code. They also knew that the values derived from
religion inform those values that support our freedom.
Check out the following:
"Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame
with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power.
America is great because America is good, and if America ceases to be good,
America will cease to be great." Alexis de Tocqueville, 1835
"The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but the God of
Israel is He that giveth and power unto his people. Trust in Him at all
times, ye people, pour out your hearts before Him; God is a refuge for us."
Abigail Adams, 1775 A letter to her husband John
"It is the duty of nations as well as of men to own their dependence upon
the overruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions in
humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead us to
mercy and pardon."
Abraham Lincoln, 1863 Proclamation Appointing a National Fast Day
"Our laws and institutions must necessarily be based on and embody the
teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be
otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our
institutions are emphatically Christian." United States Supreme Court,
1892
"The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that
disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has
ordained." George Washington, 1789 Inaugural Address
"The secret of my success? It is simple. It is found in the Bible, 'In al
thy ways acknowledge Him and He shall direct thy paths." George
Washington Carver, 1939
"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be
thought secure when we have removed their only secure basis, a conviction in
the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they
are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country
when I reflect that God is just; that His justice can not sleep forever."
Thomas Jefferson, 1781 Notes on the State of Virginia
"The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind.
Where, some say, is the king of America? I'll tell you, friend, He reigns
above." Thomas Paine, 1776 Common Sense
"Whoever shall introduce into public affairs the principles of primitive
Christianity will change the face of the world." Benjamin Franklin, 1778
"Our constitution was made for a moral religious people. It is wholly
inadequate for the government of any other." John Adams, 1798
"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the
power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our
political institutions.upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern
ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten
Commandments of God." James Madison, 1778
"We live in an age of science and of abounding accumulation of material
things. These did not create our Declaration. Our Declaration created them.
The things of the spirit come first. Unless we cling to that, all our
material prosperity, overwhelming though it appear, will turn to a barren
scepter in our grasp. If we are to maintain the great heritage, which has
been bequeathed to us, we must be like-minded as the fathers who created it.
We must not sink into a pagan materialism. ... We must cultivate the
reverence, which they had for the things which are holy. We must follow the
spiritual and moral leadership which they showed." Calvin Coolidge 1926
"The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the
state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the
critic of the state, and never its tool. If the church does not recapture
its prophetic zeal, it will become an irrelevant social club without moral
or spiritual authority." Martin Luther King, Jr., 1963.
"The family has always the cornerstone of American society. Our families
nurture, preserve, and pass on to each succeeding generation the values that
we share and cherish, values that are the foundations of our freedoms. In
the family we learn our first lessons of God and man, love and discipline,
rights and responsibilities, human dignity and human frailty." Ronald
Reagan
Theodore M. Seeber
> "Theodore M. Seeber" wrote, probably without intending to be funny:
>
> > Furthermore, such a situtation, while exercising religion, also creates
>
> > > a situtation whereby others are placed in the position of having to
> > > exercise that religion.
> >
> > How so? Does the loudspeaker have a component that injects thoughts into
> > the brain?
>
> This is exactly what a loudspeaker is! It's called sound and hearing.
And you are unable to ignore the sounds around you? Hmm, perhaps this is
a physical disability for which I need to rethink my cause.
> > What's to prevent one from simply thinking to themselves "this
> > is bullshit, I think I'll go to the concessions stand and get a hot dog"?
>
> The point being that I shouldn't have to go to the concession stand and get a
> hot dog so you can proselytize.
Where do you see the word "from" in the first amendment is my point. You
are NOT free from having religion being preached at you, you are free from
having the government tell ANYBODY which religion to preach.
> > > If you have a right to exercise your religion,
> > > I have a right not to.
> >
> > Why? Where do you see that in the constitution?
>
> Same place the Supreme Court saw it.
Which is why I said that the Supreme Court is incompetant and
corrupt: They're adding to the text of the constitution without any real
power to do so.
> > > I have a right to free speech, unless that speech infringes on another's
> > > rights.
> >
> > I see no such limitation in the constitution.
>
> Its in pretty much the same place where the Supreme Court sees it.
In other words, not at all.
> > > You have a right to practice your religion, but not to force me
> > > to do so.
> >
> > Not according to the constitution.
>
> This makes no sense.
Only because, like the Supreme Court, you like to add words to the first
ammendment:
Amendment I (1791)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the government for a redress of grievances.
WHERE IN THAT PARAGRAPH DOES IT SAY THAT PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS ARE NOT
ALLOWED TO PREACH?
Theodore M. Seeber
> <e_li...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8s2o69$21p$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > We don't need anymore of the so called moral code of the Christians, or
> > that of any other organized religion, and we certainly do not need an
> > established constitutional moral code.
>
> If you are rejecting our moral code that our rights of equality, life,
> liberty, and the pursuit of happiness which are endowed by the Creator,
> aren't you a bit afraid that those rights would be trampled?
Especially considering they were apparently never enacted into law to
begin with?
Those rights are from the Declaration of Independance, not the
constitution, and were assumed by the founding fathers to be "obvious to
all, not worthy of law". Too bad they aren't so obvious anymore.
John LaVoy
"Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
>
> > > How so? Does the loudspeaker have a component that injects thoughts into
> > > the brain?
> >
> > This is exactly what a loudspeaker is! It's called sound and hearing.
>
> And you are unable to ignore the sounds around you? Hmm, perhaps this is
> a physical disability for which I need to rethink my cause.
Perhaps you should review the nervous system. Hearing is an autonomic process.
Whether I want to pay conscious attention to what I am hearing is one thing, but
whether I hear it or not is different. In this sense, yes, a loud speaker does
inject a thought into a brain.
> > > What's to prevent one from simply thinking to themselves "this
> > > is bullshit, I think I'll go to the concessions stand and get a hot dog"?
> >
> > The point being that I shouldn't have to go to the concession stand and get a
> > hot dog so you can proselytize.
>
> Where do you see the word "from" in the first amendment is my point. You
> are NOT free from having religion being preached at you, you are free from
> having the government tell ANYBODY which religion to preach.
Exactly my point, and thank you for agreeing. When the government's loudspeaker is
used to blast the prayer out, the government is indeed telling me which religion
has the official stamp of approval. If you want to park off the school grounds and
set up a loudspeaker, you are free to do so...but you can't use the government to
pass out your message for you.
>
> Which is why I said that the Supreme Court is incompetant and
> corrupt: They're adding to the text of the constitution without any real
> power to do so.
They are interpreting the constitution to the best of their ability. One of their
roles, like it or not, is to interpret the Constitution as it must apply in the
modern world. Thye are not incompetent. You might think they are wrong, but there
is certainly ample support for thier decisions on teh this issue.
>
> > > > I have a right to free speech, unless that speech infringes on another's
> > > > rights.
> > >
> > > I see no such limitation in the constitution.
> >
> > Its in pretty much the same place where the Supreme Court sees it.
>
> In other words, not at all.
Not at all not at all. The SCOTUS has never ruled that anybody can't preach, but
they have consistently ruled that the mechanism of government can't be a conduit
for their preaching. That's all.
> > > > You have a right to practice your religion, but not to force me
> > > > to do so.
> > >
> > > Not according to the constitution.
> >
> > This makes no sense.
>
> Only because, like the Supreme Court, you like to add words to the first
> ammendment:
> Amendment I (1791)
>
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
> religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
> abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
> right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
> the government for a redress of grievances.
>
> WHERE IN THAT PARAGRAPH DOES IT SAY THAT PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS ARE NOT
> ALLOWED TO PREACH?
I repeat, this makes no sense. No one is saying people can't preach: the comment
was that people can't force others to listen to it. At a governmentally sponsored
event, no one can make the willingness to listen to your preaching a de facto
requirement of attendance. That is what the law has always been, i.e. teachers
can't lead prayers because those who didn't want to pray would, in effect, be out
of the class while it was happening.
Just curious: do you think that Satanists should be allowed to lead services at a
football game? Muslims? Jews? Zoroastrians? Wiccans? Native Americans?
Rockett Crawford
"Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, Rockett Crawford wrote:
>
> > "Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
> >
> > > > You don't seem to understand what the overpopulation problem is.
> > >
> > > I understand far more than you think.
> > >
> > > > It is
> > > > has to do with shortages of resources and contributions to pollution.
> > >
> > > No it doesn't. It has to do with particular leaders likeing money more
> > > than people. There is no true shortage of resources, we raise enough food
> > > to feed another 2.5 billion more than our current population.
> >
> > Tell that to the billions of people living in cardboard shelters
> > that can't get a job because there are none.
>
> A grand example of particular leaders liking money more than people.
>
> It's perfectly possible for everybody in society to have a job. Just have
> to put the money into education so that they know how to do something
> worthwhile. But instead, the leaders fill their bank accounts and ignore
> education spending.
Whatever the case may be for a limit number of jobs, there are a
limited number of jobs in this world and too many people that need
one.
> > > There's no
> > > real pollution problem either, just an energy industry that's overly
> > > dependant upon oil.
> >
> > Again, you need to go to Mexico city and drink from their rivers.
>
> Why would anybody want to drink from a river?
Why would someone want to avoid the point to a sentence?
Their rivers are polluted from people going number 1 and 2
in them and their businesses dumping their wastes practically
unchecked.
> > After that come to Dallas and notice the nice inversion layer
> > over our city on hot days.
>
> Overdependance on oil rather than a sustainable energy system.
And this inversion layer is called....? Pollution.
If you are suggesting it can be cleaned up, I agree.
> > Detectors on a mountain in Hawaii have been measuring an
> > increase in CO2 since the 50s. We have already raised the
> > temperature of the earth 1 degree. Etc...
>
> Once again, overdependance on oil rather than a sustainable energy
> system.
I agree. Another example of pollution and it can be cleaned up.
> Read what I write, then you won't look so stupid.
Oh, another Christian that forgot to where his WWJD bracelet
this morning.
>
> > > > If you would go to Mexico City and spend a few days I think you
> > > > would understand what I am saying much better.
> > >
> > > Been there. Ever been 20 miles outside of Mexico city? Lush forests,
> > > living is easy, there's no polution and very few people either.
> >
> > You must have gone to another Mexico city. The one I know of
> > has severely polluted rivers, masses of people living in cardboard
> > boxes and on multi-year waiting lists to get a job.
>
> Yes, and they should leave.
They are.
> > This didn't come about until Reagan under pressure from the
> > religious right 20 years ago cut off funding to planned parenthood
> > and the citizens of Mexico City no longer received birth control.
>
> That isn't the problem. The problem is greedy rich people who think they
> don't need to create jobs, or pay for education.
No, the birth rate sky rocketed after Reagan pulled the plug on
planned parenthood distributing birth control because the religious
right didn't like the abortion counseling they were doing.
These greedy people you speak of were there long before the
population explosion that started in the early '80s.
> > The bible
> > says it's good to beat people and wound them.
>
> Ever hear of surgical hospitals?
So you are suggesting that ancient Hebrew "doctors"
performed surgery by beating their patients until they
are wounded to "cleanse their innermost parts?"
Here is the pediatrics version:
Prov 23:
13 Do not withhold discipline from your children; if you beat them
with a rod, they will not die. 14 If you beat them with the rod, you
will save their lives from Sheol.
Here is a house call:
(Song 5:7 NRSV) Making their rounds in the city the sentinels found
me; they beat me, they wounded me, they took away my mantle,
those sentinels of the walls.
>
> > It says that women
> > have inferior judgment to men because Eve was deceived and that
> > women should not teach or have authority over a man, but should
> > be silent and learn at home from their husbands.
>
> Actually, that's not what it says. Go back and read the WHOLE CHAPTER
> sometime.
Actually that's exactly what it says no matter how many times the
chapter is read.
>
> > The bible says to kill your loved ones if they worship the wrong
> > god. It also says to kill children who are disrespectful.
>
> Better than locking them away to rot in jail.
As far as I know there are few laws which jail people for
worshipping the wrong god, at least in the US. In theocracies
however, that could be a different story.
Also people in the US aren't jailed for being disrespectful to
their parents.
>
> > It mentions that beating children with a rod is good for them.
>
> It is.
In the US it's called parental abuse.
> > It also says that if you strike your male or female slave and
> > they die right away the master should be punished, but if they
> > hang on for a day or two, it's all right.
> >
> > Etc...
>
> Which is the correct point of view, and one practiced by American Business
> today.
So you are saying that American business' have slaves that they
strike and kill and they aren't punished if they don't die right away?
;^)
> > > > First off, a fertilized egg is not an "unborn child."
> > >
> > > Care to actually try to prove that? If it wasn't, you wouldn't be alive.
> >
> > Sperm and eggs are "alive." The cells I scratch out of my ears everyday
> > used to be alive, but I wouldn't consider it aborting several unborn children
> > every time I do it.
>
> Apples and oranges. Sperm and eggs apart are no more alive than the cells
> you scratch out of your ears.
Of course sperm and egg cells are alive.
> A fertilized egg, however, has become
> something different. It has a different genetic code than either the
> sperm alone or the egg alone. It has a different genetic code than the
> mother. And it is alive. And it is a child. Just a very very very small
> one.
No, it's just a cell with the same genetic code that billions of other cells
will have if it develops into a baby.
It is estimated that 1/2 of all fertilized eggs never attach to the womb
lining and are discharged from the woman naturally. Are you suggesting
that 1/2 of all babies are naturally aborted? Should we give these cells
proper funerals? Are the majority of heaven's inhabitants naturally
aborted fertilized eggs?
> > > You can't get along with a man who's to hyped up on drugs to get along.
> >
> > I guess that's an example of your's of an "evil" person?
>
> No. Just a symptom of society gone wrong.
I thought we were talking about the black and white evil and good
world of Christians?
> > > > > This is EXACTLY why the Founding Fathers claimed that this experiment
> > > > > would only work with moral people.
> > > >
> > > > I have a feeling they didn't discuss the subject with their slaves.
> > >
> > > Probabally not. Your point being?
> >
> > Ok, I'll play...According to today's more enlightened thinking, a person that
> > owns a slave is not very nice.
>
> Yet there are still slave owners today. We call them businessmen.
> The only difference is that the slave owners of old had to pay enough for
> room, board and medical care. The slave owners today get away with
> "minimum wage", which is much less.
A slave is someone who has no choice in the matter there fore
people who choose to work for a particular company are not
slaves.
> > > Also, what makes you think you are not a slave today?
> >
> > I guess you must be referring to an invisible satan?
>
> Nope. I'm refering to a government that sustains an ecconomic system
> where if you don't work, you don't eat.
I'm not a slave. I could go live on an island and eat coconuts and
fish if I want. I could go into the woods and live off of the land if I
choose. Many people do this around the world.
> > No,
> > I am not a slave. I am free to work wherever I want
> > if I can and do most anything I want as long as it
> > doesn't hurt others (at least until the US becomes a
> > theocracy).
>
> Wrong. Under current US Law, you have the ability to APPEAR to be free,
> including hurting others, BUT YOU ARE NOT FREE NOT TO WORK,
I most certainly am free to not work in this country.
> NOR ARE YOU
> TRULY FREE TO DO ANYTHING YOU WANT.
Agreed, but I can do most anything I want as long as I don't
harm others in some way. There are trivial exceptions, but
nothing that keeps me awake at night.
> > Capella #5
> > 150 bible errors, contradictions, atrocities, failed prophecies, etc...
> > http://web2.airmail.net/capella/aguide
>
> All of which I've been through before, and all of which can be shown to be
> a severe lack of understanding of the culture at the time that book of the
> Bible was written.
> But such people aren't interested in Truth, only in freedom.
Well that wraps it up with a bow doesn't it? No need to think about
them, they just can't exist or possibly what you (and I used to)
believe isn't true.
Theodore M. Seeber
> "Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
>
> > > > How so? Does the loudspeaker have a component that injects thoughts into
> > > > the brain?
> > >
> > > This is exactly what a loudspeaker is! It's called sound and hearing.
> >
> > And you are unable to ignore the sounds around you? Hmm, perhaps this is
> > a physical disability for which I need to rethink my cause.
>
> Perhaps you should review the nervous system. Hearing is an autonomic process.
> Whether I want to pay conscious attention to what I am hearing is one thing, but
> whether I hear it or not is different. In this sense, yes, a loud speaker does
> inject a thought into a brain.
This must be a difference between the majority of the population and
hackers like myself. If I'm concentrating on something else, you could be
blowing out my eardrums with a loudspeaker and I'd never actually hear
what was being broadcast at me.
> > > > What's to prevent one from simply thinking to themselves "this
> > > > is bullshit, I think I'll go to the concessions stand and get a hot dog"?
> > >
> > > The point being that I shouldn't have to go to the concession stand and get a
> > > hot dog so you can proselytize.
> >
> > Where do you see the word "from" in the first amendment is my point. You
> > are NOT free from having religion being preached at you, you are free from
> > having the government tell ANYBODY which religion to preach.
>
> Exactly my point, and thank you for agreeing.
Did you read the first half of the sentence?
> When the government's loudspeaker is
> used to blast the prayer out, the government
> is indeed telling me which religion
> has the official stamp of approval.
Texas must fund their football fields on school grounds differently than
Oregon does.
> If you want to park off the school grounds and
> set up a loudspeaker, you are free to do so...
> but you can't use the government to
> pass out your message for you.
Interesting idea. So the government is involved in the message of the
software if their hardware is used?
Isn't that a little like blaming Intel for errors found in Windows?
Sounds to me like your idea of "free exercise" needs to get CAUSE and
EFFECT straightened out first.
> > Which is why I said that the Supreme Court is incompetant and
> > corrupt: They're adding to the text of the constitution without any real
> > power to do so.
>
> They are interpreting the constitution to the best of their ability.
And if they're making basic errors in cause and effect as you've shown
above, no wonder they are misreading it.
> One of their
> roles, like it or not, is to interpret the Constitution as it must
> apply in the
> modern world.
But it is not within their role to ADD WORDS TO THE CONSTITUTION TO DO SO.
> Thye are not incompetent. You might think they are wrong, but there
> is certainly ample support for thier decisions on teh this issue.
Ample support for stupidity, perhaps, and for confusing the equipment with
the idea.
One could make a case for not being able to do soap box speeches on
religion in public parks based on your reasoning.
> > > > > I have a right to free speech, unless that speech infringes on another's
> > > > > rights.
> > > >
> > > > I see no such limitation in the constitution.
> > >
> > > Its in pretty much the same place where the Supreme Court sees it.
> >
> > In other words, not at all.
>
> Not at all not at all.
Shall we examine the actual words of the document?
> The SCOTUS has never ruled that anybody can't preach, but
> they have consistently ruled that the mechanism
> of government can't be a conduit
> for their preaching. That's all.
In other words, they're screwing up the cause. The "mechanism of
government" isn't actually doing anything. The person making the speech
is.
One would think you couldn't preach in public parks, because the
government owns the park.
Rediculous on it's face, incompetant in it's creation.
> > Only because, like the Supreme Court, you like to add words to the first
> > ammendment:
> > Amendment I (1791)
> >
> > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
> > religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
> > abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
> > right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
> > the government for a redress of grievances.
> >
> > WHERE IN THAT PARAGRAPH DOES IT SAY THAT PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS ARE NOT
> > ALLOWED TO PREACH?
>
> I repeat, this makes no sense.
You said above that the private individuals could not preach using
government hardware (mechanisms). Where is that in the first ammendment?
> No one is saying people can't preach: the comment
> was that people can't force others to listen to it.
I'm sorry, I see nothing in the first Ammendment about private individuals
not being able to force other private individuals to listen to their free
speech.
In fact, it specifically states that the government can't make laws to
prevent it.
> At a governmentally sponsored
> event, no one can make the willingness to listen to your preaching a de facto
> requirement of attendance.
I do not see that anywhere in the first ammendment.
> That is what the law has always been,
Only since 1935 or so.
> i.e. teachers
> can't lead prayers because those who didn't want
> to pray would, in effect, be out
> of the class while it was happening.
Teachers can't do it because they are government employees, not private
individuals.
You'd extend that to the student not being able to pray because the
classroom is publically owned (very few classrooms are truly owned by the
government).
> Just curious: do you think that Satanists should be allowed to lead
> services at a
> football game?
Yes.
> Muslims?
Yes.
> Jews?
Yes.
> Zoroastrians?
Yes.
> Wiccans?
Yes.
> Native Americans?
This last one is still yes, but needs a special qualifier: ALL PUBLIC
SCHOOLS should be teaching Native American Religion because a large
percentage of our national culture is based upon it. More than the
European cultures that do not bathe daily. In ways that would astound
everybody.
Theodore M. Seeber
> "Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
>
> > > > > It is
> > > > > has to do with shortages of resources and contributions to pollution.
> > > >
> > > > No it doesn't. It has to do with particular leaders likeing money more
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > > than people. There is no true shortage of resources, we raise enough food
> > > > to feed another 2.5 billion more than our current population.
> > >
> > > Tell that to the billions of people living in cardboard shelters
> > > that can't get a job because there are none.
> >
> > A grand example of particular leaders liking money more than people.
> > It's perfectly possible for everybody in society to have a job. Just have
> > to put the money into education so that they know how to do something
> > worthwhile. But instead, the leaders fill their bank accounts and ignore
> > education spending.
>
> Whatever the case may be for a limit number of jobs, there are a
> limited number of jobs in this world and too many people that need
> one.
That "limited number" is only limited by the lack of immagination and
excess of greed on the part of industry.
It has NOTHING to do with the number of people available to work, and
everything to do with maiximazation of profit. Thus my statement above
holds true, that overpopulation is a myth designed to hide the misdeeds of
the upper class.
> > > > There's no
> > > > real pollution problem either, just an energy industry that's overly
> > > > dependant upon oil.
> > >
> > > Again, you need to go to Mexico city and drink from their rivers.
> >
> > Why would anybody want to drink from a river?
>
> Why would someone want to avoid the point to a sentence?
There was no point to that sentence. Let them dig a well, like the rest
of us have to.
> Their rivers are polluted from people going number 1 and 2
> in them and their businesses dumping their wastes practically
> unchecked.
Yes, which feeds the algae, which feeds the fish, which eventually works
it's way back up the food chain to feed the humans.
So once again, why would you want to interrupt the food chain? So more
people starve?
Remember, there is now a species of oyster in Los Angeles that REQUIRES
the output of a city that size to survive. Nature has it's way of
cleaning up these biohazards.
> > > After that come to Dallas and notice the nice inversion layer
> > > over our city on hot days.
> >
> > Overdependance on oil rather than a sustainable energy system.
>
> And this inversion layer is called....? Pollution.
And it's caused by.....Overdependance on oil.
> If you are suggesting it can be cleaned up, I agree.
Cleaning it up is worth nothing as long as you continue to use non-clean
sources of energy, like gasoline for your car. What's preventing you from
using clean sources of energy? GREED, one of the seven deadly sins in the
Bible.
> > > Detectors on a mountain in Hawaii have been measuring an
> > > increase in CO2 since the 50s. We have already raised the
> > > temperature of the earth 1 degree. Etc...
> >
> > Once again, overdependance on oil rather than a sustainable energy
> > system.
>
> I agree. Another example of pollution and it can be cleaned up.
And another example of OVERPOPULATION covering up the REAL PROBLEM, which
is greed.
> > Read what I write, then you won't look so stupid.
>
> Oh, another Christian that forgot to where his WWJD bracelet
> this morning.
Those bracelets have no Biblical or theological basis in historical
Christianity.
> > > You must have gone to another Mexico city. The one I know of
> > > has severely polluted rivers, masses of people living in cardboard
> > > boxes and on multi-year waiting lists to get a job.
> >
> > Yes, and they should leave.
>
> They are.
If they were, they'd be living in the forests like their mayan ancestors
did (and some still do!).
> > > This didn't come about until Reagan under pressure from the
> > > religious right 20 years ago cut off funding to planned parenthood
> > > and the citizens of Mexico City no longer received birth control.
> >
> > That isn't the problem. The problem is greedy rich people who think they
> > don't need to create jobs, or pay for education.
>
> No, the birth rate sky rocketed after Reagan pulled the plug on
> planned parenthood distributing birth control because the religious
> right didn't like the abortion counseling they were doing.
Which would have been an ecconomic boom in an earlier generation.
> These greedy people you speak of were there long before the
> population explosion that started in the early '80s.
Actually, no they weren't. At one time, we had something called the
obligation of the nobility to provide food, clothing, shelter, education,
medical care, and jobs for the people that worked for them.
> > > The bible
> > > says it's good to beat people and wound them.
> >
> > Ever hear of surgical hospitals?
>
> So you are suggesting that ancient Hebrew "doctors"
> performed surgery by beating their patients until they
> are wounded to "cleanse their innermost parts?"
Yes. Because they were cleansing a part that you apparently no longer
have: a conscience.
> Here is the pediatrics version:
>
> Prov 23:
> 13 Do not withhold discipline from your children; if you beat them
> with a rod, they will not die. 14 If you beat them with the rod, you
> will save their lives from Sheol.
Which is correct.
> Here is a house call:
> (Song 5:7 NRSV) Making their rounds in the city the sentinels found
> me; they beat me, they wounded me, they took away my mantle,
> those sentinels of the walls.
Or rather a "houseless" call. You'll find the police today in large
cities in America do this too.
> > > It says that women
> > > have inferior judgment to men because Eve was deceived and that
> > > women should not teach or have authority over a man, but should
> > > be silent and learn at home from their husbands.
> >
> > Actually, that's not what it says. Go back and read the WHOLE CHAPTER
> > sometime.
>
> Actually that's exactly what it says no matter how many times the
> chapter is read.
Then why did you leave out the part about what husbands are supposed to
do?
> > > The bible says to kill your loved ones if they worship the wrong
> > > god. It also says to kill children who are disrespectful.
> >
> > Better than locking them away to rot in jail.
>
> As far as I know there are few laws which jail people for
> worshipping the wrong god, at least in the US.
Oh? Try not worshiping money sometime and see where you end up.
> In theocracies
> however, that could be a different story.
This is a theocracy, a theocracy of mammon.
> Also people in the US aren't jailed for being disrespectful to
> their parents.
Apparently you somehow missed the prisons for children? Where do gang
members end up?
> > > It mentions that beating children with a rod is good for them.
> >
> > It is.
>
> In the US it's called parental abuse.
Which is why the US is full of people who disrespect the law.
> > Which is the correct point of view, and one practiced by American Business
> > today.
>
> So you are saying that American business' have slaves that they
> strike and kill and they aren't punished if they don't die right away?
Yes. They're called blue collar workers.
> > Apples and oranges. Sperm and eggs apart are no more alive than the cells
> > you scratch out of your ears.
>
> Of course sperm and egg cells are alive.
But will not survive unless they come together, and will eventually be
shedded or reabsorbed.
> > A fertilized egg, however, has become
> > something different. It has a different genetic code than either the
> > sperm alone or the egg alone. It has a different genetic code than the
> > mother. And it is alive. And it is a child. Just a very very very small
> > one.
>
> No, it's just a cell with the same genetic code that billions of other cells
> will have if it develops into a baby.
But NOT THE SAME GENTIC CODE AS THE PARENT.
> It is estimated that 1/2 of all fertilized eggs never attach to the womb
> lining and are discharged from the woman naturally. Are you suggesting
> that 1/2 of all babies are naturally aborted?
Yes.
> Should we give these cells
> proper funerals?
Parents who have miscarriages do. My wife and I had such a funeral three
days ago.
> Are the majority of heaven's inhabitants naturally
> aborted fertilized eggs?
Heaven? No. As the atheists tell us, that's the natural state. They
missed out on life, and as the Tibetan Buddhists tell us, atheists get
another chance to get the point.
> > > > You can't get along with a man who's to hyped up on drugs to get along.
> > >
> > > I guess that's an example of your's of an "evil" person?
> >
> > No. Just a symptom of society gone wrong.
>
> I thought we were talking about the black and white evil and good
> world of Christians?
No, that's what YOU were talking about.
I was talking about ways to improve society.
> > > Ok, I'll play...According to today's more enlightened thinking, a person that
> > > owns a slave is not very nice.
> >
> > Yet there are still slave owners today. We call them businessmen.
> > The only difference is that the slave owners of old had to pay enough for
> > room, board and medical care. The slave owners today get away with
> > "minimum wage", which is much less.
>
> A slave is someone who has no choice in the matter there fore
> people who choose to work for a particular company are not
> slaves.
What makes you think you have a choice to work for a particular
company? Besides, all companies in the United States are owned by the
same class of society anyway. If not directly, then through investments
and bank loans.
> > > > Also, what makes you think you are not a slave today?
> > >
> > > I guess you must be referring to an invisible satan?
> >
> > Nope. I'm refering to a government that sustains an ecconomic system
> > where if you don't work, you don't eat.
>
> I'm not a slave.
That's what you think.
> I could go live on an island and eat coconuts and
> fish if I want.
Ever try it? All the islands in the world are owned by somebody,
especially the tropical ones. Trying this is a grand way to get yourself
thrown in jail for tresspassing.
> I could go into the woods and live off of the land if I
> choose.
Once again, ever tried it? They hunt you down these days, unless you
first BUY THE WOODS.
> Many people do this around the world.
Actually, a vanishingly small percentage do. Being a hermit is just not
as easy as it used to be.
> > Wrong. Under current US Law, you have the ability to APPEAR to be free,
> > including hurting others, BUT YOU ARE NOT FREE NOT TO WORK,
>
> I most certainly am free to not work in this country.
Once again, ever try it? Soon as you run out of money, you'll be thrown
in jail for trying it.
> > NOR ARE YOU
> > TRULY FREE TO DO ANYTHING YOU WANT.
>
> Agreed, but I can do most anything I want as long as I don't
> harm others in some way. There are trivial exceptions, but
> nothing that keeps me awake at night.
In other words, you're comfortable with your slavery.
> > All of which I've been through before, and all of which can be shown to be
> > a severe lack of understanding of the culture at the time that book of the
> > Bible was written.
> > But such people aren't interested in Truth, only in freedom.
>
> Well that wraps it up with a bow doesn't it?
Not much of one.
> No need to think about
> them, they just can't exist or possibly what you (and I used to)
> believe isn't true.
No, they exist all right. They are the cause of evil in this world.
John LaVoy
"Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
>
> This must be a difference between the majority of the population and
> hackers like myself. If I'm concentrating on something else, you could be
> blowing out my eardrums with a loudspeaker and I'd never actually hear
> what was being broadcast at me.
This is disingenuous. We aren't talking about adults focusing on inherently, to them,
fascinating subjects. We are talking about juveniles at a football game, where some
sort of pre-game event, such as the national anthem, is amost always in evidence.
> > > Where do you see the word "from" in the first amendment is my point. You
> > > are NOT free from having religion being preached at you, you are free from
> > > having the government tell ANYBODY which religion to preach.
> >
> > Exactly my point, and thank you for agreeing.
>
> Did you read the first half of the sentence?
Way to pick up on the irony. The first and second parts of your statement are at odds.
> > When the government's loudspeaker is
> > used to blast the prayer out, the government
> > is indeed telling me which religion
> > has the official stamp of approval.
>
> Texas must fund their football fields on school grounds differently than
> Oregon does.
I have no idea what this means. If it is school owned and/or sponsored, it is a
government affiliated event. The entire case was predicated on the fact that the
loudspeaker system was the government's. I would consider further that the mere fact
of it being a school event makes sanctioned prayer inappropriate.
>
> > If you want to park off the school grounds and
> > set up a loudspeaker, you are free to do so...
> > but you can't use the government to
> > pass out your message for you.
