Re: Charades versus "The Game"

Jim G.

unread,

Mar 19, 2012, 4:22:21 PM3/19/12

to

David Dyer-Bennet sent the following on 3/16/2012 4:31 PM:
> "Jim G."<jimg...@geemail.com> writes:
>
>> David Dyer-Bennet sent the following on 3/16/2012 2:04 PM:
>>> "Jim G."<jimg...@geemail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Cheryl sent the following on 3/16/2012 5:54 AM:
>>>>> A lot of people who talk about tolerance and acceptance don't seem to
>>>>> realize what the words really mean. I'm not being tolerant if I support
>>>>> someone's right to do something that I agree with and most of society
>>>>> doesn't. I am being tolerant if I support someone's right to do
>>>>> something I disagree with, even if the rest of society agrees with the
>>>>> other person and not me.
>>>>
>>>> Yep. Tolerance, to some, means "I'll put up with people or ideas that
>>>> don't bother me too much," and diversity means "I support groups that
>>>> I like." As always, the idea of a two-way street just doesn't seem to
>>>> penetrate when it comes to those folks. And at the moment, we're
>>>> seeing a lot of people who probably want to consider themselves to be
>>>> tolerant and pro-diversity showing a lot of intolerance for the rights
>>>> of the Catholic church, and a not-particularly-surprising lack of
>>>> interest in diversity when it comes to beliefs on the issue of
>>>> contraception.
>>>
>>> You don't believe in contraception, don't use. Seems simple enough to me.
>>
>> Because it is. But it's irrelevant to the very legitimate complaint in
>> question, so I'm not really sure what good it does either of us to
>> acknowledge it.
>>
>> For the nth time, the core issue here isn't contraception, as the
>> Church is in no way trying to force anyone non-Catholic into living
>> according to the Church's views on contraception.
>
> The Church is asking for the right to offer deficient medical care.

Since when is contraception a medical care necessity?

> And
> to students at a university, of all people and places! That's
> grotesquely morally irresponsible.

So, by your logic, any insurance plan that places any limits
*whatsoever* on the price that it will pay to cover a given ailment must
be "grotesquely morally irresponsible," as well, right? As such, is it
safe to assume that you would require every medical care plan everywhere
to offer every available option to every patient regardless of cost? Or
is "grotesquely morally irresponsible" care acceptable as long as it's
the government (for example) doing it, as opposed to the Church doing it?

>> Rather, the issue is
>> forcing the Church to subsidize *anything* that goes against its
>> tenets and beliefs. If it makes it any easier to grasp the real issue,
>> imagine if the Obama administration was proposing to force the
>> Catholic Church to abandon its views on transubstantiation versus
>> consubstantiation or its position on the immaculate conception.
>
> Why should the church be special?

Because of this little thing we have called "religious expression."

> The government takes my money to
> subsidize all sorts of things I don't believe in all the time.

And if your Constitutional rights are being violated as a result, then
you have every right to speak up about it.

--
Jim G. | Waukesha, WI
"Television is not real life. In real life people actually have to leave
the coffee shop and go to jobs." -- Bill Gates

Curlie Q

unread,

Mar 19, 2012, 4:44:41 PM3/19/12

to

I suggest you get reincarnated as a woman and then ponder that for a
while. Failing that, google "high-risk pregnancy". It can be dangerous
for some women to get pregnant, for various reasons.

> So, by your logic, any insurance plan that places any limits
> *whatsoever* on the price that it will pay to cover a given ailment must
> be "grotesquely morally irresponsible," as well, right? As such, is it
> safe to assume that you would require every medical care plan everywhere
> to offer every available option to every patient regardless of cost?

I, for one, have no problem with limiting it to options proved
scientifically to be effective, plus experimental treatments undergoing
proper scientific trials.

>>> Rather, the issue is
>>> forcing the Church to subsidize *anything* that goes against its
>>> tenets and beliefs. If it makes it any easier to grasp the real issue,
>>> imagine if the Obama administration was proposing to force the
>>> Catholic Church to abandon its views on transubstantiation versus
>>> consubstantiation or its position on the immaculate conception.
>>
>> Why should the church be special?
>
> Because of this little thing we have called "religious expression."