>
> Interesting idea. So the government is involved in the message of the
> software if their hardware is used?
> Isn't that a little like blaming Intel for errors found in Windows?
Not at all. If anyone is confusing anything it is you confusing private and public
entities. I assume you are trying to disassociate the content of a message from the
mechanism used to deliver a message. In some cases they can be separated, but in some
they can not be separated, especially when the government is involved and the issue is
religion. Such cases are different precisely because there is constitutional language
making them special.
> Sounds to me like your idea of "free exercise" needs to get CAUSE and
> EFFECT straightened out first.
Please. How do you see this as a cause effect problem?
>
> > > Which is why I said that the Supreme Court is incompetant and
> > > corrupt: They're adding to the text of the constitution without any real
> > > power to do so.
> >
> > They are interpreting the constitution to the best of their ability.
>
> And if they're making basic errors in cause and effect as you've shown
> above, no wonder they are misreading it.
You will have to try harder to explain this. And even if you are correct in terms of
competence, which I deny, what does corruption have to do with it?
> > One of their
> > roles, like it or not, is to interpret the Constitution as it must
> > apply in the
> > modern world.
>
> But it is not within their role to ADD WORDS TO THE CONSTITUTION TO DO SO.
They aren't ADDING WORDS. THey are interpreting language. I am a frim believer in teh
second amendment, but just becuase it says people have the right to keep and bear arms
I do not interpret this to mean that people have the right to keep and bear nuclear
weapons, even though a literal interpretation could imply exactly that.
> > Thye are not incompetent. You might think they are wrong, but there
> > is certainly ample support for thier decisions on teh this issue.
>
> Ample support for stupidity, perhaps, and for confusing the equipment with
> the idea.
> One could make a case for not being able to do soap box speeches on
> religion in public parks based on your reasoning.
One could. I doubt it would be successful, but it certainly is possible. One of the
differences would be that those people in the park are no there for a specific
government sponsored event, but that might not matter to the SCOTUS.
> > > > > > I have a right to free speech, unless that speech infringes on another's
> > > > > > rights.
> > > > >
> > > > > I see no such limitation in the constitution.
> > > >
> > > > Its in pretty much the same place where the Supreme Court sees it.
> > >
> > > In other words, not at all.
> >
> > Not at all not at all.
>
> Shall we examine the actual words of the document?
>
> > The SCOTUS has never ruled that anybody can't preach, but
> > they have consistently ruled that the mechanism
> > of government can't be a conduit
> > for their preaching. That's all.
>
> In other words, they're screwing up the cause. The "mechanism of
> government" isn't actually doing anything. The person making the speech
> is.
>
> One would think you couldn't preach in public parks, because the
> government owns the park.
>
> Rediculous on it's face, incompetant in it's creation.
Once again you've lost me. As I said, one might be able to curtail preaching in public
parks, though I doubt it would be successful. And again, I suggest it is disingenuous
to think that allowing a dominant majority to use government mechanisms to preach their
particualr religion does not imply support for that religion. To extend your own
metaphor: if Windows were reprogrammed to display JESUS SAVES as the only possible
screen saver, I would feel pretty certain that MS was supporting Christianity, even if
it were just a result of a few Windows customers asking nicely if Bill would set it up
that way.
>
> > > Only because, like the Supreme Court, you like to add words to the first
> > > ammendment:
> > > Amendment I (1791)
> > >
> > > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
> > > religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
> > > abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
> > > right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
> > > the government for a redress of grievances.
> > >
> > > WHERE IN THAT PARAGRAPH DOES IT SAY THAT PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS ARE NOT
> > > ALLOWED TO PREACH?
> >
> > I repeat, this makes no sense.
>
> You said above that the private individuals could not preach using
> government hardware (mechanisms). Where is that in the first ammendment?
Actually, there isn't anything in the Constitution about loudspeakers at all, so I
guess they are out? The Constitution, thank god, can be interpreted. If it couldn't
be interpreted, then I dare say we would have folded a long time ago. It is the fact
that the constitution is on the critical edge between practicality and morality that
keeps it alive. Too practical, and it would be a communist manifesto; too moral and it
would become a religion itself. The constant tug back and forth is what makes America
great.
You are confusing the whole with the part. Because one thing is not prohibited in
certain cases, you appear to be infer that that same thing is not prohibited in any
case. People preach all the time. Just like kids pray in school all the time. No one
is preventing them from exercising their religion. If the state of Alabama built a
very nice little chapel, decorated it with all sorts of Christian artifacts, and then
claimed they weren't establishing a religion because anybody could go in an pray to
whatever God they wanted, they wouldn't be violating the BOR? After all, what people
do in there is up to them?
> > No one is saying people can't preach: the comment
> > was that people can't force others to listen to it.
>
> I'm sorry, I see nothing in the first Ammendment about private individuals
> not being able to force other private individuals to listen to their free
> speech.
>
> In fact, it specifically states that the government can't make laws to
> prevent it.
Exactly, once again. The case in point is that it wasn't just obnoxious proselytizing,
ti was government aided obnoxious proselytizing. This is what you can't do...use the
government to further your particular religion.
> I do not see that anywhere in the first ammendment.
"A foolish constancy is the hobgoblin of a little mind." One of my mother's favorite
chestnuts.
> > That is what the law has always been,
>
> Only since 1935 or so.
The law has always been there. Interpreted since whenever is your point.
> > i.e. teachers
> > can't lead prayers because those who didn't want
> > to pray would, in effect, be out
> > of the class while it was happening.
>
> Teachers can't do it because they are government employees, not private
> individuals.
What's the difference? In other cases you make no distinction. After all, aren't
government employees free to speak their minds, say what they want? It doesn't say in
the Constitution that the people are free to speak unless they are government
employees, does it?
> You'd extend that to the student not being able to pray because the
> classroom is publically owned (very few classrooms are truly owned by the
> government).
I have already extended it to mean that students can't stand up in class and lead a
prayer. And I have no problem with that. No student anywhere is prevented from
praying, only from using the governments resources to make other people pray as well.
(snip a lot of agreeing)... At least you are consistent.
Rockett Crawford
"Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2000, Rockett Crawford wrote:
>
> > "Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
> >>
> > Whatever the case may be for a limit number of jobs, there are a
> > limited number of jobs in this world and too many people that need
> > one.
>
> That "limited number" is only limited by the lack of immagination and
> excess of greed on the part of industry.
>
> It has NOTHING to do with the number of people available to work, and
> everything to do with maiximazation of profit. Thus my statement above
> holds true, that overpopulation is a myth designed to hide the misdeeds of
> the upper class.
Ok, for your sake, I won't call it overpopulation, I'll call it many more people
than jobs in the world.
>
> > > > > There's no
> > > > > real pollution problem either, just an energy industry that's overly
> > > > > dependant upon oil.
> > > >
> > > > Again, you need to go to Mexico city and drink from their rivers.
> > >
> > > Why would anybody want to drink from a river?
> >
> > Why would someone want to avoid the point to a sentence?
>
> There was no point to that sentence. Let them dig a well, like the rest
> of us have to.
>
> > Their rivers are polluted from people going number 1 and 2
> > in them and their businesses dumping their wastes practically
> > unchecked.
>
> Yes, which feeds the algae, which feeds the fish, which eventually works
> it's way back up the food chain to feed the humans.
First, I hope the toxins being dumped into Mexico City's river don't work
their way up any food chain. Secondly it would be nice if nature could
be given a chance to break the human waste down before they have
to wash their cloths, bath, and drink from it, but unfortunately because
of the widespread poverty caused by overpopulation that is both their
water supply and toilet.
> So once again, why would you want to interrupt the food chain? So more
> people starve?
So do you drink and eat from your toilet after every use? Why interrupt the food
chain?
> Remember, there is now a species of oyster in Los Angeles that REQUIRES
> the output of a city that size to survive. Nature has it's way of
> cleaning up these biohazards.
It depends on how confined the hazard is, the nature of it, and how long it takes
to be broken down. 1 hour ago probably isn't going to be good enough.
> > > After that come to Dallas and notice the nice inversion layer
> > > > over our city on hot days.
> > >
> > > Overdependance on oil rather than a sustainable energy system.
> >
> > And this inversion layer is called....? Pollution.
>
> And it's caused by.....Overdependance on oil.
And you were claiming pollution didn't exist.
> > If you are suggesting it can be cleaned up, I agree.
>
> Cleaning it up is worth nothing as long as you continue to use non-clean
> sources of energy, like gasoline for your car.
I guess flushing my toilet doesn't do any good as long as I keep
filling it again does it?
> What's preventing you from using clean sources of energy?
> GREED, one of the seven deadly sins in the
> Bible.
Preach on brother, I'm all for cleaning up pollution.
> > > > Detectors on a mountain in Hawaii have been measuring an
> > > > increase in CO2 since the 50s. We have already raised the
> > > > temperature of the earth 1 degree. Etc...
> > >
> > > Once again, overdependance on oil rather than a sustainable energy
> > > system.
> >
> > I agree. Another example of pollution and it can be cleaned up.
>
> And another example of OVERPOPULATION covering up the REAL PROBLEM, which
> is greed.
Whatever the cause, it is pollution and it will probably bite us
if we don't take care of it. I think we might be on the same
side on this.
> > > Read what I write, then you won't look so stupid.
> >
> > Oh, another Christian that forgot to where his WWJD bracelet
> > this morning.
>
> Those bracelets have no Biblical or theological basis in historical
> Christianity.
So you don't believe in trying to be Christ-like or any of that
being a good witness to the world stuff?
>
> > > > This didn't come about until Reagan under pressure from the
> > > > religious right 20 years ago cut off funding to planned parenthood
> > > > and the citizens of Mexico City no longer received birth control.
> > >
> > > That isn't the problem. The problem is greedy rich people who think they
> > > don't need to create jobs, or pay for education.
> >
> > No, the birth rate sky rocketed after Reagan pulled the plug on
> > planned parenthood distributing birth control because the religious
> > right didn't like the abortion counseling they were doing.
>
> Which would have been an ecconomic boom in an earlier generation.
Oh, well that's their problem isn't it? Too many people and not
enough jobs? Just as long as they don't perform abortions right?
>
> > These greedy people you speak of were there long before the
> > population explosion that started in the early '80s.
>
> Actually, no they weren't. At one time, we had something called the
> obligation of the nobility to provide food, clothing, shelter, education,
> medical care, and jobs for the people that worked for them.
They do, there just isn't enough jobs for people down there
thanks to the Religious right of the US. Even the Catholic
priests were looking the other way back when planned
parenthood was getting women contraceptives.
>
> > > > The bible
> > > > says it's good to beat people and wound them.
> > >
> > > Ever hear of surgical hospitals?
> >
> > So you are suggesting that ancient Hebrew "doctors"
> > performed surgery by beating their patients until they
> > are wounded to "cleanse their innermost parts?"
>
> Yes. Because they were cleansing a part that you apparently no longer
> have: a conscience.
They were advocating beating people to the point of wounding them
and actually applauding the wounding.
>
> > Here is the pediatrics version:
> >
> > Prov 23:
> > 13 Do not withhold discipline from your children; if you beat them
> > with a rod, they will not die. 14 If you beat them with the rod, you
> > will save their lives from Sheol.
>
> Which is correct.
Hitting children with rods has become child abuse in our more
enlightened society.
> > Here is a house call:
> > (Song 5:7 NRSV) Making their rounds in the city the sentinels found
> > me; they beat me, they wounded me, they took away my mantle,
> > those sentinels of the walls.
>
> Or rather a "houseless" call. You'll find the police today in large
> cities in America do this too.
I suppose you think that's a swell thing too?
My point is that when they were talking about beating and wounding,
they weren't talking about curing an illness.
> > > > It says that women
> > > > have inferior judgment to men because Eve was deceived and that
> > > > women should not teach or have authority over a man, but should
> > > > be silent and learn at home from their husbands.
> > >
> > > Actually, that's not what it says. Go back and read the WHOLE CHAPTER
> > > sometime.
> >
> > Actually that's exactly what it says no matter how many times the
> > chapter is read.
>
> Then why did you leave out the part about what husbands are supposed to
> do?
Because it says nothing about the husband having inferior judgment or
it being a shame for a man to speak in church, that a man should not
teach or have authority over a woman, or that they should learn at home, etc...
> > > > The bible says to kill your loved ones if they worship the wrong
> > > > god. It also says to kill children who are disrespectful.
> > >
> > > Better than locking them away to rot in jail.
> >
> > As far as I know there are few laws which jail people for
> > worshipping the wrong god, at least in the US.
>
> Oh? Try not worshiping money sometime and see where you end up.
I'm not sure where you are going with this not worshipping money
getting you thrown into jail business, but I'll save some time and
just assert that most people would rather spend time in jail than be
killed.
> > In theocracies
> > however, that could be a different story.
>
> This is a theocracy, a theocracy of mammon.
You must be talking about Pat Robertson or
other TV preachers constantly begging for dollars.
Then there are churches who are not too keen on the
dietary laws of the OT, but they like the tithing law.
> > Also people in the US aren't jailed for being disrespectful to
> > their parents.
>
> Apparently you somehow missed the prisons for children? Where do gang
> members end up?
Where people who commit crimes should end up. They don't
go there however for not saying "mam" or "sir."
>
> > > > It mentions that beating children with a rod is good for them.
> > >
> > > It is.
> >
> > In the US it's called parental abuse.
>
> Which is why the US is full of people who disrespect the law.
No, that would be people who are abused or neglected as children.
Beating children with a rod is child abuse.
>
> > > Which is the correct point of view, and one practiced by American Business
> > > today.
> >
> > So you are saying that American business' have slaves that they
> > strike and kill and they aren't punished if they don't die right away?
>
> Yes. They're called blue collar workers.
I haven't been struck lately by my CO and non of my coworkers
have died recently at his hands. He's actually a pretty nice guy.
> > > Apples and oranges. Sperm and eggs apart are no more alive than the cells
> > > you scratch out of your ears.
> >
> > Of course sperm and egg cells are alive.
>
> But will not survive unless they come together, and will eventually be
> shedded or reabsorbed.
Same thing with 1/2 of the fertilized eggs that don't adhere to the
womb lining.
> > > A fertilized egg, however, has become
> > > something different. It has a different genetic code than either the
> > > sperm alone or the egg alone. It has a different genetic code than the
> > > mother. And it is alive. And it is a child. Just a very very very small
> > > one.
> >
> > No, it's just a cell with the same genetic code that billions of other cells
> > will have if it develops into a baby.
>
> But NOT THE SAME GENTIC CODE AS THE PARENT.
My skins cells don't have the same genetic code as my parent,
but they are not unborn children.
It has shown they could be by removing their genetic material
and implanting it into and egg which has had it's genetic material
removed. It can then be grown into a human fetus and eventually
a baby.
> > It is estimated that 1/2 of all fertilized eggs never attach to the womb
> > lining and are discharged from the woman naturally. Are you suggesting
> > that 1/2 of all babies are naturally aborted?
>
> Yes.
>
> > Should we give these cells
> > proper funerals?
>
> Parents who have miscarriages do. My wife and I had such a funeral three
> days ago.
If a fertilized egg is ejected because it didn't attach to your
wife's womb, should you fish it out of the toilet and put it in
a little casket and give it a funeral as well?
If so you are going to be morning a lot of "unborn children"
in you life.
>
> > Are the majority of heaven's inhabitants naturally
> > aborted fertilized eggs?
>
> Heaven? No. As the atheists tell us, that's the natural state. They
> missed out on life, and as the Tibetan Buddhists tell us, atheists get
> another chance to get the point.
Avoiding the question? Does your brand of Christianity believe in
special dispensation for children?
> > > > Ok, I'll play...According to today's more enlightened thinking, a person that
> > > > owns a slave is not very nice.
> > >
> > > Yet there are still slave owners today. We call them businessmen.
> > > The only difference is that the slave owners of old had to pay enough for
> > > room, board and medical care. The slave owners today get away with
> > > "minimum wage", which is much less.
> >
> > A slave is someone who has no choice in the matter there fore
> > people who choose to work for a particular company are not
> > slaves.
>
> What makes you think you have a choice to work for a particular
> company? Besides, all companies in the United States are owned by the
> same class of society anyway. If not directly, then through investments
> and bank loans.
You need to consult a dictionary on the definition of slavery.
> > > > > Also, what makes you think you are not a slave today?
> > > >
> > > > I guess you must be referring to an invisible satan?
> > >
> > > Nope. I'm refering to a government that sustains an ecconomic system
> > > where if you don't work, you don't eat.
> >
> > I'm not a slave.
>
> That's what you think.
No, that's what the dictionary says. For slavery, see
the German concentration camps of WWII or the
US South before the late 1800s, or the bible.
> > I could go into the woods and live off of the land if I
> > choose.
>
> Once again, ever tried it? They hunt you down these days, unless you
> first BUY THE WOODS.
Right.
> > Many people do this around the world.
>
> Actually, a vanishingly small percentage do. Being a hermit is just not
> as easy as it used to be.
>
> > > Wrong. Under current US Law, you have the ability to APPEAR to be free,
> > > including hurting others, BUT YOU ARE NOT FREE NOT TO WORK,
> >
> > I most certainly am free to not work in this country.
>
> Once again, ever try it?
> Soon as you run out of money, you'll be thrown
> in jail for trying it.
I really don't feel like going to the mat on this. I do
work and I enjoy my job. If you want to make some
kind of self styled definition of slave that covers that
to rescue the bible, fine. I don't agree that I am a
slave.
> > > NOR ARE YOU
> > > TRULY FREE TO DO ANYTHING YOU WANT.
> >
> > Agreed, but I can do most anything I want as long as I don't
> > harm others in some way. There are trivial exceptions, but
> > nothing that keeps me awake at night.
>
> In other words, you're comfortable with your slavery.
Again, I would suggest a decent dictionary rather than
a rationalization to attempt to save the bible from looking
like a book that condones slavery (which it is).
> > > All of which I've been through before, and all of which can be shown to be
> > > a severe lack of understanding of the culture at the time that book of the
> > > Bible was written.
> > > But such people aren't interested in Truth, only in freedom.
> >
> > Well that wraps it up with a bow doesn't it?
>
> Not much of one.
>
> > No need to think about
> > them, they just can't exist or possibly what you (and I used to)
> > believe isn't true.
>
> No, they exist all right. They are the cause of evil in this world.
The problems with the bible do exist. Another problem is the need
to rationalize them away to continue the psychological benefits
of imaging Yahweh as a forgiving father figure and how that
affects one's logic when dealing with the real world.
Theodore M. Seeber
> "Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
>
> > This must be a difference between the majority of the population and
> > hackers like myself. If I'm concentrating on something else, you could be
> > blowing out my eardrums with a loudspeaker and I'd never actually hear
> > what was being broadcast at me.
>
> This is disingenuous.
Is it?
> We aren't talking about adults focusing on inherently, to them,
> fascinating subjects.
And in turn, blocking out non-fascinating subjects.
> We are talking about juveniles at a football game, where some
> sort of pre-game event, such as the national anthem,
> is amost always in evidence.
And was usually utterly blocked by hormones for me. Cheerleaders were FAR
more interesting than paying attention to pre-game stuff.
> > > > Where do you see the word "from" in the first amendment is my point. You
> > > > are NOT free from having religion being preached at you, you are free from
> > > > having the government tell ANYBODY which religion to preach.
> > >
> > > Exactly my point, and thank you for agreeing.
> >
> > Did you read the first half of the sentence?
>
> Way to pick up on the irony. The first and second parts
> of your statement are at odds.
No they're not. The first is utterly required by the second.
> > Texas must fund their football fields on school grounds differently than
> > Oregon does.
>
> I have no idea what this means. If it is school owned and/or sponsored,
And usually isn't in Oregon, especially since Measure 5 went into effect
cutting out tax money for after school programs. These days, it's more
likly that the football field is paid for and maintained by the parents.
> it is a
> government affiliated event. The entire case was predicated on
> the fact that the
> loudspeaker system was the government's.
See below on hardware vs software.
> I would consider further that
> the mere fact
> of it being a school event makes sanctioned prayer inappropriate.
Also, I would not look upon a football game as a "school event".
> > > If you want to park off the school grounds and
> > > set up a loudspeaker, you are free to do so...
> > > but you can't use the government to
> > > pass out your message for you.
> >
> > Interesting idea. So the government is involved in the message of the
> > software if their hardware is used?
> > Isn't that a little like blaming Intel for errors found in Windows?
>
> Not at all. If anyone is confusing anything it is you
> confusing private and public
> entities.
What makes you think that?
> I assume you are trying to disassociate the
> content of a message from the
> mechanism used to deliver a message.
They are two entirely separate things, always.
> In some cases they can be separated, but in some
> they can not be separated, especially when the
> government is involved and the issue is
> religion.
Only if you want to prevent free speech.
> Such cases are different precisely because there is constitutional
> language
> making them special.
Really? Where in the constitution is the word "mechanism" used?
> > Sounds to me like your idea of "free exercise" needs to get CAUSE and
> > EFFECT straightened out first.
>
> Please. How do you see this as a cause effect problem?
The cause is not the loudspeaker. The cause is the student's federally
protected free speech.
> > > > Which is why I said that the Supreme Court is incompetant and
> > > > corrupt: They're adding to the text of the constitution without
> > > > any real
> > > > power to do so.
> > >
> > > They are interpreting the constitution to the best of their ability.
> >
> > And if they're making basic errors in cause and effect as you've shown
> > above, no wonder they are misreading it.
>
> You will have to try harder to explain this.
I will, below.
> And even if you are
> correct in terms of
> competence, which I deny, what does corruption have to do with it?
The taking of powers from one branch of government and giving them to
another branch of government.
> > > One of their
> > > roles, like it or not, is to interpret the Constitution as it must
> > > apply in the
> > > modern world.
> >
> > But it is not within their role to ADD WORDS TO THE CONSTITUTION TO DO SO.
>
> They aren't ADDING WORDS.
Then where does it say that free speech cannot use a government owned
mechanism?
> They are interpreting language. I am a frim believer in the
> second amendment, but just becuase it says people have the right
> to keep and bear arms
> I do not interpret this to mean that people have the right to keep
> and bear nuclear
> weapons, even though a literal interpretation could imply exactly that.
Actually a literal interpretation doesn't support the people, by
themselves, doing anything other than joining publicly owned militias,
like the National Guard.
> > Ample support for stupidity, perhaps, and for confusing the equipment with
> > the idea.
> > One could make a case for not being able to do soap box speeches on
> > religion in public parks based on your reasoning.
>
> One could. I doubt it would be successful, but it certainly is possible.
Which is why the whole argument is rediculous.
> One of the
> differences would be that those people in the
> park are no there for a specific
> government sponsored event, but that might not matter to the SCOTUS.
Government sponsored events happen in parks all the time. Heck, given
your idea, granting permission to a church to have a service in a park
would make it a government sponsored event.
> > In other words, they're screwing up the cause. The "mechanism of
> > government" isn't actually doing anything. The person making the speech
> > is.
> >
> > One would think you couldn't preach in public parks, because the
> > government owns the park.
> >
> > Rediculous on it's face, incompetant in it's creation.
>
> Once again you've lost me. As I said, one might be able
> to curtail preaching in public
> parks, though I doubt it would be successful.
It's the logical conclusion of the argument you gave above.
> And again, I suggest it is disingenuous
> to think that allowing a dominant majority to use government
> mechanisms to preach their
> particualr religion does not imply support for that religion.
Where is the word mechanisms in the constitution?
> To extend your own
> metaphor: if Windows were reprogrammed to display
> JESUS SAVES as the only possible
> screen saver, I would feel pretty certain that MS was supporting
> Christianity, even if
> it were just a result of a few Windows customers asking nicely
> if Bill would set it up
> that way.
It's more like, if the local user reprogrammed the Marquee screen saver to
display "JESUS SAVES", you'd feel pretty certain that MS was supporting
Christianity, even if MS knew nothing about it, merely because MS did
nothing to prevent it.
The trouble is, the 1st ammendment specifically requires Congress NEVER do
ANYTHING to prevent it.
> > > > Only because, like the Supreme Court, you like to add words to the first
> > > > ammendment:
> > > > Amendment I (1791)
> > > >
> > > > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
> > > > religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
> > > > abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
> > > > right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
> > > > the government for a redress of grievances.
> > > >
> > > > WHERE IN THAT PARAGRAPH DOES IT SAY THAT PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS ARE NOT
> > > > ALLOWED TO PREACH?
> > >
> > > I repeat, this makes no sense.
> >
> > You said above that the private individuals could not preach using
> > government hardware (mechanisms). Where is that in the first ammendment?
>
> Actually, there isn't anything in the Constitution about loudspeakers at all,
> so I
> guess they are out?
Leave out loudspeakers for a moment, put in Mechanisms instead.
> The Constitution, thank god, can be interpreted.
In this case, it's being interpreted to be entirely contradictory to the
following clause, taken from the first ammendment:
> > > > religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
> > > > abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
> > > > right of the people peaceably to assemble,
> If it couldn't
> be interpreted, then I dare say we would have folded a long time ago.
> It is the fact
> that the constitution is on the critical edge between practicality
> and morality that
> keeps it alive. Too practical, and it would be a communist manifesto;
> too moral and it
> would become a religion itself. The constant tug back and forth is what
> makes America
> great.
I still want to know where it says that government mechanisms cannot be
used for religion. To say that is to ADD WORDS TO THE DOCUMENT, not
merely interpret.
> You are confusing the whole with the part.
> Because one thing is not prohibited in
> certain cases, you appear to be infer that
> that same thing is not prohibited in any
> case. People preach all the time.
Rather, I am saying that the Government interfering with religious speech
in ANY WAY, is going against the prohibition in the 1st Amendment against
the government interfering with religious speech.
> Just like kids pray in school all the time. No one
> is preventing them from exercising their religion.
Except, apparently, when they are "using government mechanisms", like
standing on government soil in school.
> If the state of Alabama built a
> very nice little chapel, decorated it with all
> sorts of Christian artifacts, and then
> claimed they weren't establishing a religion
> because anybody could go in an pray to
> whatever God they wanted, they wouldn't be violating the BOR?
No, because the only governmental body prohibited from establishing a
religion in the Federal Bill of Rights is the Federal Congress.
It might be against their State Constitution, but that's another matter
entirely, and is a freedom granted by the 10th Ammendment of the Bill of
Rights.
> After all, what people
> do in there is up to them?
Exactly right.
> > I'm sorry, I see nothing in the first Ammendment about private individuals
> > not being able to force other private individuals to listen to their free
> > speech.
> >
> > In fact, it specifically states that the government can't make laws to
> > prevent it.
>
> Exactly, once again.
> The case in point is that it wasn't just obnoxious proselytizing,
> ti was government aided obnoxious proselytizing.
No it wasn't. And it certainly wasn't Congressional Aided obnoxious
proselytizing, because it was a LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
> This is what you can't do...use the
> government to further your particular religion.
Where do you see the word "government" in the first Ammendment? Only in
the last line, and only then as an example of a valid use of FREE SPEECH.
> > > > Amendment I (1791)
> > > >
> > > > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
> > > > religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
> > > > abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
> > > > right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
> > > > the government for a redress of grievances.
CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW. Not government in general, CONGRESS. Of
course, earlier in the document we find that Congress is the only Federal
Body who is able to make law.
Not SCOTUS. Only Congress. And that's my problem here. By adding words
like "mechanism", they're making new law.
> > I do not see that anywhere in the first ammendment.
>
> "A foolish constancy is the hobgoblin of a little mind." One of my mother's favorite
> chestnuts.
Which is a part of your religion, and federally protected, even though you
just used a Federally owned network to broadcast it.
> > > That is what the law has always been,
> >
> > Only since 1935 or so.
>
> The law has always been there. Interpreted since whenever is your point.
Yep. And in that "interpretation", by using words like "mechanism" that
didn't exist in the original, SCOTUS is creating new law.
> > > i.e. teachers
> > > can't lead prayers because those who didn't want
> > > to pray would, in effect, be out
> > > of the class while it was happening.
> >
> > Teachers can't do it because they are government employees, not private
> > individuals.
>
> What's the difference?
The difference is where their paycheck comes from.
> In other cases you make no distinction.
What other cases? The case I'm concerened with was a student, a private
individual, reading a prepared speech that happened to include a prayer.
> After all, aren't
> government employees free to speak their minds, say what they want?
Actually, no.
> It doesn't say in
> the Constitution that the people are free to speak unless they are government
> employees, does it?
It actually does. If they're employed in carrying out the laws enacted by
Congress (and teachers are), then they most certainly are prevented from
doing all the things Congress is.
Which is also, BTW, why the Supreme Court should have never heard this
case.
> > You'd extend that to the student not being able to pray because the
> > classroom is publically owned (very few classrooms are truly owned by the
> > government).
>
> I have already extended it to mean that
> students can't stand up in class and lead a
> prayer. And I have no problem with that.
> No student anywhere is prevented from
> praying, only from using the governments resources
> to make other people pray as well.
And I hold that even if the student is "leading" prayer, he isn't forceing
anybody to listen....the kid with the spitball and straw has EXACTLY THE
SAME free speech rights as the kid reading the prayer.
The government doesn't have the right to censor either student.
> (snip a lot of agreeing)... At least you are consistent.
Too bad SCOTUS isn't.
George Spelvin
> > No public school has any authority to teach morality. Legal theory is a
> > valid class, but not morals.
>
> Without morals, legal theory is bullshit. Morality is the BASIS for legal
> theory.
I believe you are confusing morals with ethics.
> > > Except the Supreme Court, in case you missed the last case of it.
> > >
> > > A high school football team in Texas voluntarily was saying a prayer
> > > before every game. Together. Led by a student, not the coach.
> >
> > Over the loud speaker.
>
> So what? What's wrong with that?
According to the Supreme Court, in Sante Fe Independent School District
vs. Doe student led prayers over the public address system violated the
Establishment Clause. It amounts to the school sanctioning a particular
religion.
There's nothing wrong with it if you are an intollerant Christian.
> > Furthermore, such a situtation, while exercising religion, also creates
> > a situtation whereby others are placed in the position of having to
> > exercise that religion.
>
> How so? Does the loudspeaker have a component that injects thoughts into
> the brain? What's to prevent one from simply thinking to themselves "this
> is bullshit, I think I'll go to the concessions stand and get a hot dog"?
If you had to carry a driver's license saying "Praise Allah," you might
feel differently.
If you were subjected to Jewish prayers in every government office you
entered, you might feel differently.
Of course we aren't talking about injecting thoughts, we are talking
about establishing a religious practice.
And I fail to see what God or any religion has to do with a football
game.
> > If you have a right to exercise your religion,
> > I have a right not to.
>
> Why? Where do you see that in the constitution?
The first amendment.
> > I have a right to free speech, unless that speech infringes on another's
> > rights.
>
> I see no such limitation in the constitution.
If my speech endangers another person's rights (e.g., yelling "fire" in
a crowded theatre).
You don't have the right to peacefully assemble on my property without
permission.
The Constitution doesn't prioritize rights. That's up to us (to the
Supreme Court actually).
> > You have a right to practice your religion, but not to force me
> > to do so.
>
> Not according to the constitution.
Where does the Constitution give you leave to force me to practice your
religion?
> > > You can't discuss religion in school. The teacher mentioning even the
> > > vaguest religious terms will get a lawsuit from the atheists.
> >
> > Tell that to the faculty of the departments of religious studies at the
> > various state universities.
>
> State universities in my state do NOT have religious studies. They were
> removed after a 1985 lawsuit.
Well they exist and thrive in my state.
Just for the sake of evidence, what state do you live in? I'll bet I
can show you otherwise.
*George Spelvin*
George Spelvin
you are free from
> having the government tell ANYBODY which religion to preach.
And when an arm of the government (public school) preaches Christianity
(or any other religion), that is a violation of the Constitution.
Period. That's what the Court said, that's what everyone who can read
the Constitution says.
I am free from having the government preach a religion to me.
>
> > > > If you have a right to exercise your religion,
> > > > I have a right not to.
> > >
> > > Why? Where do you see that in the constitution?
> >
> > Same place the Supreme Court saw it.
>
> Which is why I said that the Supreme Court is incompetant and
> corrupt: They're adding to the text of the constitution without any real
> power to do so.
There's a convenient retort. If you can't logically argue against it,
just accuse the Court of corruptness.
I think you are corrupt for supporting the establishment of religion by
an arm of the government.
> WHERE IN THAT PARAGRAPH DOES IT SAY THAT PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS ARE NOT
> ALLOWED TO PREACH?
Individuals can preach all they want. Schools cannot!
I wonder how you'd feel if a student were chanting satanic verses over
the PA system.
*George Spelvin*
Theodore M. Seeber
> "Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 12 Oct 2000, Rockett Crawford wrote:
> >
> > > "Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
> > >>
> > > Whatever the case may be for a limit number of jobs, there are a
> > > limited number of jobs in this world and too many people that need
> > > one.
> >
> > That "limited number" is only limited by the lack of immagination and
> > excess of greed on the part of industry.
> >
> > It has NOTHING to do with the number of people available to work, and
> > everything to do with maiximazation of profit. Thus my statement above
> > holds true, that overpopulation is a myth designed to hide the misdeeds of
> > the upper class.
>
> Ok, for your sake, I won't call it overpopulation, I'll call it many more people
> than jobs in the world.
No, call it what it is: Reduction of number of jobs in an effort to amass
as much money as possible.
> > > Their rivers are polluted from people going number 1 and 2
> > > in them and their businesses dumping their wastes practically
> > > unchecked.
> >
> > Yes, which feeds the algae, which feeds the fish, which eventually works
> > it's way back up the food chain to feed the humans.
>
> First, I hope the toxins being dumped into Mexico City's river don't work
> their way up any food chain.
What toxin exists in human waste?
> Secondly it would be nice if nature could
> be given a chance to break the human waste down before they have
> to wash their cloths, bath, and drink from it, but unfortunately because
> of the widespread poverty caused by overpopulation that is both their
> water supply and toilet.
Which once again, is not overpopulation at all, but greedy leaders not
building enough housing for the people and not managing natural resources
properly.
> > So once again, why would you want to interrupt the food chain? So more
> > people starve?
>
> So do you drink and eat from your toilet after every use?
The correct food chain is above.
> Why interrupt the food
> chain?
Why not dig a well?
> > Remember, there is now a species of oyster in Los Angeles that REQUIRES
> > the output of a city that size to survive. Nature has it's way of
> > cleaning up these biohazards.
>
> It depends on how confined the hazard is, the nature of it, and how
> long it takes
> to be broken down. 1 hour ago probably isn't going to be good enough.
But the time it takes water to seep through the layers down into a well is
plenty of time.
> > > > Overdependance on oil rather than a sustainable energy system.
> > >
> > > And this inversion layer is called....? Pollution.
> >
> > And it's caused by.....Overdependance on oil.
>
> And you were claiming pollution didn't exist.
No, I was claiming that it's a symptom, not a problem in and of itself.
> > > If you are suggesting it can be cleaned up, I agree.
> >
> > Cleaning it up is worth nothing as long as you continue to use non-clean
> > sources of energy, like gasoline for your car.
>
> I guess flushing my toilet doesn't do any good as long as I keep
> filling it again does it?
Different type of polution.
> > What's preventing you from using clean sources of energy?
>
> > GREED, one of the seven deadly sins in the
> > Bible.
>
> Preach on brother, I'm all for cleaning up pollution.
Are you equally for giving up profit in favor of creating more jobs?
> > And another example of OVERPOPULATION covering up the REAL PROBLEM, which
> > is greed.
>
> Whatever the cause,
My point is that you're trying to hide the cause.
> it is pollution and it will probably bite us
> if we don't take care of it.
And we can't take care of it as long as we keep hiding it behind a
non-existant problem.
> I think we might be on the same
> side on this.
I think so too: the only difference is how to fix it.
> > Those bracelets have no Biblical or theological basis in historical
> > Christianity.
>
> So you don't believe in trying to be Christ-like or any of that
> being a good witness to the world stuff?
How can one possibly be a good witness for Christ in a land where
everybody's a slave to a different God?
> > > No, the birth rate sky rocketed after Reagan pulled the plug on
> > > planned parenthood distributing birth control because the religious
> > > right didn't like the abortion counseling they were doing.
> >
> > Which would have been an ecconomic boom in an earlier generation.
>
> Oh, well that's their problem isn't it?
No, it's the problem of greedy landowners who won't let them farm.
> Too many people and not
> enough jobs?
Give them the land and there will be enough jobs.
> Just as long as they don't perform abortions right?
Killing off your next generation of workers will just insure that the
lower classes stay in poverty.
> > > These greedy people you speak of were there long before the
> > > population explosion that started in the early '80s.
> >
> > Actually, no they weren't. At one time, we had something called the
> > obligation of the nobility to provide food, clothing, shelter, education,
> > medical care, and jobs for the people that worked for them.
>
> They do, there just isn't enough jobs for people down there
Yes, but for an entirely different reason than you think. Labor intensive
farming works just as well in Mexico as the rest of the world. The
problem is that it isn't profitable enough for the rich and the nobility.
> thanks to the Religious right of the US. Even the Catholic
> priests were looking the other way back when planned
> parenthood was getting women contraceptives.
Stupid of them. Cutting back on your most precious natural resource will
solve nothing.
> > Yes. Because they were cleansing a part that you apparently no longer
> > have: a conscience.
>
> They were advocating beating people to the point of wounding them
> and actually applauding the wounding.
Physically yes. But spiritually, those people ended up far stronger than
anybody in the United States today.
> > > Prov 23:
> > > 13 Do not withhold discipline from your children; if you beat them
> > > with a rod, they will not die. 14 If you beat them with the rod, you
> > > will save their lives from Sheol.
> >
> > Which is correct.
>
> Hitting children with rods has become child abuse in our more
> enlightened society.
Smoking pot has become commonplace in our
"enlightened" society. Personally, I don't think our society is
particularily "enlightened".
> > > Here is a house call:
> > > (Song 5:7 NRSV) Making their rounds in the city the sentinels found
> > > me; they beat me, they wounded me, they took away my mantle,
> > > those sentinels of the walls.
> >
> > Or rather a "houseless" call. You'll find the police today in large
> > cities in America do this too.
>
> I suppose you think that's a swell thing too?
No, but certainly neccessary for the protection of society.
> My point is that when they were talking about beating and wounding,
> they weren't talking about curing an illness.
Yes they were, just a different illness than what you're used to calling
an illness is all.
> > > > > It says that women
> > > > > have inferior judgment to men because Eve was deceived and that
> > > > > women should not teach or have authority over a man, but should
> > > > > be silent and learn at home from their husbands.
> > > >
> > > > Actually, that's not what it says. Go back and read the WHOLE CHAPTER
> > > > sometime.
> > >
> > > Actually that's exactly what it says no matter how many times the
> > > chapter is read.
> >
> > Then why did you leave out the part about what husbands are supposed to
> > do?
>
> Because it says nothing about the husband having inferior judgment
Yes it does, look again.
> or
> it being a shame for a man to speak in church, that a man should not
> teach or have authority over a woman,
Rather it says that he should learn to treat his wife as an equal. Like I
said, look again.
> or that they should learn at home, etc...
As my favorite priest says: "That passage asks women to do two things,
and men to do three. Just who is getting the rotten deal here?"
> > > As far as I know there are few laws which jail people for
> > > worshipping the wrong god, at least in the US.
> >
> > Oh? Try not worshiping money sometime and see where you end up.
>
> I'm not sure where you are going with this not worshipping money
> getting you thrown into jail business,
Live without money and see where it gets you.
> but I'll save some time and
> just assert that most people would rather spend time in jail than be
> killed.
If the authorities don't jail you for not using money, eventually you will
be dead anyway.
> > > In theocracies
> > > however, that could be a different story.
> >
> > This is a theocracy, a theocracy of mammon.
>
> You must be talking about Pat Robertson or
> other TV preachers constantly begging for dollars.
That, and also the need of MONEY in modern society at all. Capitalism in
general is worship of Mammon, and it's definately a religion forced upon
all under current law.
> Then there are churches who are not too keen on the
> dietary laws of the OT, but they like the tithing law.
Which is just a corruption of the Churches by the laws of the land.
> > > Also people in the US aren't jailed for being disrespectful to
> > > their parents.
> >
> > Apparently you somehow missed the prisons for children? Where do gang
> > members end up?
>
> Where people who commit crimes should end up. They don't
> go there however for not saying "mam" or "sir."
If they said "mam" and "sir" they wouldn't be gang members and they
wouldn't be commiting crimes.
ALL behavior is linked.
> > Which is why the US is full of people who disrespect the law.
>
> No, that would be people who are abused or neglected as children.
Actually, the ones who are beat with a rod seem to be the ones who are
good citizens.
The ones who weren't are the ones who take guns into their schools and
shoot people.
> Beating children with a rod is child abuse.
So claims the guy who thinks this society is "enlightened".
> > > So you are saying that American business' have slaves that they
> > > strike and kill and they aren't punished if they don't die right away?
> >
> > Yes. They're called blue collar workers.
>
> I haven't been struck lately by my CO and non of my coworkers
> have died recently at his hands. He's actually a pretty nice guy.
Wait until times turn rough, and see what happens.
> > > > Apples and oranges. Sperm and eggs apart are no more alive than the cells
> > > > you scratch out of your ears.
> > >
> > > Of course sperm and egg cells are alive.
> >
> > But will not survive unless they come together, and will eventually be
> > shedded or reabsorbed.
>
> Same thing with 1/2 of the fertilized eggs that don't adhere to the
> womb lining.
Still an act of God, not of us.
> > > > A fertilized egg, however, has become
> > > > something different. It has a different genetic code than either the
> > > > sperm alone or the egg alone. It has a different genetic code than the
> > > > mother. And it is alive. And it is a child. Just a very very very small
> > > > one.
> > >
> > > No, it's just a cell with the same genetic code that billions of other cells
> > > will have if it develops into a baby.
> >
> > But NOT THE SAME GENTIC CODE AS THE PARENT.
>
> My skins cells don't have the same genetic code as my parent,
But they do have the same gentic code as their parent, which is you. Your
parent is their grandparent.
Snip crap
> > > Should we give these cells
> > > proper funerals?
> >
> > Parents who have miscarriages do. My wife and I had such a funeral three
> > days ago.
>
> If a fertilized egg is ejected because it didn't attach to your
> wife's womb, should you fish it out of the toilet and put it in
> a little casket and give it a funeral as well?
What happens to the shell is not what's important.
> If so you are going to be morning a lot of "unborn children"
> in you life.
Probabally.
> > Heaven? No. As the atheists tell us, that's the natural state. They
> > missed out on life, and as the Tibetan Buddhists tell us, atheists get
> > another chance to get the point.
>
> Avoiding the question? Does your brand of Christianity believe in
> special dispensation for children?
My brand of Christianity is not just Christianity. And the answer there
is "it depends".
> > What makes you think you have a choice to work for a particular
> > company? Besides, all companies in the United States are owned by the
> > same class of society anyway. If not directly, then through investments
> > and bank loans.
>
> You need to consult a dictionary on the definition of slavery.
And you need to wise up to what's REALLY going on around you.
> > > > Nope. I'm refering to a government that sustains an ecconomic system
> > > > where if you don't work, you don't eat.
> > >
> > > I'm not a slave.
> >
> > That's what you think.
>
> No, that's what the dictionary says.
What makes you think I believe what some Protestant Dictionary says?
> For slavery, see
> the German concentration camps of WWII or the
> US South before the late 1800s, or the bible.
Or minimum wage.
> > > I could go into the woods and live off of the land if I
> > > choose.
> >
> > Once again, ever tried it? They hunt you down these days, unless you
> > first BUY THE WOODS.
>
> Right.
It's called tresspassing, and anybody who grew up in a rural area knows
what that gets you.
> > > Agreed, but I can do most anything I want as long as I don't
> > > harm others in some way. There are trivial exceptions, but
> > > nothing that keeps me awake at night.
> >
> > In other words, you're comfortable with your slavery.
>
> Again, I would suggest a decent dictionary rather than
> a rationalization to attempt to save the bible from looking
> like a book that condones slavery (which it is).
There is no difference between slave and free.
Woman or man.
Gentile or Jew.
The same book that "condones slavery" to you, also claims that freedom is
not possible, is a comfortable fiction to keep the slaves from revolting.
> > > No need to think about
> > > them, they just can't exist or possibly what you (and I used to)
> > > believe isn't true.
> >
> > No, they exist all right. They are the cause of evil in this world.
>
> The problems with the bible do exist. Another problem is the need
> to rationalize them away to continue the psychological benefits
> of imaging Yahweh as a forgiving father figure and how that
> affects one's logic when dealing with the real world.
It apparently sharpen's ones logic beyond the abilities of atheists.
Theodore M. Seeber
> "Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
>
> > > No public school has any authority to teach morality. Legal theory is a
> > > valid class, but not morals.
> >
> > Without morals, legal theory is bullshit. Morality is the BASIS for legal
> > theory.
>
> I believe you are confusing morals with ethics.
Ethics are just a special case of morals.
> > > > Except the Supreme Court, in case you missed the last case of it.
> > > >
> > > > A high school football team in Texas voluntarily was saying a prayer
> > > > before every game. Together. Led by a student, not the coach.
> > >
> > > Over the loud speaker.
> >
> > So what? What's wrong with that?
>
> According to the Supreme Court, in Sante Fe Independent School District
> vs. Doe student led prayers over the public address system violated the
> Establishment Clause.
And once again, I don't see it. Nowhere in the establishment clause does
it say that a public address system is not allowed to establish a
religion. It says, specifically, that CONGRESS is not allowed to
establish a religion. To me, this is the Supreme Court making law that
violates the free speech clause of the first ammendment AND Article 3,
which specifically does NOT give the Supreme Court the power to make law.
> It amounts to the school sanctioning a particular
> religion.
Again, so what? The Establishment Clause prevents CONGRESS from
establishing religion, not schools.
> There's nothing wrong with it if you are an intollerant Christian.
Or if you read the Constitution as written instead of adding words to it.
> > How so? Does the loudspeaker have a component that injects thoughts into
> > the brain? What's to prevent one from simply thinking to themselves "this
> > is bullshit, I think I'll go to the concessions stand and get a hot dog"?
>
> If you had to carry a driver's license saying "Praise Allah," you might
> feel differently.
No I wouldn't, I hardly ever read my drivers license.
> If you were subjected to Jewish prayers in every government office you
> entered, you might feel differently.
Why? I'm not offeneded by prayer from other men of faith, why are you?
> Of course we aren't talking about injecting thoughts, we are talking
> about establishing a religious practice.
Correct. Which ONLY CONGRESS is prevented from doing.
> And I fail to see what God or any religion has to do with a football
> game.
And I fail to see who elected the Supreme Court to be a bunch of
dictators.
> > > If you have a right to exercise your religion,
> > > I have a right not to.
> >
> > Why? Where do you see that in the constitution?
>
> The first amendment.
Ok, here's the first ammendment. Show me where you have a right not to
exercise religion, and prevent me from exercising my religion while
you're doing so:
Amendment I (1791)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the government for a redress of grievances.
> > > I have a right to free speech, unless that speech infringes on another's
> > > rights.
> >
> > I see no such limitation in the constitution.
>
> If my speech endangers another person's rights (e.g., yelling "fire" in
> a crowded theatre).
"fire" and "crowded theatre" do not exist in the constitution.
> You don't have the right to peacefully assemble on my property without
> permission.
Oh? Where is that in the Constitution?
> The Constitution doesn't prioritize rights. That's up to us (to the
> Supreme Court actually).
Actually, it isn't. That is not within the Supreme Court's rights.
> > > You have a right to practice your religion, but not to force me
> > > to do so.
> >
> > Not according to the constitution.
>
> Where does the Constitution give you leave to force me to practice your
> religion?
It doesn't. But neither does it give you the right to prevent me from
exercising my religion in protection of your rights:
Amendment I (1791)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or PROHIBITING the free EXERCISE THEREOF; (emphasis mine) or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the government for a redress of grievances.
> > State universities in my state do NOT have religious studies. They were
> > removed after a 1985 lawsuit.
>
> Well they exist and thrive in my state.
Then under your own interpretation of the 1st Ammendment, you should sue
to have them stopped. The Professor is in the employee of the State, and
therefore cannot "force" people to be religious.
> Just for the sake of evidence, what state do you live in?
OR.
Theodore M. Seeber
> "Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
>
> > you are free from
> > having the government tell ANYBODY which religion to preach.
>
> And when an arm of the government (public school) preaches Christianity
> (or any other religion), that is a violation of the Constitution.
Actually, from the Constitution, only one arm of the government is
forbidden, and that's Congress.
Of course, that is a strict literal interpretation of the Constitution.
> Period. That's what the Court said, that's what everyone who can read
> the Constitution says.
Really? Tell me, where do you read that in:
Amendment I (1791)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the government for a redress of grievances.
> I am free from having the government preach a religion to me.
Where does it say that? We have a right to question why the Supreme Court
interprets something in a certain way.
> > Which is why I said that the Supreme Court is incompetant and
> > corrupt: They're adding to the text of the constitution without any real
> > power to do so.
>
> There's a convenient retort. If you can't logically argue against it,
> just accuse the Court of corruptness.
Amendment I (1791)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the government for a redress of grievances.
It's not just a retort. None of that is in the constitution.
> I think you are corrupt for supporting the establishment of religion by
> an arm of the government.
Actually, I'm supporting the establishment of religion by private
individuals that have nothing to do with the government.
> > WHERE IN THAT PARAGRAPH DOES IT SAY THAT PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS ARE NOT
> > ALLOWED TO PREACH?
>
> Individuals can preach all they want.
Unless they use "government mechanisms" a term the court uses without
defining and without a national referendum to change the constitution.
> Schools cannot!
Where in the Constitution does it mention schools?
> I wonder how you'd feel if a student were chanting satanic verses over
> the PA system.
Exactly the same way. Experimentation with different religions is a
normal part of being a teenager.
Adding words to the Constitution is something the Supreme Court is
expressly forbidden to do in Article III.
Cam Beck
> a crowded theatre).
> permission.
> Supreme Court actually).
Although this debate has become so convoluted that I am hesitant to
interject my thoughts back into it, I do want to make one quick point. While
I don't agree with every single thing Ted is saying to the letter, I do not
see a point in debating those things, since they are mostly off-topic and
irrelevant to this discussion. He is doing a terrific job demonstrating the
subject-verb agreement of the first amendment.
You mentioned that any speech which endangers another person's rights should
not be allowed. If I am mischaracterizing what you said, let me know, but I
think that's basically it. You mentioned the old cliché about yelling "fire"
in a crowded theater. Strictly speaking, Congress does not have the power to
outlaw and punish that, either. That matter, as evidenced by the
Constitution, is left to the states (amendment I, which prohibits Congress
from making such laws abridging free speech, the rest of the Constitution,
which grants no such power, and the tenth amendment, which reserves all
other powers to the states or to the people.) The only exceptions to that
would be, I would think, in cases of the District of Columbia and in the
military, where Congress has the power to make all laws regarding those
entities. However, I am open to discussion on that as well.
As a lesson in basic English, allow me to first demonstrate the obvious. The
subject of the sentence in the first amendment is Congress. The predicate of
the sentence describes the action the subject will be taking. The subject is
Congress, and the predicate is will make. The direct object describes
exactly what Congress will make. The noun, laws, which is the direct object,
is preceded by the adjective, which describes the noun, no. Congress will
make no laws. The rest of the sentence, "respecting the establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," simply describes the
type of laws of which Congress will not make.
Nowhere does it say, "States will make no laws," or, "Schools will make no
laws." Compare that to, for instance, the fourth amendment, which guarantees
that certain rights "shall not be violated," in general. That prohibits ANY
ENTITY from violating those rights.
Since Congress is the subject of the sentence, it follows that only Congress
is prohibited from taking such action. The tenth amendment clearly states,
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, NOR
PROHIBITED BY IT to the STATES, are RESERVED to the STATES respectively, or
TO THE PEOPLE.
Lastly, the Supreme Court doesn't prioritize rights. It's important that we
understand this as a nation. Our rights, as rights are strictly defined, do
not come from government at all, but from the Creator. The Supreme Court's
job is to judge all CASES of law and equity which arise under the
Constitution and laws of the United States. Without that premise, that we do
have certain unalienable rights, you must realize that none of our rights --
not one of them -- are secure. Without the premise that there is an
authority which supercedes the authority of people and government, we have
no claim to rights at all but for the generosity of the people who wield
power over us.
Cam Beck
webmaster
www.oo-rah.com
George Spelvin
>
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2000, George Spelvin wrote:
>
> > "Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
> >
> > > you are free from
> > > having the government tell ANYBODY which religion to preach.
> >
> > And when an arm of the government (public school) preaches Christianity
> > (or any other religion), that is a violation of the Constitution.
>
> Actually, from the Constitution, only one arm of the government is
> forbidden, and that's Congress.
It says "Congress shall make no law . . . " which also includes the
President (since the Constitution tells us how a law is made--read it
sometime). Public funding for schools comes about because of
legislation passed by CONGRESS and President.
>
> Of course, that is a strict literal interpretation of the Constitution.
>
> > Period. That's what the Court said, that's what everyone who can read
> > the Constitution says.
>
> Really? Tell me, where do you read that in:
> Amendment I (1791)
>
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
> religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
> abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
> right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
> the government for a redress of grievances.
>
> > I am free from having the government preach a religion to me.
>
> Where does it say that? We have a right to question why the Supreme Court
> interprets something in a certain way.
Try the first clause. No law/legislation can be made which establishes
any religion. Thus, if a government agency (created by Congress)
preaches to me, that is tantamount to establishing religion. Those of
us who can be objective and logical see this clearly.
> > > Which is why I said that the Supreme Court is incompetant and
> > > corrupt: They're adding to the text of the constitution without any real
> > > power to do so.
> >
> > There's a convenient retort. If you can't logically argue against it,
> > just accuse the Court of corruptness.
>
> Amendment I (1791)
>
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
> religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
> abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
> right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
> the government for a redress of grievances.
>
> It's not just a retort. None of that is in the constitution.
Then logically show me how a public school does not come about because
of Congress. Please show me how a government institution (created by
Congress) which preaches a religion isn't trying to further THAT
particular religion?
And please stop pasting the first amendment over and over. I know what
it says.
> > I think you are corrupt for supporting the establishment of religion by
> > an arm of the government.
>
> Actually, I'm supporting the establishment of religion by private
> individuals that have nothing to do with the government.
>
> > > WHERE IN THAT PARAGRAPH DOES IT SAY THAT PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS ARE NOT
> > > ALLOWED TO PREACH?
> >
> > Individuals can preach all they want.
>
> Unless they use "government mechanisms" a term the court uses without
> defining and without a national referendum to change the constitution.
Where in the Constitution is there a provision for a national
referendum?
> > Schools cannot!
>
> Where in the Constitution does it mention schools?
Where do you get the idea that public schools aren't created by acts of
Congress?
> > I wonder how you'd feel if a student were chanting satanic verses over
> > the PA system.
>
> Exactly the same way. Experimentation with different religions is a
> normal part of being a teenager.
Well, I don't want my kid being TAUGHT any religion in school. I'll
send him to a church or temple for that.
> Adding words to the Constitution is something the Supreme Court is
> expressly forbidden to do in Article III.
And ignoring simple principles is something you apparently do a great
deal of the time.
*George Spelvin*
John LaVoy
Cam Beck wrote:
>
>
> You mentioned that any speech which endangers another person's rights should
> not be allowed. If I am mischaracterizing what you said, let me know, but I
> think that's basically it.
He may not, but I will take issue here. No one is claiming that ANY speech
which endangers another person's rights can be curtailed, but that one can find
examples where a right which is literally absolute actually has some limits.
All one needs to do is find one counter example, and the whole ball game is
open. So yes, you mischaracterizing the argument.
>
> As a lesson in basic English, allow me to first demonstrate the obvious.
Don't bother.
> Nowhere does it say, "States will make no laws," or, "Schools will make no
> laws." Compare that to, for instance, the fourth amendment, which guarantees
> that certain rights "shall not be violated," in general. That prohibits ANY
> ENTITY from violating those rights.
>
> Since Congress is the subject of the sentence, it follows that only Congress
> is prohibited from taking such action. The tenth amendment clearly states,
> "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, NOR
> PROHIBITED BY IT to the STATES, are RESERVED to the STATES respectively, or
> TO THE PEOPLE
At the risk of having to fight the Civil War all over again, let me point out
that it was long ago established that the laws of the states must conform to the
over all laws of the nation, particularly the Constitution. The problem that so
many people have with the Constitution is that is does not function as a literal
document. You might do well to look at something like Kohlberg's scale of moral
development. People at a certain stage of moral development will be heavily
invested in literal and static interpretations of the law. And, as Thoreau
would say, "as they rarely make any moral distinctions they are as likely to
serve the devil, without intending to, as God." But the Constitution lives on
the edge between the purely moral and the purely pragmatic. To reduce it to a
literal, static guideline is to destroy it, and the rest of the nation with it.
This is exactly what happened in the Civil War, and it don't hunt.
> Lastly, the Supreme Court doesn't prioritize rights. It's important that we
> understand this as a nation.
The Supreme Court regularly decides between competing claims.
> Our rights, as rights are strictly defined, do
> not come from government at all, but from the Creator. The Supreme Court's
> job is to judge all CASES of law and equity which arise under the
> Constitution and laws of the United States. Without that premise, that we do
> have certain unalienable rights, you must realize that none of our rights --
> not one of them -- are secure. Without the premise that there is an
> authority which supercedes the authority of people and government, we have
> no claim to rights at all but for the generosity of the people who wield
> power over us.
In this case you are correct. But it belies the rest of your discussion. You
appear to perfectly willing to grant to the states the rights to grossly violate
our freedoms.
George Spelvin
> > > Without morals, legal theory is bullshit. Morality is the BASIS for legal
> > > theory.
> >
> > I believe you are confusing morals with ethics.
>
> Ethics are just a special case of morals.
You are, of course, incorrect. Legal ethics are standards by which the
law and individuals within the justice system should behve. Morals are
ways in which we interpret right and wrong based on our attitudes,
beliefs, and values (often dictated by religious tenets).
Morality is NOT the basis for legal theory, legal theory is based on
ethics created by societal demands. This isn't to say that morality
doesn't influence those ethics; it does. An ethic can be based on some
sense of morality, but a legal ethic (like a medical ethic or any other
kind of professional ethic) is a standard code of behavior based on
professional principles.
Forgive my details to definitions, but I don't like to misuse the
definitions of words. While a little paperback dictionary might skimp
on definitions by using generally understood words, in the fields of
philosophy and political science terms are more intensely distinguished.
Ethics and morals are not synonymous.
> > According to the Supreme Court, in Sante Fe Independent School District
> > vs. Doe student led prayers over the public address system violated the
> > Establishment Clause.
>
> And once again, I don't see it.
Then I think you are corrupt and incompetent.
Nowhere in the establishment clause does
> it say that a public address system is not allowed to establish a
> religion. It says, specifically, that CONGRESS is not allowed to
> establish a religion. To me, this is the Supreme Court making law that
> violates the free speech clause of the first ammendment AND Article 3,
> which specifically does NOT give the Supreme Court the power to make law.
There weren't public address systems in 1791. Don't be ridiculous.
The CONGRESS created public schools. If a public school establishes a
religious practice, then Congress is establishing a religion. A causes
B. B causes C. Therefore, A leads to C.
> > It amounts to the school sanctioning a particular
> > religion.
>
> Again, so what? The Establishment Clause prevents CONGRESS from
> establishing religion, not schools.
You can't really be this dense. Who created public schools?
>
> > There's nothing wrong with it if you are an intollerant Christian.
>
> Or if you read the Constitution as written instead of adding words to it.
>
> > > How so? Does the loudspeaker have a component that injects thoughts into
> > > the brain? What's to prevent one from simply thinking to themselves "this
> > > is bullshit, I think I'll go to the concessions stand and get a hot dog"?
> >
> > If you had to carry a driver's license saying "Praise Allah," you might
> > feel differently.
>
> No I wouldn't, I hardly ever read my drivers license.
This is getting stupid now.
>
> > If you were subjected to Jewish prayers in every government office you
> > entered, you might feel differently.
>
> Why? I'm not offeneded by prayer from other men of faith, why are you?
No, but I don't want to be forced into observing religious practices .
. . especially if I don't agree with them.
You are being absurd and this is no longer intellectually stimulating.
> > Of course we aren't talking about injecting thoughts, we are talking
> > about establishing a religious practice.
>
> Correct. Which ONLY CONGRESS is prevented from doing.
>
> > And I fail to see what God or any religion has to do with a football
> > game.
>
> And I fail to see who elected the Supreme Court to be a bunch of
> dictators.
No one elected the Supreme Court. Read the rest of the Constitution
sometime.
I suppose you should be dictator though, so you can tell us what the
Constitution really means?
> > > > If you have a right to exercise your religion,
> > > > I have a right not to.
> > >
> > > Why? Where do you see that in the constitution?
> >
> > The first amendment.
>
> Ok, here's the first ammendment. Show me where you have a right not to
> exercise religion, and prevent me from exercising my religion while
> you're doing so:
> Amendment I (1791)
>
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
> religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
> abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
> right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
> the government for a redress of grievances.
>
> > > > I have a right to free speech, unless that speech infringes on another's
> > > > rights.
> > >
> > > I see no such limitation in the constitution.
> >
> > If my speech endangers another person's rights (e.g., yelling "fire" in
> > a crowded theatre).
>
> "fire" and "crowded theatre" do not exist in the constitution.
Neither is "automatic machine gun." Neither is "gun." Neither is
"rifle."
> > You don't have the right to peacefully assemble on my property without
> > permission.
> Oh? Where is that in the Constitution?
Where does it say you can't kill people? Where does it say you can't
burn down buildings? Where does it say you can't sexually harass
people? Where does it say that I can't take a dump on your front porch?
The Constitution gives the Congress and President leave to pass laws.
If a law is passed, that piece of legislature is not going to be in the
Constitution. As long as a law does not violate the Constitution, or
that if it is a matter of two conflicting Contsitutional principles, the
one which is in the public good outweighs the other. I feel like I'm
talking to a child. This is absurd. I'm getting weary of this
discussion.
It doesn't say in the Constitution that I can't stand on your doorstep
and scream insults into your window. I wonder how long it would take
before you tried to strip me of that right should I choose to exercise
it.
> > > State universities in my state do NOT have religious studies. They were
> > > removed after a 1985 lawsuit.
> >
> > Well they exist and thrive in my state.
>
> Then under your own interpretation of the 1st Ammendment, you should sue
> to have them stopped. The Professor is in the employee of the State, and
> therefore cannot "force" people to be religious.