Paying taxes is not "expression". Health care premiums are not
"expression". Nobody's saying the Church (or Georgetown U, which is *not*
the Church) cannot continue to "express" whatever they wish to.

David Dyer-Bennet

unread,

Mar 19, 2012, 5:00:41 PM3/19/12

to

Since the 1960s. Since modern contraception became possible,
basically. It's one of the most important medical advances ever made.

>> And
>> to students at a university, of all people and places! That's
>> grotesquely morally irresponsible.
>
> So, by your logic, any insurance plan that places any limits
> *whatsoever* on the price that it will pay to cover a given ailment
> must be "grotesquely morally irresponsible," as well, right?

Nonsense. But basic preventive care is one of the most important things
to invest in.

>> Why should the church be special?
>
> Because of this little thing we have called "religious expression."

It can express all it wants. It just can't try to control *other*
people's choices.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

Jim G.

unread,

Mar 21, 2012, 5:03:22 PM3/21/12

to

David Dyer-Bennet sent the following on 3/19/2012 4:00 PM:

I'm pretty sure that you're confused about the meaning of "necessity."

>>> And
>>> to students at a university, of all people and places! That's
>>> grotesquely morally irresponsible.
>>
>> So, by your logic, any insurance plan that places any limits
>> *whatsoever* on the price that it will pay to cover a given ailment
>> must be "grotesquely morally irresponsible," as well, right?
>
> Nonsense.

Why is it nonsense? You just said that "deficient medical care" is
"grotesquely morally irresponsible" when it comes to contraception.
Wouldn't it be even *more* "grotesquely morally irresponsible" in
matters even more related to life-and-death? Matters like cancer and
heart disease and the like? As such, how could you ever justify cutting
off treatment for these more serious matters?

> But basic preventive care is one of the most important things
> to invest in.

Fertility is not an illness or a medical problem. As such, contraception
does not "prevent" an illness or a medical problem.

>>> Why should the church be special?
>>
>> Because of this little thing we have called "religious expression."
>
> It can express all it wants. It just can't try to control *other*
> people's choices.

It's not doing that, as it is not forcing the Flukes of the world to
attend Georgetown Law School.

Furthermore, your argument is akin to claiming that I am trying to
control other people when I refuse to allow them to enter my home and
pee on my carpet. And my reply to that claim would be to point out that
anyone is free to pee on their own carpet (unless they're renters, in
which case they might want to check with their landlords), but they do
*not* have the right to pee on *my* carpet. It really is that simple.

David Dyer-Bennet

unread,

Mar 21, 2012, 5:21:01 PM3/21/12

to

I'm pretty sure you're using an inconsistent definition.

>>>> And
>>>> to students at a university, of all people and places! That's
>>>> grotesquely morally irresponsible.
>>>
>>> So, by your logic, any insurance plan that places any limits
>>> *whatsoever* on the price that it will pay to cover a given ailment
>>> must be "grotesquely morally irresponsible," as well, right?
>>
>> Nonsense.
>
> Why is it nonsense? You just said that "deficient medical care" is
> "grotesquely morally irresponsible" when it comes to
> contraception. Wouldn't it be even *more* "grotesquely morally
> irresponsible" in matters even more related to life-and-death? Matters
> like cancer and heart disease and the like? As such, how could you
> ever justify cutting off treatment for these more serious matters?

Price/performance.

>> But basic preventive care is one of the most important things
>> to invest in.
>
> Fertility is not an illness or a medical problem. As such,
> contraception does not "prevent" an illness or a medical problem.

Fertility certainly *is* a medical problem! That's why so many people
go to doctors to get it dealt with.

>>>> Why should the church be special?
>>>
>>> Because of this little thing we have called "religious expression."
>>
>> It can express all it wants. It just can't try to control *other*
>> people's choices.
>
> It's not doing that, as it is not forcing the Flukes of the world to
> attend Georgetown Law School.

It's trying to force anyone who attends Georgetown Law School to conform
to their position on this unrelated issue.