A religious studies class doesn't make people be religious. A religious
studies class studies religions. They don't take positions of faith,
but study them. That's why we call them "religious studies" classes.
> > Just for the sake of evidence, what state do you live in?
>
> OR.
Guess what Ted. I lived in Oregon from 1980 to 1995 and went to
University there. You are wrong. For example, the University of Oregon
has a course entitled The Philosophy of Religion. There are other
courses there dealing with philosophers who wrote about religion. There
is a course at Oregon State called Quests for Meaning: World Religions.
There is a philosophy of religion class at Portland State.
I could go on, but I think I've successfully defended my point.
*George Spelvin*
Edward L. Sanwhicheater
"Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2000, George Spelvin wrote:
>
> > "Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
> >
> > > > No public school has any authority to teach morality. Legal theory is a
> > > > valid class, but not morals.
> > >
> > > Without morals, legal theory is bullshit. Morality is the BASIS for legal
> > > theory.
> >
> > I believe you are confusing morals with ethics.
>
> Ethics are just a special case of morals.
>
> > > > > Except the Supreme Court, in case you missed the last case of it.
> > > > >
> > > > > A high school football team in Texas voluntarily was saying a prayer
> > > > > before every game. Together. Led by a student, not the coach.
> > > >
> > > > Over the loud speaker.
> > >
> > > So what? What's wrong with that?
> >
> > According to the Supreme Court, in Sante Fe Independent School District
> > vs. Doe student led prayers over the public address system violated the
> > Establishment Clause.
>
> And once again, I don't see it. Nowhere in the establishment clause does
> it say that a public address system is not allowed to establish a
> religion. It says, specifically, that CONGRESS is not allowed to
> establish a religion.
And the 14th amendment applies it the states. The The states also are
prohibited from 'establishing religion'.
If an orginization recieves state or federal funds it is prohibited from
'establishing religion'
Amendment XIV - Citizenship rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which
shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
>To me, this is the Supreme Court making law that
> violates the free speech clause of the first ammendment AND Article 3,
> which specifically does NOT give the Supreme Court the power to make law.
>
> > It amounts to the school sanctioning a particular
> > religion.
>
> Again, so what? The Establishment Clause prevents CONGRESS from
> establishing religion, not schools.
>
See the 14th amendment
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
John LaVoy
"Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
> >
> > This is disingenuous.
>
> Is it?
Yes, because the situations are different, and you know it.
> And was usually utterly blocked by hormones for me. Cheerleaders were FAR
> more interesting than paying attention to pre-game stuff.
Ahh, I see. We shall determine the principles of our governance based on your hormones?
> > > Texas must fund their football fields on school grounds differently than
> > > Oregon does.
> >
> > I have no idea what this means. If it is school owned and/or sponsored,
>
> And usually isn't in Oregon, especially since Measure 5 went into effect
> cutting out tax money for after school programs. These days, it's more
> likly that the football field is paid for and maintained by the parents.
A) You'd need to present some evidence that this was true, even in Oregon.
B) It is most certainly not true in the vast majority of the rest of the nation, certainly
not in TEXAS, HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL CAPITOL OF THE UNIVERSE.
> > I would consider further that
> > the mere fact
> > of it being a school event makes sanctioned prayer inappropriate.
>
> Also, I would not look upon a football game as a "school event".
I fear you have wandered from the path of reason. An event paid for by the school,
sponsored by the school, arranged by the school, publicized by the school, in which only
school members can participate, which is governed by rules set by the school, and is listed
in the school calendar, for which there are school pep rallies, isn't a school event? Good
one.
> > I assume you are trying to disassociate the
> > content of a message from the
> > mechanism used to deliver a message.
>
> They are two entirely separate things, always.
The "always" gives you away. You appear to be given to an overly literal frame of mind.
There are times when the mechanism and the message are separate, and there are times when
they aren't. There are times when the mechanism is more of a message than the reverse. I
can see where you would go astray if you couldn't grasp this. Within your framework, you
could, I assume, prohibit signs, music, visual art and the rest because after all, they are
"speech"?
> > Please. How do you see this as a cause effect problem?
>
> The cause is not the loudspeaker. The cause is the student's federally
> protected free speech.
Cause of what? I still don't see how you interpret this as a cause and effect issue.
> > And even if you are
> > correct in terms of
> > competence, which I deny, what does corruption have to do with it?
>
> The taking of powers from one branch of government and giving them to
> another branch of government.
Like I said, one could at least apply the concept of incompetence to this. But corruption
implies something done for material gain. Come on, admit it. It doesn't apply.
> > > But it is not within their role to ADD WORDS TO THE CONSTITUTION TO DO SO.
> >
> > They aren't ADDING WORDS.
>
> Then where does it say that free speech cannot use a government owned
> mechanism?
It doesn't have to. The Supreme Court has interpreted the circumstance to mean that use of
government loudspeakers moves too close to establishment of religion, which in fact it
does, if you ask me.
> Actually a literal interpretation doesn't support the people, by
> themselves, doing anything other than joining publicly owned militias,
> like the National Guard.
Exactly my point. You are so kind in this regard. There are numerous interpretations of
the second A, and no literal reading is conclusive. A huge amount of ink and money has
been spent trying to hash this out but it is and always will be a matter of interpretation.
There is no literal answer to this question.
> > > Ample support for stupidity, perhaps, and for confusing the equipment with
> > > the idea.
> > > One could make a case for not being able to do soap box speeches on
> > > religion in public parks based on your reasoning.
> >
> > One could. I doubt it would be successful, but it certainly is possible.
>
> Which is why the whole argument is rediculous.
Why? Any lawyer will tell you that you can sue anybody for anything. The only question is
whether you will win. Same thing: anybody can make any case, but that doesn't mean the
process is ridiculous. They would not be successful in using the Texas xase as a precedent
because the situations are not the same, ergo the argument wouldn't hold up.
> > Once again you've lost me. As I said, one might be able
> > to curtail preaching in public
> > parks, though I doubt it would be successful.
>
> It's the logical conclusion of the argument you gave above.
It "could" be a logical conclusion. It might not, depending on the circumstance. If you
want it to be the case, in order to prove your point, please rush forward. The culture is
filled with the results of people who pushed forward with some literal, simplistic agenda
because they thought it was perfectly logical, only to have the result surprise them.
>
>
> It's more like, if the local user
Nope. This is where you go wrong. It wouldn't be the local user. When teh school system got
involved, it became the larger "user" the government.
> The trouble is, the 1st ammendment specifically requires Congress NEVER do
> ANYTHING to prevent it.
Again, a purely literal interpretation of anything will lead to chaos.
>
> In this case, it's being interpreted to be entirely contradictory to the
> following clause, taken from the first ammendment:
> > > > > religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
> > > > > abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
> > > > > right of the people peaceably to assemble,
You are correct in characterizing this as an interpretation of conflicting Constitutional
elements. Of course, it is not "entirely" contradictory (Don't you get tired of living in
an absolute world?) just somewhat contradictory.
>
>
> I still want to know where it says that government mechanisms cannot be
> used for religion. To say that is to ADD WORDS TO THE DOCUMENT, not
> merely interpret.
Get over it. It doesn't have to say that, and that is a good thing. The court has
interpreted the language to mean that using goverbnment mechanisms is a form of
establishment.
> Rather, I am saying that the Government interfering with religious speech
> in ANY WAY, is going against the prohibition in the 1st Amendment against
> the government interfering with religious speech.
You can be a literal as you want, but that won't change things..it merely pushes you
farther to the fringe. There are conflciitng elements in the Constitution and the court
has consistently treated the use of government mechanisms and resources to foster religion
as moving too close to establishment, especially when there is no negative impact on
anyone's right to pray that results from them not being able to pray on a government
loudspeaker.
> > Just like kids pray in school all the time. No one
> > is preventing them from exercising their religion.
>
> Except, apparently, when they are "using government mechanisms", like
> standing on government soil in school.
Again, you support my point. No one has ever claimed this. Nor have you ever shown in any
way that anyone would ever be likely to do so. You are shadow boxing.
>
> No, because the only governmental body prohibited from establishing a
> religion in the Federal Bill of Rights is the Federal Congress.
I hate it when a reasonable intelligent person wanders into loony land.
> No it wasn't. And it certainly wasn't Congressional Aided obnoxious
> proselytizing, because it was a LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
We fought this war some hundred and forty years ago. THe issue has ben decided, it cost
hundreds of thousands of lives, and you want to do ti all again. WHy not just move to
Idaho, build a cabin, and secede from teh union.
>
> CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW. Not government in general, CONGRESS. Of
> course, earlier in the document we find that Congress is the only Federal
> Body who is able to make law.
> Not SCOTUS. Only Congress. And that's my problem here. By adding words
> like "mechanism", they're making new law.
They are doing what they have to do. Interpreting the law and interpreting hte
Constitution. There is no other way.>
> > "A foolish constancy is the hobgoblin of a little mind." One of my mother's favorite
> > chestnuts.
>
> Which is a part of your religion, and federally protected, even though you
> just used a Federally owned network to broadcast it.
religion?
> Yep. And in that "interpretation", by using words like "mechanism" that
> didn't exist in the original, SCOTUS is creating new law.
Old saw, new bow. They aren't doing anything of the sort.
> >
> >
> > What's the difference?
>
> The difference is where their paycheck comes from.
LOCAL paychecks. Right?
> > In other cases you make no distinction.
>
> What other cases? The case I'm concerened with was a student, a private
> individual, reading a prepared speech that happened to include a prayer.
Again, this is disingenuous. It was an open attempt to establish that such a prayer was
legal.
> > It doesn't say in
> > the Constitution that the people are free to speak unless they are government
> > employees, does it?
>
> It actually does. If they're employed in carrying out the laws enacted by
> Congress (and teachers are), then they most certainly are prevented from
> doing all the things Congress is.
But where in the Constitution does it SAY that givernment employees are prevented from
doing this? No where I can see. Are you interpreting it?
> > I have already extended it to mean that
> > students can't stand up in class and lead a
> > prayer. And I have no problem with that.
> > No student anywhere is prevented from
> > praying, only from using the governments resources
> > to make other people pray as well.
>
> And I hold that even if the student is "leading" prayer, he isn't forceing
> anybody to listen....the kid with the spitball and straw has EXACTLY THE
> SAME free speech rights as the kid reading the prayer.
Exactly wrong. The kid with the spitball is violating a school policy. The kid with the
prayer is sanctioned by the school. Unless of course, you mean that when Billy leads the
class in prayer everybody else is perfectly free to do whatever they want to disrupt him.
> The government doesn't have the right to censor either student.
But they do censor the kid with the spitball.
Cam Beck
ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the
spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be
squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable
one in which it was passed.
- Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), letter to Judge William Johnson, (from
Monticello, June 12, 1823)
I will not argue, given the changing times and new and improved ways
governments are able to oppress citizens of a nation, there are no passages
in the Constitution that are open to wide interpretation. However, there are
certain areas the Consitution must be interpreted literally. If there is
something that is not right, then the Constitution rightly provides for the
means by which it may be changed. That is through the amendment process.
Otherwise, we are not a nation of laws, adhering to the principles of
self-government, but a nation of unchecked, frivolous emotions, subject to
the whims of an unelected, unrepresentative body, the justices of the
Supreme Court.
So I take great exception to your premise that the Constitution does not
function as a literal document. If it does not, then it provides absolutely
no protection against tyranny. If, for instance, you or anyone else may take
a passage such as "Congress shall make no laws..." and turn that into "No
state shall make any laws" or "Separation of church and state," then those
same people may go ahead and change, "All legislative Powers herein granted
shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a
Senate and House of Representatives," to, "Some legislative Powers herein
granted shall be vested in a Congress and the President of the United
States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives and the
FBI."
Words do, in fact, have meanings, and with the Constitution literally being
"the law of the land," granting the authority to any branch of government to
change the Constitution as they wish without proper authority literally
makes the document worthless. We'd be just as secure as to not have it. As a
former Marine, Having taken the solemn oath to "support and defend the
Constitution of the United States," what was I swearing to if that could not
be literally defined?
If we may change words around when we are interpreting it, which is
precisely what you are advocating (whether you intend to or not), we could
just as easily say, "Congress SHALL make laws respecting the establishment
of religion." What's a deleted word or two when we're interpreting the
Constitution? The answer is Everything.
If people have the unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness, and government is instituted among men, deriving its just powers
from the consent of the governed, laying its foundation on such principles,
that whenever government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right
of the people to alter or abolish it, if the Constitution, in fact, was
written, laying its foundation on such principles, then any attempt for an
unelected body to change its literal meaning is an usurpation of the will
and authority of the people, and then it would make the enforcement of that
doctrine illegitimate (sorry about the long sentence; I'll restate if I need
to).
State governments must lay its foundation on those principles as well. It is
the necessary function of a republic. That is not to say that everyone is
going to come to the same conclusions, but it is not your right; it is not
anyone's right, except for the people of that district, to tell them how the
people of a particular district should or should not raise or educate their
children. That is the general idea behind enumerating specific powers (of
which education is NOT included -- in fact, in the debate the other day, Jim
Lehrer said that only 6% of money, which is exactly 6% too much, comes from
the federal government anyway) to the federal government, and all others not
prohibited to the states and to the people.
The federal government must protect all the citizens from certain abuses,
and the Bill of Rights does that. However, it is precisely because judges
did not take the literal meaning of the Constitution that abhorations such
as slavery was allowed for so long. For example, how would any government
determine that slaves could be deprived of life, liberty, and subject to
unreasonable searches and seizures? Simple. Determine arbitrarily that
slaves are not persons. That is tyranny. That is a specific, and literal,
violation of the principle tenets of the Declaration of Independence. One of
the abuses the founders cited was, "For abolishing the free system of
English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary
government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an
example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these
colonies:"
If I missed anything you would like addressed, let me know.
Cam Beck
webmaster
www.oo-rah.com
"John LaVoy" <jla...@pobox.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:39E715FB...@pobox.upenn.edu...
>
>
> Cam Beck wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > You mentioned that any speech which endangers another person's rights
> that it was long ago established that the laws of the states must conform
to the
Theodore M. Seeber
> "Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 12 Oct 2000, George Spelvin wrote:
> >
> > > "Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
> > >
> > > > you are free from
> > > > having the government tell ANYBODY which religion to preach.
> > >
> > > And when an arm of the government (public school) preaches Christianity
> > > (or any other religion), that is a violation of the Constitution.
> >
> > Actually, from the Constitution, only one arm of the government is
> > forbidden, and that's Congress.
>
> It says "Congress shall make no law . . . " which also includes the
> President (since the Constitution tells us how a law is made--read it
> sometime).
I did. All the President can do is veto, not write laws.
> Public funding for schools comes about because of
> legislation passed by CONGRESS and President.
Less than 10% of school funding comes from the Federal Level. In Oregon,
all school property is bought and maintained with LOCAL property taxes.
> > Really? Tell me, where do you read that in:
> > Amendment I (1791)
> >
> > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
> > religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
> > abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
> > right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
> > the government for a redress of grievances.
> >
> > > I am free from having the government preach a religion to me.
> >
> > Where does it say that? We have a right to question why the Supreme Court
> > interprets something in a certain way.
>
> Try the first clause.
The first clause prevents CONGRESS, SPECIFICALLY from making law to
establish religion.
> No law/legislation can be made which establishes
> any religion.
From Congress.
> Thus, if a government agency (created by Congress)
> preaches to me, that is tantamount to establishing religion. Those of
> us who can be objective and logical see this clearly.
The public school system was not created by Congress.
> > > > Which is why I said that the Supreme Court is incompetant and
> > > > corrupt: They're adding to the text of the constitution without any real
> > > > power to do so.
> > >
> > > There's a convenient retort. If you can't logically argue against it,
> > > just accuse the Court of corruptness.
> >
> > Amendment I (1791)
> >
> > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
> > religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
> > abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
> > right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
> > the government for a redress of grievances.
> >
> > It's not just a retort. None of that is in the constitution.
>
> Then logically show me how a public school does not come about because
> of Congress.
A local school board is elected, local taxes are raised, and the LOCAL
community buys land and builds a school. Congress does not get involved
at all.
> Please show me how a government institution (created by
> Congress) which preaches a religion isn't trying to further THAT
> particular religion?
It wasn't created by Congress.
> And please stop pasting the first amendment over and over. I know what
> it says.
Apparently you don't know what it says, and apparently the Supreme Court
does not either.
Here's my point: It specifically says Congress. If you encompass all
law-making bodies as the word "Congress", then the Supreme Court has
violated the first Ammendment by creating law to end free speech. If it's
only congress, then the first ammendment does not apply to a local school
district.
You can't have it both ways.
> > > Individuals can preach all they want.
> >
> > Unless they use "government mechanisms" a term the court uses without
> > defining and without a national referendum to change the constitution.
>
> Where in the Constitution is there a provision for a national
> referendum?
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or,
on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the
several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments,
which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes,
as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures
of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in
three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of
ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that
no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand
eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first
and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article;
and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of
its equal suffrage in the Senate.
---End Paste
It's a representative referendum, but it is a national one, requiring the
ratification by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states.
> > Where in the Constitution does it mention schools?
>
> Where do you get the idea that public schools aren't created by acts of
> Congress?
Because they're created by local school boards and paid for with local
taxes.
> > > I wonder how you'd feel if a student were chanting satanic verses over
> > > the PA system.
> >
> > Exactly the same way. Experimentation with different religions is a
> > normal part of being a teenager.
>
> Well, I don't want my kid being TAUGHT any religion in school. I'll
> send him to a church or temple for that.
Where I would want my kid to learn everything he can about as large a
diversity of cultures as possible.
> > Adding words to the Constitution is something the Supreme Court is
> > expressly forbidden to do in Article III.
>
> And ignoring simple principles is something you apparently do a great
> deal of the time.
If the "simple principles" include letting the Supreme Court, a branch of
the government, walk all over our rights and add words to the
constitution, yes, I do ignore such falsehood and lies.
Ted
--
On this day, the Feast of St. Edward the Confessor
The Just King
Theodore M. Seeber
> "Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
>
> > > > Without morals, legal theory is bullshit. Morality is the BASIS for legal
> > > > theory.
> > >
> > > I believe you are confusing morals with ethics.
> >
> > Ethics are just a special case of morals.
>
> You are, of course, incorrect. Legal ethics are standards by which the
> law and individuals within the justice system should behve.
And they are derived from morality.
> Morals are
> ways in which we interpret right and wrong based on our attitudes,
> beliefs, and values (often dictated by religious tenets).
Which is different from "should behave" exactly how?
> Morality is NOT the basis for legal theory, legal theory is based on
> ethics created by societal demands. This isn't to say that morality
> doesn't influence those ethics; it does. An ethic can be based on some
> sense of morality, but a legal ethic (like a medical ethic or any other
> kind of professional ethic) is a standard code of behavior based on
> professional principles.
Which are themselves derived from religious morals.
> Forgive my details to definitions, but I don't like to misuse the
> definitions of words. While a little paperback dictionary might skimp
> on definitions by using generally understood words, in the fields of
> philosophy and political science terms are more intensely distinguished.
Obstufacated rather than distinguished.
> Ethics and morals are not synonymous.
Then somebody's telling a lie.
> > > According to the Supreme Court, in Sante Fe Independent School District
> > > vs. Doe student led prayers over the public address system violated the
> > > Establishment Clause.
> >
> > And once again, I don't see it.
>
> Then I think you are corrupt and incompetent.
The Sante Fe "Independent" School District is not an arm of Congress, and
to make it one is to violate the 10th Ammendment.
> > Nowhere in the establishment clause does
> > it say that a public address system is not allowed to establish a
> > religion. It says, specifically, that CONGRESS is not allowed to
> > establish a religion. To me, this is the Supreme Court making law that
> > violates the free speech clause of the first ammendment AND Article 3,
> > which specifically does NOT give the Supreme Court the power to make law.
>
> There weren't public address systems in 1791. Don't be ridiculous.
So what? CONGRESS is not allowed to establish a religion.
> The CONGRESS created public schools.
No they didn't.
> If a public school establishes a
> religious practice, then Congress is establishing a religion. A causes
> B. B causes C. Therefore, A leads to C.
I disagree with your lie that Congress created public schools.
I think it would be obvious in the name of the School District that it is
Independent.
> > Again, so what? The Establishment Clause prevents CONGRESS from
> > establishing religion, not schools.
>
> You can't really be this dense. Who created public schools?
Local school boards.
Why didn't you know this?
> > > If you had to carry a driver's license saying "Praise Allah," you might
> > > feel differently.
> >
> > No I wouldn't, I hardly ever read my drivers license.
>
> This is getting stupid now.
Yes, but only because you can't separate local government from federal
government.
> > > If you were subjected to Jewish prayers in every government office you
> > > entered, you might feel differently.
> >
> > Why? I'm not offeneded by prayer from other men of faith, why are you?
>
> No, but I don't want to be forced into observing religious practices .
If you're listening to a prayer you're "observing religious
practices"? Seems rather strange idea to me.
> . . especially if I don't agree with them.
Nothing in the Constitution protects you from this.
> You are being absurd and this is no longer intellectually stimulating.
Only because you can't read.
> > > Of course we aren't talking about injecting thoughts, we are talking
> > > about establishing a religious practice.
> >
> > Correct. Which ONLY CONGRESS is prevented from doing.
> >
> > > And I fail to see what God or any religion has to do with a football
> > > game.
> >
> > And I fail to see who elected the Supreme Court to be a bunch of
> > dictators.
>
> No one elected the Supreme Court. Read the rest of the Constitution
> sometime.
Exactly my point. According to the Constitution, the Supreme Court cannot
make law. By adding words to the Constitution, it is making law, thus
violating Article III.
> I suppose you should be dictator though, so you can tell us what the
> Constitution really means?
No. But my point is, neither should the Supreme Court.
> > > > > If you have a right to exercise your religion,
> > > > > I have a right not to.
> > > >
> > > > Why? Where do you see that in the constitution?
> > >
> > > The first amendment.
> >
> > Ok, here's the first ammendment. Show me where you have a right not to
> > exercise religion, and prevent me from exercising my religion while
> > you're doing so:
> > Amendment I (1791)
> >
> > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
> > religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
> > abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
> > right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
> > the government for a redress of grievances.
I notice you were too stupid to do this.
> > "fire" and "crowded theatre" do not exist in the constitution.
>
> Neither is "automatic machine gun." Neither is "gun." Neither is
> "rifle."
RIGHT! Which is why the Second Ammendment should be limited to single
shot muzzle loaders. I have no problem with that, why do you?
> > > You don't have the right to peacefully assemble on my property without
> > > permission.
>
> > Oh? Where is that in the Constitution?
>
> Where does it say you can't kill people?
It doesn't, which is why we have legal abortion.
> Where does it say you can't
> burn down buildings?
It doesn't, which is why that is a STATE law by the 10th Ammendment.
> Where does it say you can't sexually harass
> people? Where does it say that I can't take a dump on your front porch?
Same here. State laws not federal.
> The Constitution gives the Congress and President leave to pass laws.
Some, not all.
> If a law is passed, that piece of legislature is not going to be in the
> Constitution. As long as a law does not violate the Constitution, or
> that if it is a matter of two conflicting Contsitutional principles, the
> one which is in the public good outweighs the other. I feel like I'm
> talking to a child. This is absurd. I'm getting weary of this
> discussion.
Only because you're too stupid to actually READ.
> It doesn't say in the Constitution that I can't stand on your doorstep
> and scream insults into your window. I wonder how long it would take
> before you tried to strip me of that right should I choose to exercise
> it.
I wouldn't. I didn't in high school, and I wouldn't now.
> > Then under your own interpretation of the 1st Ammendment, you should sue
> > to have them stopped. The Professor is in the employee of the State, and
> > therefore cannot "force" people to be religious.
>
> A religious studies class doesn't make people be religious.
Neither does politely listening to a prayer.
> A religious
> studies class studies religions. They don't take positions of faith,
> but study them. That's why we call them "religious studies" classes.
In that case, you are simply applying law irrationally and unequally.
Ted
Theodore M. Seeber
> Amendment XIV - Citizenship rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.
>
> 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
> the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
> State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which
> shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
> States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
> property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
> jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I see no mention of religion here, so the entire argument is false.
> > Ok, here's the first ammendment. Show me where you have a right not to
> > exercise religion, and prevent me from exercising my religion while
> > you're doing so:
> > Amendment I (1791)
> >
> > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
> > religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
> > abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
> > right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
> > the government for a redress of grievances.
I also notice that nobody has yet to meet this challenge.
Ted
--
On this day, the Feast of St. Edward the Confessor
The Just King
Edward L. Sanwhicheater
"Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
>
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2000, Edward L. Sanwhicheater wrote:
>
> > Amendment XIV - Citizenship rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.
> >
> > 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
> > the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
> > State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which
> > shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
> > States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
> > property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
> > jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
>
> I see no mention of religion here, so the entire argument is false.
>
No, the entire argument is correct.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which
shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States;
The 14th amendment doesnt need to specify religion. ALL rights protected
by the constitution are covered.
Incluiding the ban on establishment of religion.
> > > Ok, here's the first ammendment. Show me where you have a right not to
> > > exercise religion, and prevent me from exercising my religion while
> > > you're doing so:
> > > Amendment I (1791)
> > >
> > > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
> > > religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
> > > abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
> > > right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
> > > the government for a redress of grievances.
>
> I also notice that nobody has yet to meet this challenge.
> Ted
>
> --
> On this day, the Feast of St. Edward the Confessor
> The Just King
John LaVoy
getting used to.
Cam Beck wrote:
> On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry
> ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the
> spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be
> squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable
> one in which it was passed.
> - Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), letter to Judge William Johnson, (from
> Monticello, June 12, 1823)
He also wrote that we must erect a wall of separation between the church and the
state.
> I will not argue, given the changing times and new and improved ways
> governments are able to oppress citizens of a nation, there are no passages
> in the Constitution that are open to wide interpretation. However, there are
> certain areas the Consitution must be interpreted literally.
Except that you don't get to pick which ones are and which ones aren't. Later
you indicate that "words mean something" as if that settles that words mean
what you think they should mean. I suggest that all areas of the constitution
are and must be open to interpretation to some degree. Otherwise it is dead, and
so are we.
> Otherwise, we are not a nation of laws, adhering to the principles of
> self-government, but a nation of unchecked, frivolous emotions, subject to
> the whims of an unelected, unrepresentative body, the justices of the
> Supreme Court.
Quite the contrary. What you suggest is that the interpretations of the strict
constructionists (and they ARE interpretations) should supercede other
considerations, and we then have the tyranny of a bunch of literal, stiff necked
conservatives. While I do not agree with many SCOTUS decisions, I do respect
the process and have no wish to see it changed.
> So I take great exception to your premise that the Constitution does not
> function as a literal document. If it does not, then it provides absolutely
> no protection against tyranny.
This is patently untrue. A) the constitution has always been interpreted by the
SCOTUS and we are more free today we were before.
> If, for instance, you or anyone else may take
> a passage such as "Congress shall make no laws..." and turn that into "No
> state shall make any laws" or "Separation of church and state," then those
> same people may go ahead and change, "All legislative Powers herein granted
> shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a
> Senate and House of Representatives," to, "Some legislative Powers herein
> granted shall be vested in a Congress and the President of the United
> States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives and the
> FBI."
This is, of course, ridiculous. In fact the Supreme Court has very clearly
said, backed by the 14th amendment, that there are limits to states rights and
what we haveas a result is MORE freedom, not less. For example, without the
protection afforded by the Constitution, we might see a state like Utah
establish a state religion....nothing there to prevent it, is there? Such a
sitaution might satisfy your vision of what America is to be, but it doesn't
match mine. Your interpretation of the Constitution would result in far MORE
oppression of individual rights. You can reduce any argument to absurdity, but
you have to at least make an attempt to show things might go that far, and you
haven't done so.
> Words do, in fact, have meanings, and with the Constitution literally being
> "the law of the land," granting the authority to any branch of government to
> change the Constitution as they wish without proper authority literally
> makes the document worthless.
Yet this hasn't happened, hasn't been suggested, and, as you well know, wouldn't
happen. But we do know that adhering to strict states rights interpretation
will result in oppression.
> We'd be just as secure as to not have it. As a
> former Marine, Having taken the solemn oath to "support and defend the
> Constitution of the United States," what was I swearing to if that could not
> be literally defined?
A concept. An idea. You fought for freedom, but freedom isn't a literal thing.
You fought for justice, but that is not literal either. Or are those things
irrelevant because they are not literal?
> If we may change words around when we are interpreting it, which is
> precisely what you are advocating (whether you intend to or not), we could
> just as easily say, "Congress SHALL make laws respecting the establishment
> of religion." What's a deleted word or two when we're interpreting the
> Constitution? The answer is Everything.
I am not advocating anything of the sort. Don't waste your energy arguing
against phantoms.
> If people have the unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of
> happiness, and government is instituted among men, deriving its just powers
> from the consent of the governed, laying its foundation on such principles,
> that whenever government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right
> of the people to alter or abolish it, if the Constitution, in fact, was
> written, laying its foundation on such principles, then any attempt for an
> unelected body to change its literal meaning is an usurpation of the will
> and authority of the people, and then it would make the enforcement of that
> doctrine illegitimate (sorry about the long sentence; I'll restate if I need
> to).
Nah, I get it. But your mistake, if I may be so bold, is in assuming that when
words have meaning, they have a fixed meaning, or that they have the meaning you
want them to have. All language is subject to interpretation. I have written
enough policy, even simple policy, to know that even when you settle on
language, it still means different things to the people who agree on the
language. There is no simple, single intereptation of anything in the
constitution: there isn't even a simple sense of what the founders meant when
they agreed on certain wording. Even the concept of free speech, which seems
absolute, can be interpreted in numerous ways. Did they mean free political
speech? Did they intend free speech to include art? Did all of them intend
that? Did anyone sign on thinkin gthat it only meant political speech. Many
arguments have been advanced that written words, physical gestures, symbols and
the like are not covered because they aren't "speech". Again ALL language is
subject to interpretation: to pretend otherwise is arrogance.
>
> State governments must lay its foundation on those principles as well. It is
> the necessary function of a republic. That is not to say that everyone is
> going to come to the same conclusions, but it is not your right; it is not
> anyone's right, except for the people of that district, to tell them how the
> people of a particular district should or should not raise or educate their
> children.
Zoom, in comes education from left field. But a state does NOT have a right to
construct laws, policies or practices that, for example, relegate black people
to substandard education, even though the Constitution is silent on education.
Get over it: we fought the strict states rights battle a long time ago. You
lost. And surprise surprise, we have a freer nation than any that has ever
existed.
> That is the general idea behind enumerating specific powers (of
> which education is NOT included -- in fact, in the debate the other day, Jim
> Lehrer said that only 6% of money, which is exactly 6% too much, comes from
> the federal government anyway) to the federal government, and all others not
> prohibited to the states and to the people.
>
> The federal government must protect all the citizens from certain abuses,
> and the Bill of Rights does that. However, it is precisely because judges
> did not take the literal meaning of the Constitution that abhorations such
> as slavery was allowed for so long.
A perfect example of why interpretation is inevitable. When the founders used
the term "man" some meant mankind on the whole, but some meant men as a gender.
Then too, the term was interpreted to exclude black people, and women. Slavery,
despite how you mangle history here, was preserved on the basis of exactly your
argument, i.e. that the states can decide these matters for themselves.
For example, how would any government
> determine that slaves could be deprived of life, liberty, and subject to
> unreasonable searches and seizures? Simple. Determine arbitrarily that
> slaves are not persons. That is tyranny. That is a specific, and literal,
> violation of the principle tenets of the Declaration of Independence. One of
> the abuses the founders cited was, "For abolishing the free system of
> English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary
> government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an
> example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these
> colonies:"
>
> If I missed anything you would like addressed, let me know.
Later maybe. You missed a lot.
Theodore M. Seeber
> "Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 13 Oct 2000, Edward L. Sanwhicheater wrote:
> >
> > > Amendment XIV - Citizenship rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.
> > >
> > > 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
> > > the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
> > > State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which
> > > shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
> > > States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
> > > property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
> > > jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
> >
> > I see no mention of religion here, so the entire argument is false.
> >
>
> No, the entire argument is correct.
Understand the original claim: That the Supreme Court has rights of
censorship over public school students in matters of religion.
> All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
> the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
> State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which
> shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
> States;
Correct. And thus somehow you twist this to mean that the Supreme Court
can pass censorship laws?
> The 14th amendment doesnt need to specify religion. ALL rights protected
> by the constitution are covered.
> Incluiding the ban on establishment of religion.
Censorship is not a right, it's a ban.
> > > > Ok, here's the first ammendment. Show me where you have a right not to
> > > > exercise religion, and prevent me from exercising my religion while
> > > > you're doing so:
> > > > Amendment I (1791)
> > > >
> > > > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
> > > > religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
> > > > abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
> > > > right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
> > > > the government for a redress of grievances.
> >
> > I also notice that nobody has yet to meet this challenge.
> > Ted
Still notice that you can't show me where in the Establishment clause at
all is the right of the supreme court to censor a private citizen.
Ted
--
On this day, the Feast of St. Edward the Confessor
The Just King
Edward L. Sanwhicheater
"Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
>
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2000, Edward L. Sanwhicheater wrote:
>
> > "Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 13 Oct 2000, Edward L. Sanwhicheater wrote:
> > >
> > > > Amendment XIV - Citizenship rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.
> > > >
> > > > 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
> > > > the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
> > > > State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which
> > > > shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
> > > > States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
> > > > property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
> > > > jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
> > >
> > > I see no mention of religion here, so the entire argument is false.
> > >
> >
> > No, the entire argument is correct.
>
> Understand the original claim: That the Supreme Court has rights of
> censorship over public school students in matters of religion.
>
That which you call censorship is the enforcement of the ban on
establishment of religion. Public schools supported by public funds can
not take part in establishing religion. Children are free to pray at
school, they can organize bible study classes. They can profess their
beliefs. What they cant do is use public funds to evangelize. They are
not censored.
> > All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
> > the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
> > State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which
> > shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
> > States;
>
> Correct. And thus somehow you twist this to mean that the Supreme Court
> can pass censorship laws?
>
The supreme court doesnt pass laws. They rule on the constitutionality
of law.
> > The 14th amendment doesnt need to specify religion. ALL rights protected
> > by the constitution are covered.
> > Incluiding the ban on establishment of religion.
>
> Censorship is not a right, it's a ban.
>
We are not talking about censorship. We are talking about establishment
of religion. Supporting one religious belief over another through the
use of state or federal funds 'establishes' religion. No one has been
censored, if you know of case of censorship please point me to a link or
article. They may have been prohibited from using state funded
facilities or equipment to broadcast their message. But thats not
censorship.
> > > > > Ok, here's the first ammendment. Show me where you have a right not to
> > > > > exercise religion, and prevent me from exercising my religion while
> > > > > you're doing so:
> > > > > Amendment I (1791)
> > > > >
> > > > > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
> > > > > religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
> > > > > abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
> > > > > right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
> > > > > the government for a redress of grievances.
> > >
> > > I also notice that nobody has yet to meet this challenge.
> > > Ted
>
> Still notice that you can't show me where in the Establishment clause at
> all is the right of the supreme court to censor a private citizen.
> Ted
>
No one is being censored. They are being told that they can not use
public funds to promote their religion.
Do you see this 'censorship' at private schools? No, because they are
not using public funds.
> --
> On this day, the Feast of St. Edward the Confessor
> The Just King
Theodore M. Seeber
> "Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
> >
> > > No, the entire argument is correct.
> >
> > Understand the original claim: That the Supreme Court has rights of
> > censorship over public school students in matters of religion.
>
> That which you call censorship is the enforcement of the ban on
> establishment of religion.
No, I'm talking about the SPECIFIC WAY THAT THEY ARE INTERPRETING THE BAN
on establishment of religion. Adding words like "mechanism" to the text.
> Public schools supported by public funds can
> not take part in establishing religion.
But instead the Supreme Court, which is also supported by public funds,
can institute the establishment of atheism and force everybody to go along
with it.
> Children are free to pray at
> school, they can organize bible study classes.
Not by the last ruling they can't. After all, the school is a public
building and thus a "government mechanism".
> They can profess their
> beliefs. What they cant do is use public funds to evangelize. They are
> not censored.
And using the building is not using public funds?
You can't have it both ways. Either the Supreme Court has the right to
limit free speech so that students can't use "government mechanisms" in
their beliefs, or they don't. And if they don't, the last decision was
pure censorship, and outside of the powers of the Supreme Court.
> > > All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
> > > the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
> > > State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which
> > > shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
> > > States;
> >
> > Correct. And thus somehow you twist this to mean that the Supreme Court
> > can pass censorship laws?
>
> The supreme court doesnt pass laws. They rule on the constitutionality
> of law.
They pass laws when they add words like "mechanism" to the Constitution.
If they did not pass law, then there could be no censorship of a student
praying before a football game, because the entire "government
mechanism" argument depends upon adding words to the Constitution, which
is in effect passing law.
> > > The 14th amendment doesnt need to specify religion. ALL rights protected
> > > by the constitution are covered.
> > > Incluiding the ban on establishment of religion.
> >
> > Censorship is not a right, it's a ban.
>
> We are not talking about censorship.
You may not be, I am.
> We are talking about establishment
> of religion.
Banning the establishment of religion is in effect supporting atheism,
which is also a religion.
> Supporting one religious belief over another through the
> use of state or federal funds 'establishes' religion.
Agreed, and that's exactly what I'm complaining about.
> No one has been
> censored, if you know of case of censorship please point me to a link or
> article. They may have been prohibited from using state funded
> facilities or equipment to broadcast their message.
Which is censorship.
> But thats not
> censorship.
Since when?
> > > > > > Ok, here's the first ammendment. Show me where you have a right not to
> > > > > > exercise religion, and prevent me from exercising my religion while
> > > > > > you're doing so:
> > > > > > Amendment I (1791)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
> > > > > > religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
> > > > > > abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
> > > > > > right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
> > > > > > the government for a redress of grievances.
> > > >
> > > > I also notice that nobody has yet to meet this challenge.
> > > > Ted
> >
> > Still notice that you can't show me where in the Establishment clause at
> > all is the right of the supreme court to censor a private citizen.
>
> No one is being censored. They are being told that they can not use
> public funds to promote their religion.
They're being told that they can't speak.
> Do you see this 'censorship' at private schools?
Yes.
> No, because they are
> not using public funds.
They accept some state funding, just like public schools.
Ted
--
On this day, the Feast of St. Edward the Confessor
The Just King
Rockett Crawford
"Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
>
> >
> > Ok, for your sake, I won't call it overpopulation, I'll call it many more people
> > than jobs in the world.
>
> No, call it what it is: Reduction of number of jobs in an effort to amass
> as much money as possible.
I disagree with that assertion, but in any case, the bottom line is there
are X number of jobs in the world and X+Y number of people and
Y is a very large number.
Wouldn't it be a good idea to limit the number of births where
possible so that so many children don't have to die of starvation or
grow up in poverty around the world no matter how you think
the situation has come about?
> > > > Their rivers are polluted from people going number 1 and 2
> > > > in them and their businesses dumping their wastes practically
> > > > unchecked.
> > >
> > > Yes, which feeds the algae, which feeds the fish, which eventually works
> > > it's way back up the food chain to feed the humans.
> >
> > First, I hope the toxins being dumped into Mexico City's river don't work
> > their way up any food chain.
>
> What toxin exists in human waste?
Toxins in the businesses dumping that I mentioned.
> > Secondly it would be nice if nature could
> > be given a chance to break the human waste down before they have
> > to wash their cloths, bath, and drink from it, but unfortunately because
> > of the widespread poverty caused by overpopulation that is both their
> > water supply and toilet.
>
> Which once again, is not overpopulation at all, but greedy leaders not
> building enough housing for the people and not managing natural resources
> properly.
Over population is a situation where there are too many babies being
born and not enough jobs and resources available. You can blame it
on the "evil" government, but the fact remains that there is widespread
poverty, multi-year job waiting lists, and too many babies being born
because of lack of contraception (thanks to the religious right of the
US).
> >
> > > > > Overdependance on oil rather than a sustainable energy system.
> > > >
> > > > And this inversion layer is called....? Pollution.
> > >
> > > And it's caused by.....Overdependance on oil.
> >
> > And you were claiming pollution didn't exist.
>
> No, I was claiming that it's a symptom, not a problem in and of itself.
>
You said there was no real pollution problem and there clearly is.
> > > > If you are suggesting it can be cleaned up, I agree.
> > >
> > > Cleaning it up is worth nothing as long as you continue to use non-clean
> > > sources of energy, like gasoline for your car.
> >
> > I guess flushing my toilet doesn't do any good as long as I keep
> > filling it again does it?
>
> Different type of polution.
Same principle. The problem has to be attacked at both ends
(no pun intended).
> > > What's preventing you from using clean sources of energy?
> >
> > > GREED, one of the seven deadly sins in the
> > > Bible.
> >
> > Preach on brother, I'm all for cleaning up pollution.
>
> Are you equally for giving up profit in favor of creating more jobs?
I don't agree with the premise. At my company at least, the more
profit we make, the more people we hire. When profit is down
companies lay people off.
> > > And another example of OVERPOPULATION covering up the REAL PROBLEM, which
> > > is greed.
> >
> > Whatever the cause,
>
> My point is that you're trying to hide the cause.
The cause of over population is too many babies and
not enough parental planning.
> > it is pollution and it will probably bite us
> > if we don't take care of it.
>
> And we can't take care of it as long as we keep hiding it behind a
> non-existant problem.
We can take care of it if we limit the amount of bad things
we are putting into the natural environment.
>
> > > Those bracelets have no Biblical or theological basis in historical
> > > Christianity.
> >
> > So you don't believe in trying to be Christ-like or any of that
> > being a good witness to the world stuff?
>
> How can one possibly be a good witness for Christ in a land where
> everybody's a slave to a different God?
So you as a Christian feel no need to be Christ-like?
>
> > thanks to the Religious right of the US. Even the Catholic
> > priests were looking the other way back when planned
> > parenthood was getting women contraceptives.
>
> Stupid of them. Cutting back on your most precious natural resource will
> solve nothing.
India and China have gobs of "precious natural resource" but not enough
resources and goods to go around. China recognizes this and tries to give
it's citizens incentives to only have one child.
> > > Yes. Because they were cleansing a part that you apparently no longer
> > > have: a conscience.
> >
> > They were advocating beating people to the point of wounding them
> > and actually applauding the wounding.
>
> Physically yes. But spiritually, those people ended up far stronger than
> anybody in the United States today.
It's never ceases to amaze me how far people will go to rescue the
bible. Beating people and wounding them is a horrible thing that
might have been the standard in more primitive ancient times and in today's
backward governments, but not in enlightened societies.
> > > > Prov 23:
> > > > 13 Do not withhold discipline from your children; if you beat them
> > > > with a rod, they will not die. 14 If you beat them with the rod, you
> > > > will save their lives from Sheol.
> > >
> > > Which is correct.
> >
> > Hitting children with rods has become child abuse in our more
> > enlightened society.
>
> Smoking pot has become commonplace in our
> "enlightened" society. Personally, I don't think our society is
> particularily "enlightened".
Smoking pot is against the law in the US and our society is
light years ahead of the primitive authors of the bible and
the Jewish leaders of 2500 years ago.
> > > > Here is a house call:
> > > > (Song 5:7 NRSV) Making their rounds in the city the sentinels found
> > > > me; they beat me, they wounded me, they took away my mantle,
> > > > those sentinels of the walls.
> > >
> > > Or rather a "houseless" call. You'll find the police today in large
> > > cities in America do this too.
> >
> > I suppose you think that's a swell thing too?
>
> No, but certainly neccessary for the protection of society.
> > My point is that when they were talking about beating and wounding,
> > they weren't talking about curing an illness.
>
> Yes they were, just a different illness than what you're used to calling
> an illness is all.
I think maybe you would have been happier living in the 3rd Reich.
> > > > > > It says that women
> > > > > > have inferior judgment to men because Eve was deceived and that
> > > > > > women should not teach or have authority over a man, but should
> > > > > > be silent and learn at home from their husbands.
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually, that's not what it says. Go back and read the WHOLE CHAPTER
> > > > > sometime.
> > > >
> > > > Actually that's exactly what it says no matter how many times the
> > > > chapter is read.
> > >
> > > Then why did you leave out the part about what husbands are supposed to
> > > do?
> >
> > Because it says nothing about the husband having inferior judgment
>
> Yes it does, look again.
Not inferior to women. Show me.
> > or
> > it being a shame for a man to speak in church, that a man should not
> > teach or have authority over a woman,
>
> Rather it says that he should learn to treat his wife as an equal. Like I
> said, look again.
There is nothing in there about a wife begin equal to here husband. Again
put your scripture where your mouth is. I have.
> > or that they should learn at home, etc...
>
> As my favorite priest says: "That passage asks women to do two things,
> and men to do three. Just who is getting the rotten deal here?"
That's obviously silly and irrelevant.
> > > > As far as I know there are few laws which jail people for
> > > > worshipping the wrong god, at least in the US.
> > >
> > > Oh? Try not worshiping money sometime and see where you end up.
> >
> > I'm not sure where you are going with this not worshipping money
> > getting you thrown into jail business,
>
> Live without money and see where it gets you.
Even if it did get you thrown in jail, that is not worshipping
money. Not wearing clothes will get you thrown into jail
too. So will being intoxicated. That certainly doesn't equate
to worshipping clothes or sobriety.
>
> > > > In theocracies
> > > > however, that could be a different story.
> > >
> > > This is a theocracy, a theocracy of mammon.
> >
> > You must be talking about Pat Robertson or
> > other TV preachers constantly begging for dollars.
>
> That, and also the need of MONEY in modern society at all. Capitalism in
> general is worship of Mammon, and it's definately a religion forced upon
> all under current law.
It's not worship. You have a convenient definition of worship to
prop up your bible beliefs.
> > Then there are churches who are not too keen on the
> > dietary laws of the OT, but they like the tithing law.
>
> Which is just a corruption of the Churches by the laws of the land.
No, even in the NT people were killed for "lying" about holding
back property from the church.
Money is not a god, it's just a means to an end. A god is something
people in some religions such as Judaism and Christianity imagine
to stroke themselves psychologically.
> > > > Also people in the US aren't jailed for being disrespectful to
> > > > their parents.
> > >
> > > Apparently you somehow missed the prisons for children? Where do gang
> > > members end up?
> >
> > Where people who commit crimes should end up. They don't
> > go there however for not saying "mam" or "sir."
>
> If they said "mam" and "sir" they wouldn't be gang members and they
> wouldn't be commiting crimes.
>
> ALL behavior is linked.
Irrelevant. The kids go to camps because of crimes they commit,
not because they were disrespectful, unlike the bible which directly
says to kill disrespectful children.
> > > Which is why the US is full of people who disrespect the law.
> >
> > No, that would be people who are abused or neglected as children.
>
> Actually, the ones who are beat with a rod seem to be the ones who are
> good citizens.
>
> The ones who weren't are the ones who take guns into their schools and
> shoot people.
My parents never hit me with anything, much less a weapon like a
rod such as the bible says to do. I haven't killed anybody or committed
a crime.
> > Beating children with a rod is child abuse.
>
> So claims the guy who thinks this society is "enlightened".
Agreed. Beating children with weapons is a horrible thing.
> > > > So you are saying that American business' have slaves that they
> > > > strike and kill and they aren't punished if they don't die right away?
> > >
> > > Yes. They're called blue collar workers.
> >
> > I haven't been struck lately by my CO and non of my coworkers
> > have died recently at his hands. He's actually a pretty nice guy.
>
> Wait until times turn rough, and see what happens.
Your attempt at an analogy to save the bible is terrible. There
is no correlation.
>
> > > > > Apples and oranges. Sperm and eggs apart are no more alive than the cells
> > > > > you scratch out of your ears.
> > > >
> > > > Of course sperm and egg cells are alive.
> > >
> > > But will not survive unless they come together, and will eventually be
> > > shedded or reabsorbed.
> >
> > Same thing with 1/2 of the fertilized eggs that don't adhere to the
> > womb lining.
>
> Still an act of God, not of us.
No, it's an act of nature. It happens. If a Christian would think about
it for a moment, they might see a conflict between the idea that
a fertilized egg is a baby and a god designed humans so that 1/2
or more of the "babies" would die immediately. Not a very rational
"design."
> > > Heaven? No. As the atheists tell us, that's the natural state. They
> > > missed out on life, and as the Tibetan Buddhists tell us, atheists get
> > > another chance to get the point.
> >
> > Avoiding the question? Does your brand of Christianity believe in
> > special dispensation for children?
>
> My brand of Christianity is not just Christianity. And the answer there
> is "it depends".
Where do discharged fertilized eggs play into your particular belief?
Do they need to be baptized first?
> > > > Agreed, but I can do most anything I want as long as I don't
> > > > harm others in some way. There are trivial exceptions, but
> > > > nothing that keeps me awake at night.
> > >
> > > In other words, you're comfortable with your slavery.
> >
> > Again, I would suggest a decent dictionary rather than
> > a rationalization to attempt to save the bible from looking
> > like a book that condones slavery (which it is).
>
> There is no difference between slave and free.
> Woman or man.
> Gentile or Jew.
>
> The same book that "condones slavery" to you, also claims that freedom is
> not possible, is a comfortable fiction to keep the slaves from revolting.
I disagree and I have no intention of revolting if convinced otherwise.
> > > > No need to think about
> > > > them, they just can't exist or possibly what you (and I used to)
> > > > believe isn't true.
> > >
> > > No, they exist all right. They are the cause of evil in this world.
> >
> > The problems with the bible do exist. Another problem is the need
> > to rationalize them away to continue the psychological benefits
> > of imaging Yahweh as a forgiving father figure and how that
> > affects one's logic when dealing with the real world.
>
> It apparently sharpen's ones logic beyond the abilities of atheists.
>
I think you are the one that needs to wake up about why
you need to believe in Yahweh.
Edward L. Sanwhicheater
"Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
>
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2000, Edward L. Sanwhicheater wrote:
>
> > "Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
> > >
> > > > No, the entire argument is correct.
> > >
> > > Understand the original claim: That the Supreme Court has rights of
> > > censorship over public school students in matters of religion.
> >
> > That which you call censorship is the enforcement of the ban on
> > establishment of religion.
>
> No, I'm talking about the SPECIFIC WAY THAT THEY ARE INTERPRETING THE BAN
> on establishment of religion. Adding words like "mechanism" to the text.
>
> > Public schools supported by public funds can
> > not take part in establishing religion.
>
> But instead the Supreme Court, which is also supported by public funds,
> can institute the establishment of atheism and force everybody to go along
> with it.
>
They are not establishing atheism. No one is getting up and saying
'There is no God'.
> > Children are free to pray at
> > school, they can organize bible study classes.
>
> Not by the last ruling they can't. After all, the school is a public
> building and thus a "government mechanism".
>
Sure they can. There is a difference between allowing a group of kids to
have meetings and broadcasting a prayer over the PA system. The first
allows the practice of religion the second prevents the establishment of
religion
> > They can profess their
> > beliefs. What they cant do is use public funds to evangelize. They are
> > not censored.
>
> And using the building is not using public funds?
> You can't have it both ways. Either the Supreme Court has the right to
> limit free speech so that students can't use "government mechanisms" in
> their beliefs, or they don't. And if they don't, the last decision was
> pure censorship, and outside of the powers of the Supreme Court.
>
Again , there is a difference between allowing people to use rooms in
the school for a meeting and broadcasting their prayers or religious
beliefs over a PA system. Allowing those who want to have prayer/bible
meetings to have those meetings is not the establishment of religion. To
broadcast prayers over a PA system to everyone assembled at a publicly
sponsored function is the establishment of religion.
> > > > All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
> > > > the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
> > > > State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which
> > > > shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
> > > > States;
> > >
> > > Correct. And thus somehow you twist this to mean that the Supreme Court
> > > can pass censorship laws?
> >
> > The supreme court doesnt pass laws. They rule on the constitutionality
> > of law.
>
> They pass laws when they add words like "mechanism" to the Constitution.
>
Please point to the decision you are referencing. I'd like to read it.
> If they did not pass law, then there could be no censorship of a student
> praying before a football game, because the entire "government
> mechanism" argument depends upon adding words to the Constitution, which
> is in effect passing law.
>
> > > > The 14th amendment doesnt need to specify religion. ALL rights protected
> > > > by the constitution are covered.
> > > > Incluiding the ban on establishment of religion.
> > >
> > > Censorship is not a right, it's a ban.
> >
> > We are not talking about censorship.
>
> You may not be, I am.
>
> > We are talking about establishment
> > of religion.
>
> Banning the establishment of religion is in effect supporting atheism,
> which is also a religion.
>
No it isnt. First atheism is not a religion. Second, banning the
establishment of religion in no way promotes atheism. Yo will not find
schools where people or on the PA systems saying 'there is no god'.What
it promotes is freedom of religion.
> > Supporting one religious belief over another through the
> > use of state or federal funds 'establishes' religion.
>
> Agreed, and that's exactly what I'm complaining about.
>
I dont understand. Are you saying that by not promoting religion,
religion is established?
> > No one has been
> > censored, if you know of case of censorship please point me to a link or
> > article. They may have been prohibited from using state funded
> > facilities or equipment to broadcast their message.
>
> Which is censorship.
>
No it isnt. They can say what ever they want , they just cant use public
funds to establish a religion.
> > But thats not
> > censorship.
>
> Since when?
>
since 12/15/1791 when the 1st amendment was ratified.
> > > > > > > Ok, here's the first ammendment. Show me where you have a right not to
> > > > > > > exercise religion, and prevent me from exercising my religion while
> > > > > > > you're doing so:
> > > > > > > Amendment I (1791)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
> > > > > > > religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
> > > > > > > abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
> > > > > > > right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
> > > > > > > the government for a redress of grievances.
> > > > >
> > > > > I also notice that nobody has yet to meet this challenge.
> > > > > Ted
> > >
> > > Still notice that you can't show me where in the Establishment clause at
> > > all is the right of the supreme court to censor a private citizen.
> >
> > No one is being censored. They are being told that they can not use
> > public funds to promote their religion.
>
> They're being told that they can't speak.
>
> > Do you see this 'censorship' at private schools?
>
> Yes.
>
> > No, because they are
> > not using public funds.
>
> They accept some state funding, just like public schools.
> Ted
>
> --
> On this day, the Feast of St. Edward the Confessor
> The Just King
Richard Byrnes
> can institute the establishment of atheism and force everybody to go along
> with it.
I don't want to get into this debate, but could you please clarify how not allowing the
use of public schools to preach for a religion equals atheism? I'm pretty sure that
the ban also covers people who would like to preach (if that's the right term) for the
non-existence of God. Thanks in advance for your response.
Cam Beck
interpreted and what may not" would come up. I've actually addressed this,
here or elsewhere, and I forgot to mention it in this post, as I assumed
that it would be understood. Of course, that is my mistake.
There are certain concepts and words in the Constitution that are, in fact,
open to wide interpretation. One example of what I'm talking about is the
concept of "unreasonable" searches and seizures. What is unreasonable? It
isn't clearly defined, and it couldn't be, given the technologies that have
changed over the course of the the years have enabled entities to tap into
phone lines, pick up conversations with hyper-sensitive eavesdropping
equipment, and things like that. Therefore, it has been up to the Supreme
Court to determine, when Congress or any entity tried to invade that
privacy, whether or not that violated a person's natural right to it.
The first amendment, as it is written, is strictly clear. It will make no
law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof. Those tenets are not mutually exclusive, nor do we need to
sacrifice one in order to preserve the other. It simply will make no law
doing that. If it does, it is unconstitutional.
If, however, it provides money to an entity over which it has an enumerated
power (funding public schools is not one of them), such as making lower
courts, and the individuals affected, on their own accord, decided, for
instance, to post the ten commandments, it does not violate the first
amendment. Congress did its duty in establishing the court, which
necessarily requires public funds, and the individuals therein practiced
religious freedom of expression. Congress made no law, whatsoever,
establishing a religion in that case.
If we were to incorrectly assume that Congress did have the authority to be
involved with public education, the same thing applies. We would be more
correct in saying that Congress cannot mandate school attendance. If the
fourteenth amendment is true, then neither can states. However, the people
therein can still practice that religion, even if it entails using some of
the money, in one way or another, that Congress has earmarked. Did Congress
make a law respecting the establishment of religion? No. They made no law
whatsoever, they merely provided funds. Can they pass a law preventing the
people from freely exercising that religion, at a public school or
otherwise? Again, no. Does the Supreme Court have that authority? That would
invoke lawmaking powers, therefore, since Article I establishes that only
Congress has that, the answer is no.
By your logic, and by the Supreme Court's logic over the past 40 years,
since schools receive federal money, school prayer violates the
establishment clause. If that's the case, assuming the federal government
has the authority to subsidize apartment rent, which it does not but, as it
does with education, claims anyway, if the managers of that apartment
complex, at the behest of the residents, wanted to allow and participate in
weekly Bible Study in a group area of that complex, then they would not be
free to do so. That's what is at issue here in schools. Everything done in
these schools, provided it violates neither federal nor state laws, should
be controlled at the local level. The states or local school boards COULD,
in fact, pass laws prohibiting free expression of religion, but that isn't
even what has happened. It has been the Supreme Court, acting far outside of
its authority, that has effectively outlawed it.
Furthermore, all sorts of schools can exist; some secular and some
religious. The existence of prayer in those schools would be up to the
parents in the communities that run the school. If a child of mine was ever
prevented from praying, I should be free to immediately remove him from that
school, and place him in a school more sympathetic to my beliefs, or I
should be able to, free from threat of penalty of a reckless court system,
to work to change the school he was in. That should be my decision -- not
someone living in Washington or Nevada or Utah -- nor should I have to be
coerced into paying for a system that teaches, to both my children and the
children of others, violations of the structure of my religion.
The only interpretation needed of the first amendment in relation to the
constructionist point of view is the understanding that we have a structured
language that has definitions of words that cannot be redefined on a whim.
Whereas "reasonable" is subjective, "Congress" is clearly defined, and the
predicate and direct object and everything else of the first amendment is
NOT subjective. The subjective words are the only thing requiring
interpretations... and if the wording becomes insufficient to protect the
people against unlawful authority, it is the right of the people to alter
that document that gives government power.
Now I'll go into several more specific points you made, snipping some of my
words for expediency.
> He also wrote that we must erect a wall of separation between the church
and the
> state.
That statement is generally taken out of context to pretend it means
something other than it does. Consider under the circumstances which
Jefferson wrote it, and consider the objections he was answering.
> Except that you don't get to pick which ones are and which ones aren't.
Later
> you indicate that "words mean something" as if that settles that words
mean
> what you think they should mean. I suggest that all areas of the
constitution
> are and must be open to interpretation to some degree. Otherwise it is
dead, and
> so are we.
>
See above.
> Quite the contrary. What you suggest is that the interpretations of the
strict
> constructionists (and they ARE interpretations) should supercede other
> considerations, and we then have the tyranny of a bunch of literal, stiff
necked
> conservatives. While I do not agree with many SCOTUS decisions, I do
respect
> the process and have no wish to see it changed.
>
See above.
> > So I take great exception to your premise that the Constitution does not
> > function as a literal document. If it does not, then it provides
absolutely
> > no protection against tyranny.
>
> This is patently untrue. A) the constitution has always been interpreted
by the
> SCOTUS and we are more free today we were before.
>
We are not more free because of SCOTUS. Amendments to the Constitution which
protect liberties have been made as a result of either the inefficiency of
the SC to protect individual liberties or the unwillingness of states to
respect central tenets of the Declaration of Independence. Both of those can
be illustrated by the Dred Scott case.
That is not rediculous at all. If we allow any branch of the government
change the wording of the first amendment in one way, what is to stop them
from changing it in another? What's to stop it from changing it
> > Words do, in fact, have meanings, and with the Constitution literally
being
> > "the law of the land," granting the authority to any branch of
government to
> > change the Constitution as they wish without proper authority literally
> > makes the document worthless.
>
> Yet this hasn't happened, hasn't been suggested, and, as you well know,
wouldn't
> happen.
If you are suggesting "Congress shall make no laws respecting... " really
means, "Separation of Church and State," like there are many organizations,
such as the Supreme Court, lower courts, ACLU, and Amercians United for
Separation of Church and State, then it has happened, it is happening, and
it will continue to happen unless we reclaim our authority to stop the
trend.
But we do know that adhering to strict states rights interpretation
> will result in oppression.
Maybe, maybe not. I think you underestimate the value American people, in
general, put in freedom. We can certainly discuss what either of us thinks
states SHOULD do, regardless of what they MAY do. If that is the result of
strictly interpreting the Constitution, we should do so in the proper way,
with the short and long term effects in mind, and carefully word it so as
not to destroy the liberty of self-determination.
> > We'd be just as secure as to not have it. As a
> > former Marine, Having taken the solemn oath to "support and defend the
> > Constitution of the United States," what was I swearing to if that could
not
> > be literally defined?
>
> A concept. An idea. You fought for freedom, but freedom isn't a literal
thing.
> You fought for justice, but that is not literal either. Or are those
things
> irrelevant because they are not literal?
>
The Constitution is a real document with real words and real meanings. The
Declaration of Independence is an idea... Locke's Second Treatise on Civil
Government is an idea, although a less binding one. The Constitution
provides a functional instrument of government that protects those ideas.
That's what I defended.
> > If we may change words around when we are interpreting it, which is
> > precisely what you are advocating (whether you intend to or not), we
could
> > just as easily say, "Congress SHALL make laws respecting the
establishment
> > of religion." What's a deleted word or two when we're interpreting the
> > Constitution? The answer is Everything.
>
> I am not advocating anything of the sort. Don't waste your energy arguing
> against phantoms.
>
Again, if you're taking the meaning of the first amendment to say,
"Separation of Church and State," like many other organizations, that is
precisely what you're doing. If however, you would like to argue the merits
of the fourteenth amendment, I'm perfectly able to do that... but we need to
get a few things established first. One is that the Constitution does have
literal meaning, and another is that certain things can't be abandoned
because the literal definitions do not lend themselves to subjectivity.
> > If people have the unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of
> > happiness, and government is instituted among men, deriving its just
powers
> > from the consent of the governed, laying its foundation on such
principles,
> > that whenever government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the
right
> > of the people to alter or abolish it, if the Constitution, in fact, was
> > written, laying its foundation on such principles, then any attempt for
an
> > unelected body to change its literal meaning is an usurpation of the
will
> > and authority of the people, and then it would make the enforcement of
that
> > doctrine illegitimate (sorry about the long sentence; I'll restate if I
need
> > to).