> Furthermore, your argument is akin to claiming that I am trying to
> control other people when I refuse to allow them to enter my home and
> pee on my carpet. And my reply to that claim would be to point out
> that anyone is free to pee on their own carpet (unless they're
> renters, in which case they might want to check with their landlords),
> but they do *not* have the right to pee on *my* carpet. It really is
> that simple.

Nope, does no damage to the carpet.

Mason Barge

unread,

Mar 21, 2012, 7:04:37 PM3/21/12

to

On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 16:03:22 -0500, "Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:

>David Dyer-Bennet sent the following on 3/19/2012 4:00 PM:

[...]

>
>Furthermore, your argument is akin to claiming that I am trying to
>control other people when I refuse to allow them to enter my home and
>pee on my carpet. And my reply to that claim would be to point out that
>anyone is free to pee on their own carpet (unless they're renters, in
>which case they might want to check with their landlords), but they do
>*not* have the right to pee on *my* carpet. It really is that simple.

I'll pee on your carpet any time I please.

Furthermore, if challenged, I will plead medical necessity.

Robert Bannister

unread,

Mar 21, 2012, 8:50:29 PM3/21/12

to

If it were just a case of contraception, then condoms would be cheaper,
do the job and not be any concern of medical insurance, but as you have
been told several times already the Pill is used for a number of medical
conditions, some of which are life-threatening.

--
Robert Bannister

Cheryl

unread,

Mar 21, 2012, 9:01:13 PM3/21/12

to

Some would argue that that's a situation in which the principle of
double effect comes into play. I'm not sure what the current Pope's
stand is, though.

--
Cheryl

tony cooper

unread,

Mar 21, 2012, 11:16:24 PM3/21/12

to

Despite the rather silly and male chauvinistic remark about women
being stupid or sluts, the only way a woman can be sure that her
partner will not impregnate her is to take something herself. (Well,
almost sure)

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Evan Kirshenbaum

unread,

Mar 22, 2012, 3:10:35 AM3/22/12

to

tony cooper <tony.co...@gmail.com> writes:

> On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 08:50:29 +0800, Robert Bannister
> <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>>On 22/03/12 5:03 AM, Jim G. wrote:
>>> Fertility is not an illness or a medical problem.

But, of course, pregnancy is.

>>> As such, contraception does not "prevent" an illness or a medical
>>> problem.
>>
>>If it were just a case of contraception, then condoms would be
>>cheaper, do the job and not be any concern of medical insurance, but
>>as you have been told several times already the Pill is used for a
>>number of medical conditions, some of which are life-threatening.
>
> Despite the rather silly and male chauvinistic remark about women
> being stupid or sluts, the only way a woman can be sure that her
> partner will not impregnate her is to take something herself.

And have taken it regularly (at least recently) even if she didn't
have a partner that she was sexually active with.

> (Well, almost sure)

The failure rate for condoms under "typical use" is about 12-15%.
This means that for sexually active women who depend on condoms for
contraception, 12-15% will become pregnant in any given year. For
birth control pills, the number drops to about 3-5%. (Less than 1%
with perfect use. The problems are women who occasionally forget to
take them or don't realize they have to take them regularly.) So by
switching from birth control pills to condoms, a woman's chance of
getting pregnant pretty much triples.

The rhythm method, by contrast has a failure rate of around 25% in
typical use and 10% with perfect use. Abstinence is harder to figure,
since by definition, it's never perfectly used by sexually active
women. Stretching the definition to sexually active women who
consider themselves protected by being abstinent (but slipping up
occasionally), the "typical use" failure rate would be based on the
(small) number of times such women have sex. Each session of
unprotected (since unexpected) sex would have a failure rate of of
10-20%, so if a woman who intends to use abstinence only has sex, say,
twice in a year, she has a 20-35% chance of getting pregnant. If she
has sex three times in a year, she has a 37-49% chance. (Having
unprotected sex once a month gives her a 72-93% chance of getting
pregnant each year.)

On a differenct tack: Has anybody yet brought up the notion that for
some Orthodox Jews, hormonal birth control is acceptable, but barrier
methods are not? Surely it would be a violation of a woman's
religious freedom to dictate that if she is going to use contraception
she has to expect her husband to use a method they feel their religion
forbids.