>
> Nah, I get it. But your mistake, if I may be so bold, is in assuming that
when
> words have meaning, they have a fixed meaning, or that they have the
meaning you
> want them to have. All language is subject to interpretation.
Does that mean "No" will sometimes mean "yes," "alone" will sometimes mean,
"not alone," and "is" will sometimes mean "isn't?"
I have written
> enough policy, even simple policy, to know that even when you settle on
> language, it still means different things to the people who agree on the
> language. There is no simple, single intereptation of anything in the
> constitution: there isn't even a simple sense of what the founders meant
when
> they agreed on certain wording. Even the concept of free speech, which
seems
> absolute, can be interpreted in numerous ways. Did they mean free
political
> speech? Did they intend free speech to include art? Did all of them
intend
> that? Did anyone sign on thinkin gthat it only meant political speech.
Many
> arguments have been advanced that written words, physical gestures,
symbols and
> the like are not covered because they aren't "speech". Again ALL
language is
> subject to interpretation: to pretend otherwise is arrogance.
>
I agree with that in principle, but Congress will always be Congress, and
nothing else, and therefore would be the only entity affected in that case.
> >
> > State governments must lay its foundation on those principles as well.
It is
> > the necessary function of a republic. That is not to say that everyone
is
> > going to come to the same conclusions, but it is not your right; it is
not
> > anyone's right, except for the people of that district, to tell them how
the
> > people of a particular district should or should not raise or educate
their
> > children.
>
> Zoom, in comes education from left field. But a state does NOT have a
right to
> construct laws, policies or practices that, for example, relegate black
people
> to substandard education, even though the Constitution is silent on
education.
Equal protection under laws. They cannot relegate anyone to substandard
education, provided determined to be something provided by the government,
which, I feel, it should be, although I think it should be a state and local
concern, not federal. You're right... the Constitution is silent on
education, although Jefferson, who was not present for the authoring of the
Constituion, in some form, supported public education (given Jefferson was
anti-federalist, he undoubtedly still wanted that left to the states). There
is no question about that.
>
> > That is the general idea behind enumerating specific powers (of
> > which education is NOT included -- in fact, in the debate the other day,
Jim
> > Lehrer said that only 6% of money, which is exactly 6% too much, comes
from
> > the federal government anyway) to the federal government, and all others
not
> > prohibited to the states and to the people.
> >
> > The federal government must protect all the citizens from certain
abuses,
> > and the Bill of Rights does that. However, it is precisely because
judges
> > did not take the literal meaning of the Constitution that abhorations
such
> > as slavery was allowed for so long.
>
> A perfect example of why interpretation is inevitable. When the founders
used
> the term "man" some meant mankind on the whole, but some meant men as a
gender.
> Then too, the term was interpreted to exclude black people, and women.
Slavery,
> despite how you mangle history here, was preserved on the basis of exactly
your
> argument, i.e. that the states can decide these matters for themselves.
The fallability of mankind, in general, and both what you said and what I
said, in particular, is how slavery was preserved for so long. Had states
respected equal rights for all, it never would have been an issue. Had the
Supreme Court correctly presumed that slaves were humans, they could have
correctly interpreted the Constitution as well. Luckily, the principles of
the Declaration of Independence, as all truth eventually does, prevailed in
the end.
>
> For example, how would any government
>
> > determine that slaves could be deprived of life, liberty, and subject to
> > unreasonable searches and seizures? Simple. Determine arbitrarily that
> > slaves are not persons.
Both the states and the Supreme Court was guilty of this.
That is tyranny. That is a specific, and literal,
> > violation of the principle tenets of the Declaration of Independence.
One of
>
> > the abuses the founders cited was, "For abolishing the free system of
> > English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an
arbitrary
> > government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an
> > example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in
these
> > colonies:"
> >
While we're at it, here's another abuse the founders cited:
"For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with
power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever."
Theodore M. Seeber
>
> "Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
>
> >
> > >
> > > Ok, for your sake, I won't call it overpopulation, I'll call it many more people
> > > than jobs in the world.
> >
> > No, call it what it is: Reduction of number of jobs in an effort to amass
> > as much money as possible.
>
> I disagree with that assertion, but in any case, the bottom line is there
> are X number of jobs in the world and X+Y number of people and
> Y is a very large number.
And my point is that in fact, there are far more jobs to do than people IF
we give up on the idea of making profit.
> Wouldn't it be a good idea to limit the number of births where
> possible so that so many children don't have to die of starvation or
> grow up in poverty around the world no matter how you think
> the situation has come about?
Poverty is relative. A far better option would be to institute a maximum
wage law, and prevent anybody from being rich. This could be easily done
with a 100% income tax on all money earned above $100,000/year. Then
throw in a loophole: Money spent on payroll is 100% tax deductible.
Suddenly you'd see plenty of jobs cropping up, and would NEVER AGAIN have
enough people to fill them.
> > > > > Their rivers are polluted from people going number 1 and 2
> > > > > in them and their businesses dumping their wastes practically
> > > > > unchecked.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, which feeds the algae, which feeds the fish, which eventually works
> > > > it's way back up the food chain to feed the humans.
> > >
> > > First, I hope the toxins being dumped into Mexico City's river don't work
> > > their way up any food chain.
> >
> > What toxin exists in human waste?
>
> Toxins in the businesses dumping that I mentioned.
Ah, yes, I missed that. But you do know there are other life forms than
humans on this planet for which your toxins are food?
> > > Secondly it would be nice if nature could
> > > be given a chance to break the human waste down before they have
> > > to wash their cloths, bath, and drink from it, but unfortunately because
> > > of the widespread poverty caused by overpopulation that is both their
> > > water supply and toilet.
> >
> > Which once again, is not overpopulation at all, but greedy leaders not
> > building enough housing for the people and not managing natural resources
> > properly.
>
> Over population is a situation where there are too many babies being
> born and not enough jobs and resources available.
There are plenty of jobs and recources available to the society as a
whole; the problem is that some people are hording those jobs and
resources.
> You can blame it
> on the "evil" government, but the fact remains that there is widespread
> poverty, multi-year job waiting lists, and too many babies being born
> because of lack of contraception (thanks to the religious right of the
> US).
You do realize that overall, world population growth is falling, right?
If resources were shared equitably, there would be no "overpopulation" at
all.
> > > And you were claiming pollution didn't exist.
> >
> > No, I was claiming that it's a symptom, not a problem in and of itself.
>
> You said there was no real pollution problem and there clearly is.
No, I said there was no real PROBLEM of pollution. It's a symptom, not a
problem in and of itself.
Being able to tell the difference between symptoms and problems is the
first step in comming up with solutions.
> > > > > If you are suggesting it can be cleaned up, I agree.
> > > >
> > > > Cleaning it up is worth nothing as long as you continue to use non-clean
> > > > sources of energy, like gasoline for your car.
> > >
> > > I guess flushing my toilet doesn't do any good as long as I keep
> > > filling it again does it?
> >
> > Different type of polution.
>
> Same principle. The problem has to be attacked at both ends
> (no pun intended).
But you're not attacking the problem at all. Instead, you're going on and
on about a non-related problem, overpopulation, which wouldn't even be a
problem if we had fair distribution of resources and jobs.
> > > > What's preventing you from using clean sources of energy?
> > >
> > > > GREED, one of the seven deadly sins in the
> > > > Bible.
> > >
> > > Preach on brother, I'm all for cleaning up pollution.
> >
> > Are you equally for giving up profit in favor of creating more jobs?
>
> I don't agree with the premise. At my company at least, the more
> profit we make, the more people we hire. When profit is down
> companies lay people off.
Which is exactly the WRONG thing to do for most companies.
That's why I say the real problem with the job situation is not one of too
many people for too few jobs; rather it's a problem of greed.
Go to your local McDonalds a few times on different shifts and see how
many times you're helped by somebody who can even speak English.
We have a severe labor shortage in the United States. And a severe job
shortage in Mexico. The logical thing to do would be for the United
States to annex Mexico and start working on bringing the same ecconomy to
both regions.
But unfortuneately, greed gets in the way of that.
> > My point is that you're trying to hide the cause.
>
> The cause of over population is too many babies and
> not enough parental planning.
No, that's the apparent symptom which is hiding the cause. The cause is
greed.
Up until the Industrial Age, more babies meant more farm labor, which
meant more food grown.
Due to greed we've broken the cycle.
> > > it is pollution and it will probably bite us
> > > if we don't take care of it.
> >
> > And we can't take care of it as long as we keep hiding it behind a
> > non-existant problem.
>
> We can take care of it if we limit the amount of bad things
> we are putting into the natural environment.
And we won't do that until we attack greed.
> > > > Those bracelets have no Biblical or theological basis in historical
> > > > Christianity.
> > >
> > > So you don't believe in trying to be Christ-like or any of that
> > > being a good witness to the world stuff?
> >
> > How can one possibly be a good witness for Christ in a land where
> > everybody's a slave to a different God?
>
> So you as a Christian feel no need to be Christ-like?
I feel no ability to be Christ-like. Until we start attacking the basic
deadly sins that exist in society as virtues, nobody has any ability at
all to be Christ-like.
> > > thanks to the Religious right of the US. Even the Catholic
> > > priests were looking the other way back when planned
> > > parenthood was getting women contraceptives.
> >
> > Stupid of them. Cutting back on your most precious natural resource will
> > solve nothing.
>
> India and China have gobs of "precious natural resource" but not enough
> resources and goods to go around.
India and China both have despot rulers who hoard resources for themselves
instead of giving those resources to the people.
> China recognizes this and tries to give
> it's citizens incentives to only have one child.
When they really should be razing the cities to build farms.
> > > They were advocating beating people to the point of wounding them
> > > and actually applauding the wounding.
> >
> > Physically yes. But spiritually, those people ended up far stronger than
> > anybody in the United States today.
>
> It's never ceases to amaze me how far people will go to rescue the
> bible.
It's not "rescuing the Bible", it's destroying the lies that exist in
society today.
> Beating people and wounding them is a horrible thing that
> might have been the standard in more primitive ancient times and in today's
> backward governments, but not in enlightened societies.
Your "enlightened society" caused 4 million children under the age of 8 to
starve to death last year, because the richer people wanted to be greedy
and hoard resources.
> > > > > Prov 23:
> > > > > 13 Do not withhold discipline from your children; if you beat them
> > > > > with a rod, they will not die. 14 If you beat them with the rod, you
> > > > > will save their lives from Sheol.
> > > >
> > > > Which is correct.
> > >
> > > Hitting children with rods has become child abuse in our more
> > > enlightened society.
> >
> > Smoking pot has become commonplace in our
> > "enlightened" society. Personally, I don't think our society is
> > particularily "enlightened".
>
> Smoking pot is against the law in the US
But is widely done anyway.
> and our society is
> light years ahead of the primitive authors of the bible and
> the Jewish leaders of 2500 years ago.
Not as long as we still allow children to starve while wasteing food.
> > > > > Here is a house call:
> > > > > (Song 5:7 NRSV) Making their rounds in the city the sentinels found
> > > > > me; they beat me, they wounded me, they took away my mantle,
> > > > > those sentinels of the walls.
> > > >
> > > > Or rather a "houseless" call. You'll find the police today in large
> > > > cities in America do this too.
> > >
> > > I suppose you think that's a swell thing too?
> >
> > No, but certainly neccessary for the protection of society.
>
> > > My point is that when they were talking about beating and wounding,
> > > they weren't talking about curing an illness.
> >
> > Yes they were, just a different illness than what you're used to calling
> > an illness is all.
>
> I think maybe you would have been happier living in the 3rd Reich.
No, even there the rich like Hitler hoarded resources.
> > > > Then why did you leave out the part about what husbands are supposed to
> > > > do?
> > >
> > > Because it says nothing about the husband having inferior judgment
> >
> > Yes it does, look again.
>
> Not inferior to women. Show me.
Stop placing your ethical system on the Bible, it won't work.
It clearly states that he needs to treat his wife as an equal.
> > > or
> > > it being a shame for a man to speak in church, that a man should not
> > > teach or have authority over a woman,
> >
> > Rather it says that he should learn to treat his wife as an equal. Like I
> > said, look again.
>
> There is nothing in there about a wife begin equal to here husband.
Sirach 26:
Sir.26
[1] Happy is the husband of a good wife;
the number of his days will be doubled.
[2] A loyal wife rejoices her husband,
and he will complete his years in peace.
[3] A good wife is a great blessing;
she will be granted among the blessings of
the man who fears the Lord.
[4] Whether rich or poor, his heart is glad,
and at all times his face is cheerful.
[5] Of three things my heart is afraid,
and of a fourth I am frightened:
The slander of a city, the gathering of a mob,
and false accusation -- all these are worse than death.
[6] There is grief of heart and sorrow
when a wife is envious of a rival, and a tongue-lashing
makes it known to all.
[7] An evil wife is an ox yoke which chafes;
taking hold of her is like grasping a scorpion.
[8] There is great anger when a wife is drunken;
she will not hide her shame.
[9] A wife's harlotry shows in her lustful eyes,
and she is known by her eyelids.
[10] Keep strict watch over a headstrong daughter,
lest, when she finds liberty, she use it to her hurt.
[11] Be on guard against her impudent eye,
and do not wonder if she sins against you.
[12] As a thirsty wayfarer opens his mouth
and drinks from any water near him,
so will she sit in front of every post
and open her quiver to the arrow.
[13] A wife's charm delights her husband,
and her skill puts fat on his bones.
[14] A silent wife is a gift of the Lord,
and there is nothing so precious as a disciplined soul.
[15] A modest wife adds charm to charm,
and no balance can weigh the value of a chaste soul.
[16] Like the sun rising in the heights of the Lord,
so is the beauty of a good wife in her well-ordered home.
[17] Like the shining lamp on the holy lampstand,
so is a beautiful face on a stately figure.
[18] Like pillars of gold on a base of silver,
so are beautiful feet with a steadfast heart.
Or did you think I held only to the Protestant Bible?
> Again
> put your scripture where your mouth is. I have.
No you haven't. You've quoted a few things utterly out of context.
> > > or that they should learn at home, etc...
> >
> > As my favorite priest says: "That passage asks women to do two things,
> > and men to do three. Just who is getting the rotten deal here?"
>
> That's obviously silly and irrelevant.
Not obviously silly. Very profound. A man must take care of his wife, if
he doesn't, he's sinned against himself.
> > > > > As far as I know there are few laws which jail people for
> > > > > worshipping the wrong god, at least in the US.
> > > >
> > > > Oh? Try not worshiping money sometime and see where you end up.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure where you are going with this not worshipping money
> > > getting you thrown into jail business,
> >
> > Live without money and see where it gets you.
>
> Even if it did get you thrown in jail,
Which it will.
> that is not worshipping
> money.
Yes it is. It's giving money a symbolic purpose in your life.
> Not wearing clothes will get you thrown into jail
> too. So will being intoxicated. That certainly doesn't equate
> to worshipping clothes or sobriety.
Actually it does, but that's only because you don't know the meaning of
worship.
> > > You must be talking about Pat Robertson or
> > > other TV preachers constantly begging for dollars.
> >
> > That, and also the need of MONEY in modern society at all. Capitalism in
> > general is worship of Mammon, and it's definately a religion forced upon
> > all under current law.
>
> It's not worship.
Yes it is.
> You have a convenient definition of worship to
> prop up your bible beliefs.
Has nothing to do with Bible beliefs in this case. Has to do with greed,
and the hording of resources.
> > > Then there are churches who are not too keen on the
> > > dietary laws of the OT, but they like the tithing law.
> >
> > Which is just a corruption of the Churches by the laws of the land.
>
> No, even in the NT people were killed for "lying" about holding
> back property from the church.
Yes. Because they were GREEDY!
> Money is not a god, it's just a means to an end.
Then why do people hoard it?
> A god is something
> people in some religions such as Judaism and Christianity imagine
> to stroke themselves psychologically.
Just as the rich man strokes himself psychologically with his ever-growing
bank balance.
> > If they said "mam" and "sir" they wouldn't be gang members and they
> > wouldn't be commiting crimes.
> >
> > ALL behavior is linked.
>
> Irrelevant. The kids go to camps because of crimes they commit,
> not because they were disrespectful,
If they were being respectful, they wouldn't be commiting crimes, now
would they.
> unlike the bible which directly
> says to kill disrespectful children.
We'd be better off if we did, because disrespect is the first sign that
the law is going to be broken.
> > > No, that would be people who are abused or neglected as children.
> >
> > Actually, the ones who are beat with a rod seem to be the ones who are
> > good citizens.
> >
> > The ones who weren't are the ones who take guns into their schools and
> > shoot people.
>
> My parents never hit me with anything, much less a weapon like a
> rod such as the bible says to do. I haven't killed anybody or committed
> a crime.
Only because you don't realize it when you do.
> > > Beating children with a rod is child abuse.
> >
> > So claims the guy who thinks this society is "enlightened".
>
> Agreed. Beating children with weapons is a horrible thing.
My point is, all you've done is proven you're a spoiled brat who doesn't
know the use of pain.
> > > I haven't been struck lately by my CO and non of my coworkers
> > > have died recently at his hands. He's actually a pretty nice guy.
> >
> > Wait until times turn rough, and see what happens.
>
> Your attempt at an analogy to save the bible is terrible. There
> is no correlation.
Plenty of correlation. Try disobeying your boss, see how long your
paycheck continues.
> > > Same thing with 1/2 of the fertilized eggs that don't adhere to the
> > > womb lining.
> >
> > Still an act of God, not of us.
>
> No, it's an act of nature.
God is nature. Nature is a part of God, as is every atom in the universe.
> It happens. If a Christian would think about
> it for a moment, they might see a conflict between the idea that
> a fertilized egg is a baby and a god designed humans so that 1/2
> or more of the "babies" would die immediately. Not a very rational
> "design."
Extremely rational. Just not within your corrupted idea of what is
rational, that's all.
> > > Avoiding the question? Does your brand of Christianity believe in
> > > special dispensation for children?
> >
> > My brand of Christianity is not just Christianity. And the answer there
> > is "it depends".
>
> Where do discharged fertilized eggs play into your particular belief?
Same place as atheists.
> Do they need to be baptized first?
Yes. Otherwise, as the Tibetan Buddhists tell us, they missed the point
in life and are going to be given a second chance.
The only way out of the eternal redeath is to become enlightened. Truely
enlightened people know the purpose of discipline. Your
"enlightened" society doesn't.
> > There is no difference between slave and free.
> > Woman or man.
> > Gentile or Jew.
> >
> > The same book that "condones slavery" to you, also claims that freedom is
> > not possible, is a comfortable fiction to keep the slaves from revolting.
>
> I disagree and I have no intention of revolting if convinced otherwise.
All that proves is that your brainwashing is complete.
> > It apparently sharpen's ones logic beyond the abilities of atheists.
>
> I think you are the one that needs to wake up about why
> you need to believe in Yahweh.
I don't.
I don't care if you call him nature, Yahweh, or the Great Green
Arklesnezure.
I just know he exists, and nothing exists outside of him.
Science is just the search for the mind of God (Galileo is the one who
said that!).
Ted
--
On this day, the Feast of St. Edward the Confessor
The Just King
Theodore M. Seeber
> > > Public schools supported by public funds can
> > > not take part in establishing religion.
> >
> > But instead the Supreme Court, which is also supported by public funds,
> > can institute the establishment of atheism and force everybody to go along
> > with it.
>
> They are not establishing atheism. No one is getting up and saying
> 'There is no God'.
You must not have been in a high school biology class recently.
> > > Children are free to pray at
> > > school, they can organize bible study classes.
> >
> > Not by the last ruling they can't. After all, the school is a public
> > building and thus a "government mechanism".
>
> Sure they can. There is a difference between allowing a group of kids to
> have meetings and broadcasting a prayer over the PA system.
No there isn't.
> The first
> allows the practice of religion the second prevents the establishment of
> religion
How is a religion being established with a transitory prayer over a PA
system?
There isn't one.
> > > They can profess their
> > > beliefs. What they cant do is use public funds to evangelize. They are
> > > not censored.
> >
> > And using the building is not using public funds?
> > You can't have it both ways. Either the Supreme Court has the right to
> > limit free speech so that students can't use "government mechanisms" in
> > their beliefs, or they don't. And if they don't, the last decision was
> > pure censorship, and outside of the powers of the Supreme Court.
>
> Again , there is a difference between allowing people to use rooms in
> the school for a meeting and broadcasting their prayers or religious
> beliefs over a PA system.
Not at all.
> Allowing those who want to have prayer/bible
> meetings to have those meetings is not the establishment of religion. To
> broadcast prayers over a PA system to everyone assembled at a publicly
> sponsored function is the establishment of religion.
There is no reasoning behind this. Actually, both ways are establishing
religon: The prayer (free speech) and the suppression of the prayer
(suppression of free speech).
> > > > Correct. And thus somehow you twist this to mean that the Supreme Court
> > > > can pass censorship laws?
> > >
> > > The supreme court doesnt pass laws. They rule on the constitutionality
> > > of law.
> >
> > They pass laws when they add words like "mechanism" to the Constitution.
>
> Please point to the decision you are referencing. I'd like to read it.
The quote comes from another person in this thread, who claimed that the
PA system was a government mechanism, and to use government mechanisms
automatically changed something from free speech to establishment.
> > If they did not pass law, then there could be no censorship of a student
> > praying before a football game, because the entire "government
> > mechanism" argument depends upon adding words to the Constitution, which
> > is in effect passing law.
Try this question: Is it right for the Supreme Court to ammend the
constitution?
> > > We are talking about establishment
> > > of religion.
> >
> > Banning the establishment of religion is in effect supporting atheism,
> > which is also a religion.
>
> No it isnt.
Yes it is.
> First atheism is not a religion.
That's a lie. It's a belief system, and therefore a religion.
> Second, banning the
> establishment of religion in no way promotes atheism.
That's a lie too.
> Yo will not find
> schools where people or on the PA systems saying 'there is no god'.What
> it promotes is freedom of religion.
Not at all. Besides, you aren't guaranteed freedom of religion in the
first ammendment anyway.
> > > Supporting one religious belief over another through the
> > > use of state or federal funds 'establishes' religion.
> >
> > Agreed, and that's exactly what I'm complaining about.
>
> I dont understand. Are you saying that by not promoting religion,
> religion is established?
Yes, just a different religion: that religion which is defined as the
abscence of all other religions.
> > > No one has been
> > > censored, if you know of case of censorship please point me to a link or
> > > article. They may have been prohibited from using state funded
> > > facilities or equipment to broadcast their message.
> >
> > Which is censorship.
>
> No it isnt.
Yes it is.
> They can say what ever they want , they just cant use public
> funds to establish a religion.
Did they not pay their taxes? Are the funds not PUBLIC for use by the
PUBLIC?
> > > But thats not
> > > censorship.
> >
> > Since when?
>
> since 12/15/1791 when the 1st amendment was ratified.
The first Ammendment clearly states that Congress (alone) is banned from
making laws that deal with religion in any way, shape, or form
(establishment or prohibition).
Article III states that the Supreme Court is only allowed to interpret
law, not make new law.
> > > > > > > > Ok, here's the first ammendment. Show me where you have a right not to
> > > > > > > > exercise religion, and prevent me from exercising my religion while
> > > > > > > > you're doing so:
> > > > > > > > Amendment I (1791)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
> > > > > > > > religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
> > > > > > > > abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
> > > > > > > > right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
> > > > > > > > the government for a redress of grievances.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I also notice that nobody has yet to meet this challenge.
> > > > > > Ted
> > > >
> > > > Still notice that you can't show me where in the Establishment clause at
> > > > all is the right of the supreme court to censor a private citizen.
> > >
> > > No one is being censored. They are being told that they can not use
> > > public funds to promote their religion.
> >
> > They're being told that they can't speak.
> >
> > > Do you see this 'censorship' at private schools?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > No, because they are
> > > not using public funds.
> >
> > They accept some state funding, just like public schools.
And I notice you still missed the point that the government cannot
restrict public speaking, whether using public resources or not.
Edward L. Sanwhicheater
"Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
>
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2000, Edward L. Sanwhicheater wrote:
>
> > > > Public schools supported by public funds can
> > > > not take part in establishing religion.
> > >
> > > But instead the Supreme Court, which is also supported by public funds,
> > > can institute the establishment of atheism and force everybody to go along
> > > with it.
> >
> > They are not establishing atheism. No one is getting up and saying
> > 'There is no God'.
>
> You must not have been in a high school biology class recently.
>
Not teaching the Christian creation myth is not saying there is no god.
> > > > Children are free to pray at
> > > > school, they can organize bible study classes.
> > >
> > > Not by the last ruling they can't. After all, the school is a public
> > > building and thus a "government mechanism".
> >
> > Sure they can. There is a difference between allowing a group of kids to
> > have meetings and broadcasting a prayer over the PA system.
>
> No there isn't.
>
Yes there is. You didnt even read the decision that youre complaining
about did you? There is a difference between private speech and public
speech. Broadcasting a prayer over the PA system is PUBLIC speech it is
also the establishment of religion.
> > The first
> > allows the practice of religion the second prevents the establishment of
> > religion
>
> How is a religion being established with a transitory prayer over a PA
> system?
> There isn't one.
>
It is in essence saying this is the right religion and the rest of you
are going to hell. It gives the appearance of being a state supported
religion. In fact the case that you keep referencing ( i Just finished
reading the decision) was brought by Mormons and Catholics who basically
found the prayers being used to be offensive.
> > > > They can profess their
> > > > beliefs. What they cant do is use public funds to evangelize. They are
> > > > not censored.
> > >
> > > And using the building is not using public funds?
> > > You can't have it both ways. Either the Supreme Court has the right to
> > > limit free speech so that students can't use "government mechanisms" in
> > > their beliefs, or they don't. And if they don't, the last decision was
> > > pure censorship, and outside of the powers of the Supreme Court.
> >
> > Again , there is a difference between allowing people to use rooms in
> > the school for a meeting and broadcasting their prayers or religious
> > beliefs over a PA system.
>
> Not at all.
>
Yes there is, one is private speech the other is public speech.
> > Allowing those who want to have prayer/bible
> > meetings to have those meetings is not the establishment of religion. To
> > broadcast prayers over a PA system to everyone assembled at a publicly
> > sponsored function is the establishment of religion.
>
> There is no reasoning behind this. Actually, both ways are establishing
> religon: The prayer (free speech) and the suppression of the prayer
> (suppression of free speech).
>
The suppression of prayer does not establish a religion any more the the
suppression of the color blue establishes the color green
> > > > > Correct. And thus somehow you twist this to mean that the Supreme Court
> > > > > can pass censorship laws?
> > > >
> > > > The supreme court doesnt pass laws. They rule on the constitutionality
> > > > of law.
> > >
> > > They pass laws when they add words like "mechanism" to the Constitution.
> >
> > Please point to the decision you are referencing. I'd like to read it.
>
> The quote comes from another person in this thread, who claimed that the
> PA system was a government mechanism, and to use government mechanisms
> automatically changed something from free speech to establishment.
>
Ok, you didnt read the decision. When the justices used the word
mechanism in the decision they were talking about the voting that was
done by the student body to determine who would pray and what kind of
prayer they would recite. The justices said that the voting was a
mechanism being used by the school district to circumvent the first
amendment. That is the ONLY way the word mechanism was used.
> > > If they did not pass law, then there could be no censorship of a student
> > > praying before a football game, because the entire "government
> > > mechanism" argument depends upon adding words to the Constitution, which
> > > is in effect passing law.
>
> Try this question: Is it right for the Supreme Court to ammend the
> constitution?
>
The supreme court has not amended the constitution. They have upheld the
constitution. The supreme court can not amend the constitution nor can
it create law.
> > > > We are talking about establishment
> > > > of religion.
> > >
> > > Banning the establishment of religion is in effect supporting atheism,
> > > which is also a religion.
> >
> > No it isnt.
>
> Yes it is.
>
No it isnt. How is not promoting a religion promoting atheism? No one
says to the kids 'be an atheist' but when the kids want to use the PA
system for public prayer they are saying 'be a Christian'.
> > First atheism is not a religion.
>
> That's a lie. It's a belief system, and therefore a religion.
>
It is not a belief system. It is not believing in a god. Is not
believing in the easter bunny a religion? How about not believing in
santa clause? How about not believing in the great cosmic muffin.
Atheism is not a religion.
Religion:
a.Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as
creator and governor of the universe.
Atheism:
a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
> > Second, banning the
> > establishment of religion in no way promotes atheism.
>
> That's a lie too.
>
How is that a lie? you can teach religion at home or at church or in a
private school.
> > Yo will not find
> > schools where people or on the PA systems saying 'there is no god'.What
> > it promotes is freedom of religion.
>
> Not at all. Besides, you aren't guaranteed freedom of religion in the
>first ammendment anyway.
>
You are guaranteed the free exercise of religion. If you dont want to
call that freedom of religion , dont.
> > > > Supporting one religious belief over another through the
> > > > use of state or federal funds 'establishes' religion.
> > >
> > > Agreed, and that's exactly what I'm complaining about.
> >
> > I dont understand. Are you saying that by not promoting religion,
> > religion is established?
>
> Yes, just a different religion: that religion which is defined as the
> abscence of all other religions.
>
Now youre being ridiculous , there is no religion defined as the absence
of all other religions.
See the above definition of religion.
Ok, I give up its impossible to reason with a religious zealot.
You are wrong. School prayer in a public setting is the establishment of
religion. If you want that changed then you need to either get the 1st
amendment repealed or a new amendment added. The supreme court has
consistently agreed with the ban, as they should. I find it very
offensive that Christians feel a need to parade their religion in front
of those with different beliefs. Christains have no right to force
others to participate in their prayers or there rites through exposure
in public places at publically sponsered events.
Normand Chouinard
participants view the famous Zack Hood case of a few years back (I think
1996 for the researchers).
Zack was a six year old who in response to an assignment to read a story in
class in a public school in Medford, NJ brought in a copy of the "Beginners
Bible". Zack wanted to read the story of Jacob and Esau - two brother who
had fought bitterly, but who made up in the end.
Zack's teacher forbid the story. Asked for an explanation, the school
principle backed up the teacher saying the story was a prayer. The parents,
unsatisfied with the treatment of their son, filed suit at the NJ Federal
District Court claiming that the school violated Zack's First Ammendment
rights.
The District Court ruled against Zack saying that other students might have
believed that the teacher was endorsing the Bible. The Third Circuit U.S.
Court of Appeals ruled against Zack without hearing oral arguments.
Who has the better of this First Ammendment arguement?
Theodore M. Seeber
> "Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 13 Oct 2000, Edward L. Sanwhicheater wrote:
> >
> > > > > Public schools supported by public funds can
> > > > > not take part in establishing religion.
> > > >
> > > > But instead the Supreme Court, which is also supported by public funds,
> > > > can institute the establishment of atheism and force everybody to go along
> > > > with it.
> > >
> > > They are not establishing atheism. No one is getting up and saying
> > > 'There is no God'.
> >
> > You must not have been in a high school biology class recently.
>
> Not teaching the Christian creation myth is not saying there is no god.
Correct. But teaching "chance" as the basic method of creation certainly
is.
> > > > Not by the last ruling they can't. After all, the school is a public
> > > > building and thus a "government mechanism".
> > >
> > > Sure they can. There is a difference between allowing a group of kids to
> > > have meetings and broadcasting a prayer over the PA system.
> >
> > No there isn't.
>
> Yes there is. You didnt even read the decision that youre complaining
> about did you? There is a difference between private speech and public
> speech. Broadcasting a prayer over the PA system is PUBLIC speech it is
> also the establishment of religion.
Oh, is that what they think they're doing? Basically banning the primary
religious exercise?
I'm sorry, I can't agree with that line either. The first Ammendment
doesn't draw a line between Private and Public speech.
> > > The first
> > > allows the practice of religion the second prevents the establishment of
> > > religion
> >
> > How is a religion being established with a transitory prayer over a PA
> > system?
> > There isn't one.
>
> It is in essence saying this is the right religion and the rest of you
> are going to hell.
So what? That's what atheists do in science classrooms all the time
(except for there, it's an F instead of hell).
> It gives the appearance of being a state supported
> religion.
Appearances CAN be decieving. I consider this to be rediculous.
> In fact the case that you keep referencing ( i Just finished
> reading the decision) was brought by Mormons and Catholics who basically
> found the prayers being used to be offensive.
Yep. I even read the text of the prayer, and can't see where it's
offensive to either theology.
> > > Again , there is a difference between allowing people to use rooms in
> > > the school for a meeting and broadcasting their prayers or religious
> > > beliefs over a PA system.
> >
> > Not at all.
>
> Yes there is, one is private speech the other is public speech.
So now you have effectively banned all public free speech.
Nice broad lines this decision draws. Very bad definition, though.
> > There is no reasoning behind this. Actually, both ways are establishing
> > religon: The prayer (free speech) and the suppression of the prayer
> > (suppression of free speech).
>
> The suppression of prayer does not establish a religion any more the the
> suppression of the color blue establishes the color green
Suppression of the Color Blue does establish the Color green over
something that has previously been yellow. Just ask any astronaut what
color the sun is.
> > > Please point to the decision you are referencing. I'd like to read it.
> >
> > The quote comes from another person in this thread, who claimed that the
> > PA system was a government mechanism, and to use government mechanisms
> > automatically changed something from free speech to establishment.
>
> Ok, you didnt read the decision. When the justices used the word
> mechanism in the decision they were talking about the voting that was
> done by the student body to determine who would pray and what kind of
> prayer they would recite. The justices said that the voting was a
> mechanism being used by the school district to circumvent the first
> amendment. That is the ONLY way the word mechanism was used.
Ok, so what's the complaint about the PA system then? So far, the
mechanism looks like the students themselves.
> > > > If they did not pass law, then there could be no censorship of a student
> > > > praying before a football game, because the entire "government
> > > > mechanism" argument depends upon adding words to the Constitution, which
> > > > is in effect passing law.
> >
> > Try this question: Is it right for the Supreme Court to ammend the
> > constitution?
>
> The supreme court has not amended the constitution. They have upheld the
> constitution. The supreme court can not amend the constitution nor can
> it create law.
In that case, it's only opinion should be to quote the constitution and
the constitution alone. Not add words, not "liberally interpret" until
all the meaning is gone, none of this crap that they've been pulling for
the last 40 years or so.
> No it isnt. How is not promoting a religion promoting atheism? No one
> says to the kids 'be an atheist' but when the kids want to use the PA
> system for public prayer they are saying 'be a Christian'.
Atheism is the belief system defined by a lack of belief system.
> > > First atheism is not a religion.
> >
> > That's a lie. It's a belief system, and therefore a religion.
>
> It is not a belief system. It is not believing in a god. Is not
> believing in the easter bunny a religion? How about not believing in
> santa clause? How about not believing in the great cosmic muffin.
> Atheism is not a religion.
Then why do atheist organizations get nonprofit status?
> > Not at all. Besides, you aren't guaranteed freedom of religion in the
> >first ammendment anyway.
>
> You are guaranteed the free exercise of religion. If you dont want to
> call that freedom of religion , dont.
I don't because you've redefined freedom of religion to include freedom
from religion.
> > Yes, just a different religion: that religion which is defined as the
> > abscence of all other religions.
>
> Now youre being ridiculous , there is no religion defined as the absence
> of all other religions.
Atheism.
> You are wrong. School prayer in a public setting is the establishment of
> religion. If you want that changed then you need to either get the 1st
> amendment repealed or a new amendment added.
Not at all. What we need is the impeachment of an illogical court system.
> The supreme court has
> consistently agreed with the ban, as they should. I find it very
> offensive that Christians feel a need to parade their religion in front
> of those with different beliefs. Christains have no right to force
> others to participate in their prayers or there rites through exposure
> in public places at publically sponsered events.
And government has no right whatsoever to ban them from doing so.
> > Did they not pay their taxes? Are the funds not PUBLIC for use by the
> > PUBLIC?
Apparently, according to you, certain groups should be restricted from
using the public goods they paid taxes to buy.
Theodore M. Seeber
And in fact show that the entire experiment in democracy and freedom is an
utter failure.
Ted
--
John LaVoy
Cam Beck wrote:
> The first amendment, as it is written, is strictly clear. It will make no
> law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free
> exercise thereof. Those tenets are not mutually exclusive, nor do we need to
> sacrifice one in order to preserve the other. It simply will make no law
> doing that. If it does, it is unconstitutional.
It is not strictly clear. No combination of words is strictly clear. One might
have endless discussions over what is meant by "establishment" or "free
exercise" or even "religion". There are those who, ironically, claim that
atheism is a religion and so preventing the establishment of religion is
actually establishing atheism as a religion. Which makes the entire clause
irrelevant.
> If, however, it provides money to an entity over which it has an enumerated
> power (funding public schools is not one of them), such as making lower
> courts, and the individuals affected, on their own accord, decided, for
> instance, to post the ten commandments, it does not violate the first
> amendment. Congress did its duty in establishing the court, which
> necessarily requires public funds, and the individuals therein practiced
> religious freedom of expression. Congress made no law, whatsoever,
> establishing a religion in that case.
>
> If we were to incorrectly assume that Congress did have the authority to be
> involved with public education, the same thing applies. We would be more
> correct in saying that Congress cannot mandate school attendance. If the
> fourteenth amendment is true, then neither can states. However, the people
> therein can still practice that religion, even if it entails using some of
> the money, in one way or another, that Congress has earmarked. Did Congress
> make a law respecting the establishment of religion? No. They made no law
> whatsoever, they merely provided funds. Can they pass a law preventing the
> people from freely exercising that religion, at a public school or
> otherwise? Again, no. Does the Supreme Court have that authority? That would
> invoke lawmaking powers, therefore, since Article I establishes that only
> Congress has that, the answer is no.
>
> By your logic, and by the Supreme Court's logic over the past 40 years,
> since schools receive federal money, school prayer violates the
> establishment clause.
The funding issue is at this time irrelevant. It is not the 6% of federal
funding that prevents schools from establishing school prayer: any public body,
whether funded by the feds or not, would be unable to establish prayer in the
public schools.
> If that's the case, assuming the federal government
> has the authority to subsidize apartment rent, which it does not but, as it
> does with education, claims anyway, if the managers of that apartment
> complex, at the behest of the residents, wanted to allow and participate in
> weekly Bible Study in a group area of that complex, then they would not be
> free to do so.
The cases would not be the same. Two of the most obvious differences would be
voluntary presence in those meetins and the use of facilities by adults rather
than children. I assume you think that such freedom would be a good thing:
suppose the residents approved the use of a room for Christian services but
denied it to Muslims. Such is the possible outcome to be considered, and such
an outcome would indeed result in teh establishment of a religion.
> That's what is at issue here in schools. Everything done in
> these schools, provided it violates neither federal nor state laws, should
> be controlled at the local level. The states or local school boards COULD,
> in fact, pass laws prohibiting free expression of religion, but that isn't
> even what has happened. It has been the Supreme Court, acting far outside of
> its authority, that has effectively outlawed it.
You can say this as often and as loudly as you want to, but that does not make
you right. I believe it IS within the authority of the SCOTUS to review and act
on these issues. There is a difference here that you fail to address, and that
is that the SCOTUS is involved in these issues specifically because the
COnstitution makes a particular point about religion> It is a special case, or
it wouldn't be in the document at all, and is therfore subject to different
treatment than other issues. If your conclusion is that states could pass laws
prohibiting the expression of religion, then the argument here is moot. Whatever
few people might agree with you on the SCOTUS issue would certainly find your
conclusion regarding this to be ludicrous.
>
> Furthermore, all sorts of schools can exist; some secular and some
> religious. The existence of prayer in those schools would be up to the
> parents in the communities that run the school. If a child of mine was ever
> prevented from praying, I should be free to immediately remove him from that
> school, and place him in a school more sympathetic to my beliefs, or I
> should be able to, free from threat of penalty of a reckless court system,
> to work to change the school he was in. That should be my decision -- not
> someone living in Washington or Nevada or Utah -- nor should I have to be
> coerced into paying for a system that teaches, to both my children and the
> children of others, violations of the structure of my religion.
Precisely. The only way to avoid this, without balkanizing America, is to
eliminate religion from the public schools entirely. Because I don't want to
pay for schools teaching ANYTHING about religion to my kids. But if we allow
schools to officially approve religious events during the day, we will
inevitably have large scale conflicts over the subject. All of what you say is
just another reason to erect a wall of separation between teh church and the
cafeteria, so to speak.
> The only interpretation needed of the first amendment in relation to the
> constructionist point of view is the understanding that we have a structured
> language that has definitions of words that cannot be redefined on a whim.
> Whereas "reasonable" is subjective, "Congress" is clearly defined, and the
> predicate and direct object and everything else of the first amendment is
> NOT subjective. The subjective words are the only thing requiring
> interpretations... and if the wording becomes insufficient to protect the
> people against unlawful authority, it is the right of the people to alter
> that document that gives government power.
You are creating a self fulfilling prophecy: I suspect you are inclined in this
direction already, and so it does not distress you. All words are subjective,
because language is an inherently subject process. If such were not the case,
there would be no need for lawyers. You yourself have assigned a meaning to the
term "law" with which I do not agree. .
>
> >
> > This is patently untrue. A) the constitution has always been interpreted
> by the
> > SCOTUS and we are more free today we were before.
> >
>
> We are not more free because of SCOTUS.
True, but if the interpretations you decry would make us less free, then we
would not today be as free as we are.
> That is not rediculous at all. If we allow any branch of the government
> change the wording of the first amendment in one way, what is to stop them
> from changing it in another? What's to stop it from changing it
You keep claiming it is a change in wording, and I keep pointing out that the
wording isn't changing the wording is being interpreted in a way you don't like.
These are not the same things.
>
> > Yet this hasn't happened, hasn't been suggested, and, as you well know,
> wouldn't
> > happen.
>
> If you are suggesting "Congress shall make no laws respecting... " really
> means, "Separation of Church and State," like there are many organizations,
> such as the Supreme Court, lower courts, ACLU, and Amercians United for
> Separation of Church and State, then it has happened, it is happening, and
> it will continue to happen unless we reclaim our authority to stop the
> trend.
Nothing to reclaim. There is significant public approval of the direction taken
by the SCOTUS on this issue. If we ever went in another direction, there would
be a huge cry to move back in this one. In the interests of defending on
eparticula rinterpretation of the Constitution you would be willing to
reintroduce religious battling into a country which thrives becuase its energy
does not have to go into stupid disputes like this. Look around the world man;
we are so much better off because we keep religion out of the public sphere, yet
you struggle to restart those kinds of conflicts. There is an old Gahan Wilson
cartoon of a futuristic soldier standing in the middle of a wasted city,
gleefully proclaining "we won". That would be you.
> But we do know that adhering to strict states rights interpretation
> > will result in oppression.
>
> Maybe, maybe not. I think you underestimate the value American people, in
> general, put in freedom.
You ignore the evidence from our own history and the rest of the world. Where
shall we look for evidence: Ireland? India/Pakistan? The Middle East? East
Timor? Post Columbian Central America? the history of the Mormons in America?
the history of Jews anywhere? Reformation England? You completely
underestimate how irrational people are when it comes to religion.
> We can certainly discuss what either of us thinks
> states SHOULD do, regardless of what they MAY do. If that is the result of
> strictly interpreting the Constitution, we should do so in the proper way,
> with the short and long term effects in mind, and carefully word it so as
> not to destroy the liberty of self-determination.
Going your route WILL destroy self-determination. It is inevitable. And all to
satisfy some arcane conviction that the constitution must be read a certain way.
>
> > > We'd be just as secure as to not have it.
This is just plain nuts. You are telling me I would have more religious freedom
if my state could vote to establish Mormonism as the state religion than if it
couldn't?
>
> > A concept. An idea. You fought for freedom, but freedom isn't a literal
> thing.
> > You fought for justice, but that is not literal either. Or are those
> things
> > irrelevant because they are not literal?
> >
>
> The Constitution is a real document with real words and real meanings. The
> Declaration of Independence is an idea... Locke's Second Treatise on Civil
> Government is an idea, although a less binding one. The Constitution
> provides a functional instrument of government that protects those ideas.
> That's what I defended.
Geez, I am sorry to hear that you have no allegiance to the fundamental
principles of American democracy. You. like other believers, have substituted
the instrument for the idea. Better to burn your shrine to teh constitution and
rededicate yourself to what the Constitution really means.
>
> Again, if you're taking the meaning of the first amendment to say,
> "Separation of Church and State," like many other organizations, that is
> precisely what you're doing. If however, you would like to argue the merits
> of the fourteenth amendment, I'm perfectly able to do that... but we need to
> get a few things established first. One is that the Constitution does have
> literal meaning, and another is that certain things can't be abandoned
> because the literal definitions do not lend themselves to subjectivity.
>
> > Nah, I get it. But your mistake, if I may be so bold, is in assuming that
> when
> > words have meaning, they have a fixed meaning, or that they have the
> meaning you
> > want them to have. All language is subject to interpretation.
>
> Does that mean "No" will sometimes mean "yes," "alone" will sometimes mean,
> "not alone," and "is" will sometimes mean "isn't?"
No, but it doesn't surprise me that you would think in such black and white
terms. It means that "Men" can mean "all people", it means that "NO" can mean
"NO" in some circumstances but isn't applicable in others.
> I have written
> > enough policy, even simple policy, to know that even when you settle on
> > language, it still means different things to the people who agree on the
> > language. There is no simple, single intereptation of anything in the
> > constitution: there isn't even a simple sense of what the founders meant
> when
> > they agreed on certain wording. Even the concept of free speech, which
> seems
> > absolute, can be interpreted in numerous ways. Did they mean free
> political
> > speech? Did they intend free speech to include art? Did all of them
> intend
> > that? Did anyone sign on thinkin gthat it only meant political speech.
> Many
> > arguments have been advanced that written words, physical gestures,
> symbols and
> > the like are not covered because they aren't "speech". Again ALL
> language is
> > subject to interpretation: to pretend otherwise is arrogance.
> >
>
> I agree with that in principle, but Congress will always be Congress, and
> nothing else, and therefore would be the only entity affected in that case.
This is actually a reasonable point. Not conclusive, but reasonable.
>
>
Which also don't mention education specifically. And what happens if the
establishment of an educational system isn't a "law" but rather an "act". If
you argue for this immutable standard of language you end up with nothing:
Language which cannnot grow becomes a dead thing, and so does anything based on
that language. You think you are arguing for the preservation of the
Constitution, but you are really setting the stage for its execution.
> They cannot relegate anyone to substandard
> education, provided determined to be something provided by the government,
> which, I feel, it should be, although I think it should be a state and local
> concern, not federal.
> The fallability of mankind, in general, and both what you said and what I
> said, in particular, is how slavery was preserved for so long. Had states
> respected equal rights for all, it never would have been an issue.
The states were arguing exactly as you do: that this is not a federal concern at
all. the fallability of mankind (one of them anyway) is that self interest will
over-ride other judgements in almost all cases. Teh role of the federal
government is, partly, to assure that states do not allow the interests of a
majority to over-ride the rights of minorities, even if the states think that is
just fine.
> Had the
> Supreme Court correctly presumed that slaves were humans, they could have
> correctly interpreted the Constitution as well.
But they had no reason to interpret the constitution at all. What seemed like a
perfectly reasonable definition to them, and obvious one, was that black people
were not "men" as the constitution and DOI meant "men." Now you claim that teh
Constitution could have been intepreted differently, whereas I would have
thought you just want a literal reading.
> Luckily, the principles of
> the Declaration of Independence, as all truth eventually does, prevailed in
> the end.
With this I agree wholeheartedly. The real soul of AMerica is in the
Declaration, not in teh constitution.
> > For example, how would any government
> >
> > > determine that slaves could be deprived of life, liberty, and subject to
> > > unreasonable searches and seizures? Simple. Determine arbitrarily that
> > > slaves are not persons.
>
> Both the states and the Supreme Court was guilty of this.
Yup. But intepreting or not interpeting it would have had the same effect.
> While we're at it, here's another abuse the founders cited:
>
> "For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with
> power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever."
Another case of mistaking the part for the whole. This example does not speak to
teh crown legislating in any particular case, but in "all" cases. No where is
there any evidence the SCOTUS or federal governement is involved in this. And
evidence that they are legislating at all is not evidence that they are
legislating entirely. But, this is common thinking: I once argued with some guy
who claimed that because he had to pay incoime tax he was not free at all, but
was in fact a slave.
>
Rockett Crawford
"Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2000, Rockett Crawford wrote:
> > Over population is a situation where there are too many babies being
> > born and not enough jobs and resources available.
>
> There are plenty of jobs and recources available to the society as a
> whole; the problem is that some people are hording those jobs and
> resources.
> > You can blame it
> > on the "evil" government, but the fact remains that there is widespread
> > poverty, multi-year job waiting lists, and too many babies being born
> > because of lack of contraception (thanks to the religious right of the
> > US).
>
> You do realize that overall, world population growth is falling, right?
Yes, the increase in growth has slowed, but we are already increasing
almost 1 billion people every decade. Logic would dictate that at
some point the growth would slow down. Famine reduces fertility and
enough children have to live to at least child bearing age before they die
for population growth to continue.
> If resources were shared equitably, there would be no "overpopulation" at
> all.
People need to stop having so many babies, that is the solution.
> > > > And you were claiming pollution didn't exist.
> > >
> > > No, I was claiming that it's a symptom, not a problem in and of itself.
> >
> > You said there was no real pollution problem and there clearly is.
>
> No, I said there was no real PROBLEM of pollution.
Transposing the words makes no difference. In any
case however this is actually what you said from Dejanews.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"...There's no real pollution problem either, just an energy industry
that's overly dependant upon oil."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> It's a symptom, not a
> problem in and of itself.
>
> Being able to tell the difference between symptoms and problems is the
> first step in comming up with solutions.
Pollution, poverty, famine, etc... are problems with many causes.
If you want to play games with the words, fine. They are symptoms
of families having too many babies, too much dumping of toxins into
the water and the air, too much dumping of green house gasses into
the atmosphere, etc...
The solutions are to phase in not doing so much of these things.
> > >
> > > Different type of polution.
> >
> > Same principle. The problem has to be attacked at both ends
> > (no pun intended).
>
> But you're not attacking the problem at all. Instead, you're going on and
> on about a non-related problem, overpopulation, which wouldn't even be a
> problem if we had fair distribution of resources and jobs.
There is a rule in science that unchecked, the population grows
with the food supply. The other side of this concerns predators
which isn't a significant factor for humans anymore.
Simply increasing the food supply will not solve the problem,
people must consciously limit the number of children they have.
The more jobs there are and the more food there is, the more
babies people will have until women start becoming infertile due
to famine and children stop growing to child bearing age, etc...
> > > >
> > > > Preach on brother, I'm all for cleaning up pollution.
> > >
> > > Are you equally for giving up profit in favor of creating more jobs?
> >
> > I don't agree with the premise. At my company at least, the more
> > profit we make, the more people we hire. When profit is down
> > companies lay people off.
>
> Which is exactly the WRONG thing to do for most companies.
Why?
> That's why I say the real problem with the job situation is not one of too
> many people for too few jobs; rather it's a problem of greed.
>
> Go to your local McDonalds a few times on different shifts and see how
> many times you're helped by somebody who can even speak English.
Price of tea in China?
> We have a severe labor shortage in the United States. And a severe job
> shortage in Mexico. The logical thing to do would be for the United
> States to annex Mexico and start working on bringing the same ecconomy to
> both regions.
The answer is for people to stop having more than 2 babies a couple.
> But unfortuneately, greed gets in the way of that.
Greed gets in the way of the US annexing Mexico?
> > > > > Those bracelets have no Biblical or theological basis in historical
> > > > > Christianity.
> > > >
> > > > So you don't believe in trying to be Christ-like or any of that
> > > > being a good witness to the world stuff?
> > >
> > > How can one possibly be a good witness for Christ in a land where
> > > everybody's a slave to a different God?
> >
> > So you as a Christian feel no need to be Christ-like?
>
> I feel no ability to be Christ-like. Until we start attacking the basic
> deadly sins that exist in society as virtues, nobody has any ability at
> all to be Christ-like.
So all that stuff that Jesus and Mithra (a sun god) said about being
the light of the world was just a bunch of hogwash?
> > China recognizes this and tries to give
> > it's citizens incentives to only have one child.
>
> When they really should be razing the cities to build farms.
But somehow in your greediness world they don't want people
producing goods and paying taxes to them?
> > Beating people and wounding them is a horrible thing that
> > might have been the standard in more primitive ancient times and in today's
> > backward governments, but not in enlightened societies.
>
> Your "enlightened society" caused 4 million children under the age of 8 to
> starve to death last year, because the richer people wanted to be greedy
> and hoard resources.
Where are you getting this figure? If this is true, it's because the parents
didn't take advantage of welfare or they had too many children.
In any case, are you blaming this on the evil rich people because
someone didn't beat the cr*p out of them and leave wounds on
them as the bible says to do?
>
> > > > > > Prov 23:
> > > > > > 13 Do not withhold discipline from your children; if you beat them
> > > > > > with a rod, they will not die. 14 If you beat them with the rod, you
> > > > > > will save their lives from Sheol.
> > > > >
> > > > > Which is correct.
> > > >
> > > > Hitting children with rods has become child abuse in our more
> > > > enlightened society.
> > >
> > > Smoking pot has become commonplace in our
> > > "enlightened" society. Personally, I don't think our society is
> > > particularily "enlightened".
> >
> > Smoking pot is against the law in the US
>
> But is widely done anyway.
So do you suggest the US start beating and wounding pot
smokers?
> > and our society is
> > light years ahead of the primitive authors of the bible and
> > the Jewish leaders of 2500 years ago.
>
> Not as long as we still allow children to starve while wasteing food.
Again, please provide figures on this and explain why the children
didn't receive food stamps and welfare as they should have.
>
> > >
> > > Yes they were, just a different illness than what you're used to calling
> > > an illness is all.
> >
> > I think maybe you would have been happier living in the 3rd Reich.
>
> No, even there the rich like Hitler hoarded resources.
So what would you like? Pure communism, unquestioned following of
leaders, killing disrespectful children, and a beating and wounding for
everyone regularly?
>
> > > > > Then why did you leave out the part about what husbands are supposed to
> > > > > do?
> > > >
> > > > Because it says nothing about the husband having inferior judgment
> > >
> > > Yes it does, look again.
> >
> > Not inferior to women. Show me.
>
> Stop placing your ethical system on the Bible, it won't work.
> It clearly states that he needs to treat his wife as an equal.
Where? You don't know because it isn't in there.
All you have done is post a bunch of irrelevant scripture.
Where in all of this is anything about a wife being
equal to her husband?
>
> > Again
> > put your scripture where your mouth is. I have.
>
> No you haven't. You've quoted a few things utterly out of context.
No, I have quoted quite in context. Paul says a woman's judgment
is inferior because "Adam was formed first" and "Adam was not
deceived" but "Eve was deceived."
He said it is a shame for a woman to speak in church, that she
should learn at home from her husband, that he would not
permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man.
(1 Tim 2:10-12 NRSV)
Let a woman learn in silence with full submission.
I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent.
(1 Tim 2:13-14 NRSV) For Adam was formed first, then Eve;
and Adam was *not deceived, but the woman *was deceived
and became a transgressor.
(1 Cor 14:34 NRSV) women should be silent in the churches.
For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as
the law also says.
(1 Cor 14:35 NRSV) If there is anything they desire to know, let them
ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman
to speak in church.
(1 Tim 2:11 NRSV) Let a woman learn in silence with full submission.
(1 Tim 2:12 NRSV) I permit no woman to teach or to have authority
over a man; she is to keep silent.
(1 Cor 11:7 NRSV) For a man ought not to have his head veiled,
since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the
reflection of man
> > > > Then there are churches who are not too keen on the
> > > > dietary laws of the OT, but they like the tithing law.
> > >
> > > Which is just a corruption of the Churches by the laws of the land.
> >
> > No, even in the NT people were killed for "lying" about holding
> > back property from the church.
>
> Yes. Because they were GREEDY!
The church wanted all the members to sell all their possessions
and give them to them (no greed there right?)
Because a man and his wife didn't want to give absolutely
everything to the church they were murdered (excuse me,
they were murdered for lying about it, but everyone gets the
message don't they?).
> > Money is not a god, it's just a means to an end.
>
> Then why do people hoard it?
Most people don't hoard it. It seems like most people in the
US can't wait to get rid of it.
> > A god is something
> > people in some religions such as Judaism and Christianity imagine
> > to stroke themselves psychologically.
>
> Just as the rich man strokes himself psychologically with his ever-growing
> bank balance.
No that is a different psychological phenomena known as "keeping up
with the Jones."
> > > If they said "mam" and "sir" they wouldn't be gang members and they
> > > wouldn't be commiting crimes.
> > >
> > > ALL behavior is linked.
> >
> > Irrelevant. The kids go to camps because of crimes they commit,
> > not because they were disrespectful,
>
> If they were being respectful, they wouldn't be commiting crimes, now
> would they.
You don't seem to be grasping the logic. A judge doesn't throw someone
in jail for cursing their mother, they are thrown into jail for stealing, etc...
There is no law against cursing a parent.
> > unlike the bible which directly
> > says to kill disrespectful children.
>
> We'd be better off if we did, because disrespect is the first sign that
> the law is going to be broken.
So do you think that the parent should pull out a pistol and shoot the
child when they curse them or should they turn them over to the
authorities for electrocution, gassing, or lethal injection?
> > > > No, that would be people who are abused or neglected as children.
> > >
> > > Actually, the ones who are beat with a rod seem to be the ones who are
> > > good citizens.
> > >
> > > The ones who weren't are the ones who take guns into their schools and
> > > shoot people.
> >
> > My parents never hit me with anything, much less a weapon like a
> > rod such as the bible says to do. I haven't killed anybody or committed
> > a crime.
>
> Only because you don't realize it when you do.
Oh, so in your world I am a criminal? In your world is a criminal
someone who doesn't care for people beating and wounding other
people?
> > Agreed. Beating children with weapons is a horrible thing.
>
> My point is, all you've done is proven you're a spoiled brat who doesn't
> know the use of pain.
So I am the dredge of society because I don't beat my child with
a rod until she has wounds and that makes me a spoiled brat?
> > > > I haven't been struck lately by my CO and non of my coworkers
> > > > have died recently at his hands. He's actually a pretty nice guy.
> > >
> > > Wait until times turn rough, and see what happens.
> >
> > Your attempt at an analogy to save the bible is terrible. There
> > is no correlation.
>
> Plenty of correlation. Try disobeying your boss, see how long your
> paycheck continues.
<lol> But that has nothing to do with beating or killing.
> > > > Same thing with 1/2 of the fertilized eggs that don't adhere to the
> > > > womb lining.
> > >
> > > Still an act of God, not of us.
> >
> > No, it's an act of nature.
>
> God is nature. Nature is a part of God, as is every atom in the universe.
There is no God.
> > > > Avoiding the question? Does your brand of Christianity believe in
> > > > special dispensation for children?
> > >
> > > My brand of Christianity is not just Christianity. And the answer there
> > > is "it depends".
> >
> > Where do discharged fertilized eggs play into your particular belief?
>
> Same place as atheists.
Oh, so all these unborn babies (fertilized eggs) go to hell without
a fan?
> > Do they need to be baptized first?
>
> Yes. Otherwise, as the Tibetan Buddhists tell us, they missed the point
> in life and are going to be given a second chance.
>
> The only way out of the eternal redeath is to become enlightened. Truely
> enlightened people know the purpose of discipline. Your
> "enlightened" society doesn't.
If the mother holds a baptism service in the bathroom before
she flushes the zygote down, doesn't that count?
> > > There is no difference between slave and free.
> > > Woman or man.
> > > Gentile or Jew.
> > >
> > > The same book that "condones slavery" to you, also claims that freedom is
> > > not possible, is a comfortable fiction to keep the slaves from revolting.
> >
> > I disagree and I have no intention of revolting if convinced otherwise.
>
> All that proves is that your brainwashing is complete.
Let's see. So far I am a spoiled brat because I don't beat and
wound people and I am brainwashed because I go to work
everyday and don't want to revolt.
Proceed...
> > I think you are the one that needs to wake up about why
> > you need to believe in Yahweh.
>
> I don't.
> I don't care if you call him nature, Yahweh, or the Great Green
> Arklesnezure.
> I just know he exists, and nothing exists outside of him.
> Science is just the search for the mind of God (Galileo is the one who
> said that!).
Science is a search for facts, not for the mind of something
that doesn't exist.
Patrick L. Humphrey
>>>>>> Theodore M Seeber writes:
> >> Public schools supported by public funds can
> >> not take part in establishing religion.
>> But instead the Supreme Court, which is also supported by public funds,
>> can institute the establishment of atheism and force everybody to go along
>> with it.
>No, they can't, and thankfully they have not tried anything of
>the sort.
>Besides, how would one establish the absence of a certain class
>of beliefs?
>You are making no sense at all.
This is the same Ted Seeber who went on a tear through the abortion
newsgroups a couple of years ago, at one point proclaiming that the Pope, in
fact, had been elected God. (I'll dig that one out of the archives later
tonight, as time permits -- I'm getting things packed up for a trip home to
Kentucky Sunday morning.)
--PLH, new millennium, same old loony-tune Seeber -- some things *are*
nearly constant
Theodore M. Seeber
> >>>>> Theodore M Seeber writes:
>
> >> Public schools supported by public funds can
> >> not take part in establishing religion.
>
> Theodore> But instead the Supreme Court, which is also supported by public funds,
> Theodore> can institute the establishment of atheism and force everybody to go along
> Theodore> with it.
>
> No, they can't, and thankfully they have not tried anything of
> the sort.
>
> Besides, how would one establish the absence of a certain class
> of beliefs?
By preventing anybody from mentioning that class of beliefs to anybody
else.
Ted
--
On this day, the Feast of St. Edward the Confessor
The Just King
Theodore M. Seeber
> >>>>> Theodore M Seeber writes:
>
> Theodore> On Fri, 13 Oct 2000, Edward L. Sanwhicheater wrote:
> >> > > Public schools supported by public funds can
> >> > > not take part in establishing religion.
> >> >
> >> > But instead the Supreme Court, which is also supported by public funds,
> >> > can institute the establishment of atheism and force everybody to go along
> >> > with it.
> >>
> >> They are not establishing atheism. No one is getting up and saying
> >> 'There is no God'.
>
> Theodore> You must not have been in a high school biology class recently.
>
> Teaching science is not the same as teaching that their is no god.
Teaching that chance created the world is not the same as teaching science
either, but they do it.
Theodore M. Seeber
> > > You can blame it
> > > on the "evil" government, but the fact remains that there is widespread
> > > poverty, multi-year job waiting lists, and too many babies being born
> > > because of lack of contraception (thanks to the religious right of the
> > > US).
> >
> > You do realize that overall, world population growth is falling, right?
>
> Yes, the increase in growth has slowed, but we are already increasing
> almost 1 billion people every decade.
And with an avarage, worldwide, of 1.2 children per couple, can you
extrapolate where we'll be by the end of the next century?
> Logic would dictate that at
> some point the growth would slow down. Famine reduces fertility and
> enough children have to live to at least child bearing age before they die
> for population growth to continue.
Yep. And I have no problem with that, as long as it happens naturally as
opposed to due to resource hoarding.
> > If resources were shared equitably, there would be no "overpopulation" at
> > all.
>
> People need to stop having so many babies, that is the solution.
It's a false solution that will end up in a population implosion.
> > > You said there was no real pollution problem and there clearly is.
> >
> > No, I said there was no real PROBLEM of pollution.
>
> Transposing the words makes no difference. In any
> case however this is actually what you said from Dejanews.
If you don't understand the difference between a problem and a symptom,
then that's not my fault, and we're done.
Ted
George Spelvin
> > It says "Congress shall make no law . . . " which also includes the
> > President (since the Constitution tells us how a law is made--read it
> > sometime).
>
> I did. All the President can do is veto, not write laws.
Incorrect yet again. The President can also SIGN A BILL INTO LAW.
> > Public funding for schools comes about because of
> > legislation passed by CONGRESS and President.
>
> Less than 10% of school funding comes from the Federal Level. In Oregon,
> all school property is bought and maintained with LOCAL property taxes.
It doesn't matter what level the funding comes from. Government funding
is government funding. And even if $1 comes from the federal level,
that is federal funding.
> The first clause prevents CONGRESS, SPECIFICALLY from making law to
> establish religion.
I'm not going to continue this strain . . . Congress funds schools,
schools are the result of Congress, if schools establish religion then
Congress is establishing religion.
> > Thus, if a government agency (created by Congress)
> > preaches to me, that is tantamount to establishing religion. Those of
> > us who can be objective and logical see this clearly.
>
> The public school system was not created by Congress.
It is funded by Congress and is in existence because of laws passed by
Congress. Geez, don't you know basic civics? My cat understands me
better.
> > Then logically show me how a public school does not come about because
> > of Congress.
>
> A local school board is elected, local taxes are raised, and the LOCAL
> community buys land and builds a school. Congress does not get involved
> at all.
What public schools don't get any Congress-money?
> > Please show me how a government institution (created by
> > Congress) which preaches a religion isn't trying to further THAT
> > particular religion?
>
> It wasn't created by Congress.
Doesn't matter who CREATES it, it means who is at least in part
responsible for its existence.
> > And please stop pasting the first amendment over and over. I know what
> > it says.
>
> Apparently you don't know what it says, and apparently the Supreme Court
> does not either.
> Here's my point: It specifically says Congress. If you encompass all
> law-making bodies as the word "Congress", then the Supreme Court has
> violated the first Ammendment by creating law to end free speech. If it's
> only congress, then the first ammendment does not apply to a local school
> district.
Here's my point: it is an absurd exercise to argue with someone like you
whose premise is that "if you don't take the Constitution absolutely
literally, you are incompetent and corrupt." By that attitude, you set
yourself up to be the person who decides what a literal interpretation
is. That is manipulative and ignorant.
The Constitution is not the sacred word of God, it is a document of
guidelines for how to operate our government. It isn't 1787 any
longer. It is 2000. Times change. Our perceptions (and
interpretations, in turn) change. In that way we grow as a society, a
culture, and as a nation.
If you want to live in the 18th century, get a shack and move to
Montana.
> > Where in the Constitution is there a provision for a national
> > referendum?
>
> Article V
>
> The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it
> necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or,
> on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the
> several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments,
> which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes,
> as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures
> of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in
> three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of
> ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that
> no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand
> eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first
> and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article;
> and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of
> its equal suffrage in the Senate.
There is no mention of a national referendum in Article V or any other
article. You are the one who insists on LITERAL INTERPRETATION. Where,
in this paste, does it say NATIONAL REFERENDUM?
A Constitutional convention isn't a referendum. Neither is a proposed
amendment. They are what they are.
> It's a representative referendum, but it is a national one, requiring the
> ratification by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states.
But, by your rules, there is no mention of a REFERENDUM of any kind--the
Constitution says nothing about referendums. You are talking about a
proposed amendment (which isn't even representative).
> > > Where in the Constitution does it mention schools?
> >
> > Where do you get the idea that public schools aren't created by acts of
> > Congress?
>
> Because they're created by local school boards and paid for with local
> taxes.
I'd check my facts if I were you. Where does all the money come from?
> > Well, I don't want my kid being TAUGHT any religion in school. I'll
> > send him to a church or temple for that.
>
> Where I would want my kid to learn everything he can about as large a
> diversity of cultures as possible.
I don't have any problem with students learning about religion, I just
don't want them to have to practice it.
> > > Adding words to the Constitution is something the Supreme Court is
> > > expressly forbidden to do in Article III.
As someone who literally interprets the Constitution, you should know
that the Supreme Court has never added or subtracted any words from the
Constitution. Please tell me which words have been added (I'd like to
update my copy).
George Spelvin
> Understand the original claim: That the Supreme Court has rights of
> censorship over public school students in matters of religion.
That was not the original claim and you know it. You claim that states
can, apparently, establish religion; only Congress can't. Edward proved
you wrong with the 14th Amendment.
> > All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
> > the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
> > State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which
> > shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
> > States;
>
> Correct. And thus somehow you twist this to mean that the Supreme Court
> can pass censorship laws?
False causal linkage and a red herring. You cannot argue against him
based on your own mistated premise.
> > The 14th amendment doesnt need to specify religion. ALL rights protected
> > by the constitution are covered.
> > Incluiding the ban on establishment of religion.
>
> Censorship is not a right, it's a ban.
Red herring.
> Still notice that you can't show me where in the Establishment clause at
> all is the right of the supreme court to censor a private citizen.
This is about the ban on establishment of religion. Show me where "free
speech" supercedes "establishment of religion."
George Spelvin
> > They are not establishing atheism. No one is getting up and saying
> > 'There is no God'.
> You must not have been in a high school biology class recently.
Apparently you haven't either. Biology doesn't deal with religious
faith in any way, shape or form.
George Spelvin
> > Morality is NOT the basis for legal theory, legal theory is based on
> > ethics created by societal demands. This isn't to say that morality
> > doesn't influence those ethics; it does. An ethic can be based on some
> > sense of morality, but a legal ethic (like a medical ethic or any other
> > kind of professional ethic) is a standard code of behavior based on
> > professional principles.
>
> Which are themselves derived from religious morals.
You are very wrong about that.
> > Forgive my details to definitions, but I don't like to misuse the
> > definitions of words. While a little paperback dictionary might skimp
> > on definitions by using generally understood words, in the fields of
> > philosophy and political science terms are more intensely distinguished.
>
> Obstufacated rather than distinguished.
>
> > Ethics and morals are not synonymous.
>
> Then somebody's telling a lie.
It is you. Ethics and morals are not the same thing. You need to
expand your narrow-minded view of reality (not meant as an insult).
> The Sante Fe "Independent" School District is not an arm of Congress, and
> to make it one is to violate the 10th Ammendment.
It is an arm of the government and of Congress.
> > > Nowhere in the establishment clause does
> > > it say that a public address system is not allowed to establish a
> > > religion. It says, specifically, that CONGRESS is not allowed to
> > > establish a religion. To me, this is the Supreme Court making law that
> > > violates the free speech clause of the first ammendment AND Article 3,
> > > which specifically does NOT give the Supreme Court the power to make law.
> >
> > There weren't public address systems in 1791. Don't be ridiculous.
>
> So what? CONGRESS is not allowed to establish a religion.
Which was my point!
> > The CONGRESS created public schools.
>
> No they didn't.
They didn't? Are you telling me that public schools don't get federal
funding that is allocated in a budget passed by Congress and signed by
the President?
>
> > If a public school establishes a
> > religious practice, then Congress is establishing a religion. A causes
> > B. B causes C. Therefore, A leads to C.
>
> I disagree with your lie that Congress created public schools.
> I think it would be obvious in the name of the School District that it is
> Independent.
I am not a liar. You are just unable to refute the point. Whether
Congress "created" every single public school or not, Congress is
responsible for funding (at least in part) public schools.
And you don't even know what the "independent" refers to.
> > > Again, so what? The Establishment Clause prevents CONGRESS from
> > > establishing religion, not schools.
> >
> > You can't really be this dense. Who created public schools?
>
> Local school boards.
> Why didn't you know this?
Congress, back in 1785, CREATED the basis for public schools with a land
act. In the 19th Century, Congress CREATED legislation for the funding
of public schools.
And regardless of which schools were CREATED by local boards or not, if
Congress funds the schools, then the Congress is responsible for
whatever those schools ESTABLISH.
> You are being absurd and this is no longer intellectually
stimulating.
>
> Only because you can't read.
What a biting wit you have.
> > > And I fail to see who elected the Supreme Court to be a bunch of
> > > dictators.
> >
> > No one elected the Supreme Court. Read the rest of the Constitution
> > sometime.
>
> Exactly my point. According to the Constitution, the Supreme Court cannot
> make law. By adding words to the Constitution, it is making law, thus
> violating Article III.
And you still haven't shown where the Supreme Court has ever addes a
single word to the Constitution.
> I notice you were too stupid to do this.
I notice you are too stupid to respond with anything intelligent.
> > > "fire" and "crowded theatre" do not exist in the constitution.
> >
> > Neither is "automatic machine gun." Neither is "gun." Neither is
> > "rifle."
>
> RIGHT! Which is why the Second Ammendment should be limited to single
> shot muzzle loaders. I have no problem with that, why do you?
Where does it say "single shot muzzle loaders"?
And I notice you snipped and decided not to respond to my proof that
classes about religion are taught by Oregon public universities (which
you said were outlawed in 1985).
*George Spelvin*
George Spelvin
> You mentioned that any speech which endangers another person's rights should
> not be allowed. If I am mischaracterizing what you said, let me know, but I
> think that's basically it. You mentioned the old cliché about yelling "fire"
> in a crowded theater. Strictly speaking, Congress does not have the power to
> outlaw and punish that, either.
The Supreme Court has ruled (and several rulings have resulted in what
we have now), that speech which presents a clear and immediate danger
can be punished. The reason is because it would threaten other
Constitutional rights.
The Constitution doesn't rank rights. They are all to be protected.
That matter, as evidenced by the
> Constitution, is left to the states (amendment I, which prohibits Congress
> from making such laws abridging free speech, the rest of the Constitution,
> which grants no such power, and the tenth amendment, which reserves all
> other powers to the states or to the people.)
Check the 14th Amendment which places the states under federal
jurisdiction.
The only exceptions to that
> would be, I would think, in cases of the District of Columbia and in the
> military, where Congress has the power to make all laws regarding those
> entities. However, I am open to discussion on that as well.
>
> As a lesson in basic English, allow me to first demonstrate the obvious. The
> subject of the sentence in the first amendment is Congress. The predicate of
> the sentence describes the action the subject will be taking. The subject is
> Congress, and the predicate is will make. The direct object describes
> exactly what Congress will make. The noun, laws, which is the direct object,
> is preceded by the adjective, which describes the noun, no. Congress will
> make no laws. The rest of the sentence, "respecting the establishment of
> religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," simply describes the
> type of laws of which Congress will not make.
>
> Nowhere does it say, "States will make no laws," or, "Schools will make no
> laws."
Again, check the 14th.
> Lastly, the Supreme Court doesn't prioritize rights.
Neither does the Constitution. However, it is made clear that we are to
be secure in our lives, liberty, and property (see the 14th).
It's important that we
> understand this as a nation. Our rights, as rights are strictly defined, do
> not come from government at all, but from the Creator.
I don't think the Constitution says that. We are born with rights . . .
they aren't created by anything.
e_li...@my-deja.com
100...@shell1.aracnet.com>,
"Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@aracnet.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2000 e_li...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > We don't need anymore of the so called moral code of the
Christians, or
> > that of any other organized religion, and we certainly do not need
an
> > established constitutional moral code.
>
> Sounds to me that you're putting the right to liberty above the right
to
> happiness.
Liberty and freedom are the key ingredients to creating true happiness.
The recent bloody flare up in the middle East, perputrated by extreme
religious right beliefs [Christian, Jewish & Islam], and an adherence
to the moral codes of those beliefs, has shown to all the World just
how Moral those codes are not!!! In a War Zone there is not much
happiness, and that is what these religious beliefs have created - a
War Zone!
> > Organized religions, especially Christians, over the last 2,000
years,
> > have perputrated an extreme amount of harm with their moral code of
> > instant salvation. What we don't need is more of the harm and
violence
> > which they have writhered in and created over the last two millenia.
>
> Yeah, sure. We believe that almost as much as we believe the lie
that the
> world is overpopulated (all one needs to do is take a cross-country
plane
> trip at night to see the lie inherant in that claim).
The World is rapidly growing, and that growth is starting to show a
detrimental effect on both society and the environment in which we
live, and that is a FACT.
The slaughter of MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of people at the direction of,
and often by the hands of the Christian Church itself, is also a known
FACT. John Calvin, the father of the past and ongoing Orthodox
Christian Movement, was a MURDERER himself. Calvin had John Servetus
MURDERED because Servetus did not agree with Calvin about the issue of
"instant salvation," which Calvin was the originator of.
More evidence and FACTS can be found in the book, FEDCON: Death of the
American Republic, at: http://www.geocities.com/ensey_in_2000/ecne1.html
>
> > We don't need to turn the clock backwards, and a national moral
code is
> > turning the clock backwards.
>
> Is it? Or is it turning the clock forwards to a time when liars and
> cheats can no longer take away our personal liberty and rights?
Liars and cheats are already taking away our personal liberties and
rights - they are called the Congresspersons and Senators who are
participants in the Radical Religious Right movement - mostly
Republican Party members. Trent Lott, Bob Barr,..........
>
> > Turning this nation over to the rule of the radical right elements
of
> > this Nation, is sure suicide to our liberties and freedoms.
>
> Sure, as long as your "liberty" is to take away the liberties of
unborn
> children, or your "freedoms" are to destroy other people's lives.
I favor leaving the decision about whether or not a woman should have
an abortion - to the individual woman effected by the pregnancy. This
is called the freedom and liberty of individual choice. America was
founded on individual freedoms and liberties.
So just who wants to limit and control freedoms and liberties now?
>
> This is EXACTLY why the Founding Fathers claimed that this experiment
> would only work with moral people.
I don't quite re-call that founding father quote about MORALS. Maybe
you could post it for us to see, and then I'll post a quote about the
evils of organized religion and why it was NEVER meant to be a part of
our US government - and I mean NEVER!!!
As one of the direct posterity of those who founded the USA, I continue
to agree with Jefferson that religion has no place in our government at
any level, and that ABSOLUTE Separation of Church and State is a
mandatory must for the USA - FOREVER and EVER!!! The alternative of a
State religion is not acceptable at any level.
E. Liberta
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Edward L. Sandwhicheater
"Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
>
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2000, Edward L. Sanwhicheater wrote:
>
> > "Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 13 Oct 2000, Edward L. Sanwhicheater wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > Public schools supported by public funds can
> > > > > > not take part in establishing religion.
> > > > >
> > > > > But instead the Supreme Court, which is also supported by public funds,
> > > > > can institute the establishment of atheism and force everybody to go along
> > > > > with it.
> > > >
> > > > They are not establishing atheism. No one is getting up and saying
> > > > 'There is no God'.
> > >
> > > You must not have been in a high school biology class recently.
> >
> > Not teaching the Christian creation myth is not saying there is no god.
>
> Correct. But teaching "chance" as the basic method of creation certainly
> is.
>
Schools do not teach 'chance' as the basic method of creation. Even if
they did , it wouldnt be teaching that there is no god. Public schools
do not teach religion.
> > > > > Not by the last ruling they can't. After all, the school is a public
> > > > > building and thus a "government mechanism".
> > > >
> > > > Sure they can. There is a difference between allowing a group of kids to
> > > > have meetings and broadcasting a prayer over the PA system.
> > >
> > > No there isn't.
> >
> > Yes there is. You didnt even read the decision that youre complaining
> > about did you? There is a difference between private speech and public
> > speech. Broadcasting a prayer over the PA system is PUBLIC speech it is
> > also the establishment of religion.
>
> Oh, is that what they think they're doing? Basically banning the primary
> religious exercise?
>
Huh? What they are doing is preventing the state establishment of
religion
> I'm sorry, I can't agree with that line either. The first Ammendment
> doesn't draw a line between Private and Public speech.
>
No it doesnt. But the first also includes the ban on establishment of
religion. You cant see that there is a difference between having a bible
study group and broadcasting religion over the pa system at a public
event where it will be heard whether or not the person wants to hear it?
> > > > The first
> > > > allows the practice of religion the second prevents the establishment of
> > > > religion
> > >
> > > How is a religion being established with a transitory prayer over a PA
> > > system?
> > > There isn't one.
> >
> > It is in essence saying this is the right religion and the rest of you
> > are going to hell.
>
> So what? That's what atheists do in science classrooms all the time
> (except for there, it's an F instead of hell).
>
Ridiculous. No one in public schools teach that there is a hell.No one
in public schools teaches religion. they dont teach that there is a god
and they dont teach that there isnt
> > It gives the appearance of being a state supported
> > religion.
>
> Appearances CAN be decieving. I consider this to be rediculous.
>
well thats because you are a blind faith religious zealot who believe
that it is ok to force your religion on others.
> > In fact the case that you keep referencing ( i Just finished
> > reading the decision) was brought by Mormons and Catholics who basically
> > found the prayers being used to be offensive.
>
> Yep. I even read the text of the prayer, and can't see where it's
> offensive to either theology.
>
So? Who are you to determine what is and is not offensive to them.
Obviously if they cared enough to take it all the way to the supreme
court it WAS offensive to them.
> > > > Again , there is a difference between allowing people to use rooms in
> > > > the school for a meeting and broadcasting their prayers or religious
> > > > beliefs over a PA system.
> > >
> > > Not at all.
> >
> > Yes there is, one is private speech the other is public speech.
>
> So now you have effectively banned all public free speech.
Bullshit. Religious speech at public event using public funds is not
allowed. We are talking about very SPECIFIC speech.
> Nice broad lines this decision draws. Very bad definition, though.
>
In your opinion but not in the opinion of the supreme court or any
reasonable person who wants to protect his own religious beliefs
> > > There is no reasoning behind this. Actually, both ways are establishing
> > > religon: The prayer (free speech) and the suppression of the prayer
> > > (suppression of free speech).
> >
> > The suppression of prayer does not establish a religion any more the the
> > suppression of the color blue establishes the color green
>
> Suppression of the Color Blue does establish the Color green over
> something that has previously been yellow. Just ask any astronaut what
> color the sun is.
>
The suppression of prayer does not establish a religion or deny a
religion
> > > > Please point to the decision you are referencing. I'd like to read it.
> > >
> > > The quote comes from another person in this thread, who claimed that the
> > > PA system was a government mechanism, and to use government mechanisms
> > > automatically changed something from free speech to establishment.
> >
> > Ok, you didnt read the decision. When the justices used the word
> > mechanism in the decision they were talking about the voting that was
> > done by the student body to determine who would pray and what kind of
> > prayer they would recite. The justices said that the voting was a
> > mechanism being used by the school district to circumvent the first
> > amendment. That is the ONLY way the word mechanism was used.
>
> Ok, so what's the complaint about the PA system then? So far, the
> mechanism looks like the students themselves.
>
You have a severe comprehension problem. The complaint about the PA
system is that people who do not want to be part of a religious ceremony
are forced to do so!! That is in effect establishing a state sponsored
religion.
> > > > > If they did not pass law, then there could be no censorship of a student
> > > > > praying before a football game, because the entire "government
> > > > > mechanism" argument depends upon adding words to the Constitution, which
> > > > > is in effect passing law.
> > >
> > > Try this question: Is it right for the Supreme Court to ammend the
> > > constitution?
> >
> > The supreme court has not amended the constitution. They have upheld the
> > constitution. The supreme court can not amend the constitution nor can
> > it create law.
>
> In that case, it's only opinion should be to quote the constitution and
> the constitution alone. Not add words, not "liberally interpret" until
> all the meaning is gone, none of this crap that they've been pulling for
> the last 40 years or so.
>
There has to be interpretation. There cannot be meaning or communication
without interpretation.
> > No it isnt. How is not promoting a religion promoting atheism? No one
> > says to the kids 'be an atheist' but when the kids want to use the PA
> > system for public prayer they are saying 'be a Christian'.
>
> Atheism is the belief system defined by a lack of belief system.
>
Ridiculous.
> > > > First atheism is not a religion.
> > >
> > > That's a lie. It's a belief system, and therefore a religion.
> >
> > It is not a belief system. It is not believing in a god. Is not
> > believing in the easter bunny a religion? How about not believing in
> > santa clause? How about not believing in the great cosmic muffin.
> > Atheism is not a religion.
>
> Then why do atheist organizations get nonprofit status?
>
cite please
> > > Not at all. Besides, you aren't guaranteed freedom of religion in the
> > >first ammendment anyway.
> >
> > You are guaranteed the free exercise of religion. If you dont want to
> > call that freedom of religion , dont.
>
> I don't because you've redefined freedom of religion to include freedom
> from religion.
>
Thats not redefined, freedom of religion means you can worhship or
believe as you choose, this includes the right to not believe or to
believe differently
> > > Yes, just a different religion: that religion which is defined as the
> > > abscence of all other religions.
> >
> > Now youre being ridiculous , there is no religion defined as the absence
> > of all other religions.
>
> Atheism.
>
atheism is not a religion
> > You are wrong. School prayer in a public setting is the establishment of
> > religion. If you want that changed then you need to either get the 1st
> > amendment repealed or a new amendment added.
>
> Not at all. What we need is the impeachment of an illogical court system.
>
What we need is to enforce the constitution, as the supreme court has
done. You are saying that if a person goes to a football game they
should be forced to listen to your religious ceremony even if they find
it offensive.
> > The supreme court has
> > consistently agreed with the ban, as they should. I find it very
> > offensive that Christians feel a need to parade their religion in front
> > of those with different beliefs. Christains have no right to force
> > others to participate in their prayers or there rites through exposure
> > in public places at publically sponsered events.
>
> And government has no right whatsoever to ban them from doing so.
>
Yes it does. The first amendment supported by the 14th amendment
> > > Did they not pay their taxes? Are the funds not PUBLIC for use by the
> > > PUBLIC?
>
> Apparently, according to you, certain groups should be restricted from
> using the public goods they paid taxes to buy.
>
No, im perfectly fine , as is the supreme court, with allowing the
students and teachers to have prayer meetings or bible studies or to
pray out loud in the yard or parking lot or anyplace else , as long as
they do not use public funds to promote their religion to the general
public.
> Ted
> --
> On this day, the Feast of St. Edward the Confessor
> The Just King
> http://www.e3mil.com/church_today/message.asp?message_id=&sec_id=4
> Theodore Michael Seeber
> Coo! he's the remedial beer.
> mailto:see...@aracnet.com
> Check out the <A
> HREF="http://www.aracnet.com/~seebert>IDIC Home Page!</A>
> Try our new Biblical Knowledge Quiz, found <A
> HREF="http://www.aracnet.com/~seebert/rpv.html>here!</A>
> Blessed are the PeaceMakers, for they shall take flack from both sides
> -Unofficial UN motto.
Edward L. Sandwhicheater
no-spam-...@world.std.com wrote:
>
> >>>>> Theodore M Seeber writes:
>
> Theodore> On Wed, 11 Oct 2000 e_li...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >> We don't need anymore of the so called moral code of the Christians, or
> >> that of any other organized religion, and we certainly do not need an
> >> established constitutional moral code.
>
> Theodore> Sounds to me that you're putting the right to liberty above the right to
> Theodore> happiness.
>
> There is no right to happiness, just a right to pursue happiness.
actually that is not a constitutionally protected right either. It is
however mentioned in the declaration of independence
> And without liberty, you do not have the right to pursue happiness.
>
> --
> Andrew Hall
> (Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...)
Edward L. Sandwhicheater
"Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
>
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 no-spam-...@world.std.com wrote:
>
> > >>>>> Theodore M Seeber writes:
> >
> > >> Public schools supported by public funds can
> > >> not take part in establishing religion.
> >
> > Theodore> But instead the Supreme Court, which is also supported by public funds,
> > Theodore> can institute the establishment of atheism and force everybody to go along
> > Theodore> with it.
> >
> > No, they can't, and thankfully they have not tried anything of
> > the sort.
> >
> > Besides, how would one establish the absence of a certain class
> > of beliefs?
>
> By preventing anybody from mentioning that class of beliefs to anybody
> else.
No one is preventing anyone from mentioning anything. They are
preventing the establishment of a state religion.
> Ted
>
> --
> On this day, the Feast of St. Edward the Confessor
> The Just King
> http://www.e3mil.com/church_today/message.asp?message_id=&sec_id=4
> Theodore Michael Seeber
> Coo! he's the remedial beer.
> mailto:see...@aracnet.com
> Check out the <A
> HREF="http://www.aracnet.com/~seebert>IDIC Home Page!</A>
> Try our new Biblical Knowledge Quiz, found <A
> HREF="http://www.aracnet.com/~seebert/rpv.html>here!</A>
> Blessed are the PeaceMakers, for they shall take flack from both sides
> -Unofficial UN motto.
Edward L. Sandwhicheater
"Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
>
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 no-spam-...@world.std.com wrote:
>
> > >>>>> Theodore M Seeber writes:
> >
> > Theodore> On Fri, 13 Oct 2000, Edward L. Sanwhicheater wrote:
> > >> > > Public schools supported by public funds can
> > >> > > not take part in establishing religion.
> > >> >
> > >> > But instead the Supreme Court, which is also supported by public funds,
> > >> > can institute the establishment of atheism and force everybody to go along
> > >> > with it.
> > >>
> > >> They are not establishing atheism. No one is getting up and saying
> > >> 'There is no God'.
> >
> > Theodore> You must not have been in a high school biology class recently.
> >
> > Teaching science is not the same as teaching that their is no god.
>
> Teaching that chance created the world is not the same as teaching science
> either, but they do it.
>
No one teaches that chance created the world. Please show me any high
school text book that says chance created the world.
Clell A. Harmon
<see...@aracnet.com> wrote:
>> > > Public schools supported by public funds can
>> > > not take part in establishing religion.
>> >
>> > But instead the Supreme Court, which is also supported by public funds,
>> > can institute the establishment of atheism and force everybody to go along
>> > with it.
>>
>> They are not establishing atheism. No one is getting up and saying
>> 'There is no God'.
>
>You must not have been in a high school biology class recently.
Got any evidence for this claim you ignorant dink?
>
>> > > Children are free to pray at
>> > > school, they can organize bible study classes.
>> >
>> > Not by the last ruling they can't. After all, the school is a public
>> > building and thus a "government mechanism".
>>
>> Sure they can. There is a difference between allowing a group of kids to
>> have meetings and broadcasting a prayer over the PA system.
>
>No there isn't.
A huge difference you ignorant dink. One is a celebration of
devotion, the other a dog and pony show to force their superstition on
the non believers.
>
>> The first
>> allows the practice of religion the second prevents the establishment of
>> religion
>
>How is a religion being established with a transitory prayer over a PA
>system?
>There isn't one.
I recall the days before organized prayer was removed from
schools. Ignorant dinks like yourself took great pleasure in beating
on the sole Mormon kid.
The Supreme Court has never ammended the Constitution you
ignorant dink.
>
>> > > We are talking about establishment
>> > > of religion.
>> >
>> > Banning the establishment of religion is in effect supporting atheism,
>> > which is also a religion.
>>
>> No it isnt.
>
>Yes it is.
In as much as atheism is a belief system based on zero
evidence, yes it is a religion. The banning of organized displays
however doesn't contribute to atheism. They don't get to display
either, you ignorant dink.
>
>> First atheism is not a religion.
>
>That's a lie. It's a belief system, and therefore a religion.
>
>> Second, banning the
>> establishment of religion in no way promotes atheism.
>
>That's a lie too.
If your religion was banned tomorrow, would you be an atheist?
>
>> Yo will not find
>> schools where people or on the PA systems saying 'there is no god'.What
>> it promotes is freedom of religion.
>
>Not at all. Besides, you aren't guaranteed freedom of religion in the
>first ammendment anyway.
Can't read can you?
>> > > Supporting one religious belief over another through the
>> > > use of state or federal funds 'establishes' religion.
>> >
>> > Agreed, and that's exactly what I'm complaining about.
>>
>> I dont understand. Are you saying that by not promoting religion,
>> religion is established?
>
>Yes, just a different religion: that religion which is defined as the
>abscence of all other religions.
No, Atheism is defined as a lack of belief in a god. Atheist
are very aware of the presence of religions. You god believers have
been murdering people for centuries, you're hard to ignore.
>> > > No one has been
>> > > censored, if you know of case of censorship please point me to a link or
>> > > article. They may have been prohibited from using state funded
>> > > facilities or equipment to broadcast their message.
>> >
>> > Which is censorship.
>>
>> No it isnt.
>
>Yes it is.
No it isn't. Censorship would be when you were prohibited to
use your own assets to make your dubious points you ignorant dink.
You can spend your own money all you want, you can't spend mine.
>> They can say what ever they want , they just cant use public
>> funds to establish a religion.
>
>Did they not pay their taxes? Are the funds not PUBLIC for use by the
>PUBLIC?
Those who do not share your superstition are also tax payers
and members of the public you ignorant dink.
>> > > But thats not
>> > > censorship.
>> >
>> > Since when?
>>
>> since 12/15/1791 when the 1st amendment was ratified.
>
>The first Ammendment clearly states that Congress (alone) is banned from
>making laws that deal with religion in any way, shape, or form
>(establishment or prohibition).
>
>Article III states that the Supreme Court is only allowed to interpret
>law, not make new law.
And they interpreted the 1st to mean you ignorant dinks can't
force your superstition on those thinking members of the public.
>
>> > > > > > > > Ok, here's the first ammendment. Show me where you have a right not to
>> > > > > > > > exercise religion, and prevent me from exercising my religion while
>> > > > > > > > you're doing so:
>> > > > > > > > Amendment I (1791)
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
>> > > > > > > > religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
>> > > > > > > > abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
>> > > > > > > > right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
>> > > > > > > > the government for a redress of grievances.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I also notice that nobody has yet to meet this challenge.
>> > > > > > Ted
>> > > >
>> > > > Still notice that you can't show me where in the Establishment clause at
>> > > > all is the right of the supreme court to censor a private citizen.
>> > >
>> > > No one is being censored. They are being told that they can not use
>> > > public funds to promote their religion.
>> >
>> > They're being told that they can't speak.
>> >
>> > > Do you see this 'censorship' at private schools?
>> >
>> > Yes.
>> >
>> > > No, because they are
>> > > not using public funds.
>> >
>> > They accept some state funding, just like public schools.
>
>And I notice you still missed the point that the government cannot
>restrict public speaking, whether using public resources or not.
>Ted
Speak in public all you want, but that isn't what you want,
you want to force your superstition on to everyone you ignorant dink.