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |Marge: You liked Rashomon.
SF Bay Area (1982-) |Homer: That's not how *I* remember
Chicago (1964-1982) | it.

evan.kir...@gmail.com

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Jim G.

unread,

Mar 22, 2012, 2:51:40 PM3/22/12

to

Jim G. sent the following on 3/21/2012 4:03 PM:

I'm not the one who seems to be trying to suggest that contraception is
a medical necessity.

>>>> And
>>>> to students at a university, of all people and places! That's
>>>> grotesquely morally irresponsible.
>>>
>>> So, by your logic, any insurance plan that places any limits
>>> *whatsoever* on the price that it will pay to cover a given ailment
>>> must be "grotesquely morally irresponsible," as well, right?
>>
>> Nonsense.
>
> Why is it nonsense? You just said that "deficient medical care" is
> "grotesquely morally irresponsible" when it comes to contraception.
> Wouldn't it be even *more* "grotesquely morally irresponsible" in
> matters even more related to life-and-death? Matters like cancer and
> heart disease and the like? As such, how could you ever justify cutting
> off treatment for these more serious matters?
>
>> But basic preventive care is one of the most important things
>> to invest in.

And we each are free (here in the States, at least) to decide for
ourselves what constitutes "basic," and to make our employment and
insurance choices accordingly. And to allow others to do the same thing
by, say, *not* forcing a Catholic university to subsidize something that
goes against its faith tenets.

Jim G.

unread,

Mar 22, 2012, 2:55:21 PM3/22/12

to

David Dyer-Bennet sent the following on 3/21/2012 4:21 PM:

Not in this context, where the claim that contraception has been a
medical necessity since the 1960s is dead wrong.

>>>>> And
>>>>> to students at a university, of all people and places! That's
>>>>> grotesquely morally irresponsible.
>>>>
>>>> So, by your logic, any insurance plan that places any limits
>>>> *whatsoever* on the price that it will pay to cover a given ailment
>>>> must be "grotesquely morally irresponsible," as well, right?
>>>
>>> Nonsense.
>>
>> Why is it nonsense? You just said that "deficient medical care" is
>> "grotesquely morally irresponsible" when it comes to
>> contraception. Wouldn't it be even *more* "grotesquely morally
>> irresponsible" in matters even more related to life-and-death? Matters
>> like cancer and heart disease and the like? As such, how could you
>> ever justify cutting off treatment for these more serious matters?
>
> Price/performance.

So you admit that, at some point, you are willing to give away the high
moral ground that you were just trying to claim. As long as the price is
right, that is.

That pretty much sounds like the old joke with the punchline that goes,
"We've already determined what you are, my dear. Now we're just haggling
over price."

>>> But basic preventive care is one of the most important things
>>> to invest in.
>>
>> Fertility is not an illness or a medical problem. As such,
>> contraception does not "prevent" an illness or a medical problem.
>
> Fertility certainly *is* a medical problem!

So you're suggesting that every fertile person on the planet has a
medical problem? Really?

> That's why so many people
> go to doctors to get it dealt with.

People with fertility *problems* go to doctors to get them dealt with.

>>>>> Why should the church be special?
>>>>
>>>> Because of this little thing we have called "religious expression."
>>>
>>> It can express all it wants. It just can't try to control *other*
>>> people's choices.
>>
>> It's not doing that, as it is not forcing the Flukes of the world to
>> attend Georgetown Law School.
>
> It's trying to force anyone who attends Georgetown Law School to conform
> to their position on this unrelated issue.

No, it's not. First, it's not forcing anyone to go to Georgetown Law, so
your argument is already killed. And second, it is not forcing anyone to
get insurance through the school. Until you can find proof that the
school has some policy that *requires* its students to obtain their
insurance through the school, this second point will also continue to
kill your argument. And since there is no such requirement, you can
already consider your second point to be killed.

>> Furthermore, your argument is akin to claiming that I am trying to
>> control other people when I refuse to allow them to enter my home and
>> pee on my carpet. And my reply to that claim would be to point out
>> that anyone is free to pee on their own carpet (unless they're
>> renters, in which case they might want to check with their landlords),
>> but they do *not* have the right to pee on *my* carpet. It really is
>> that simple.
>
> Nope, does no damage to the carpet.

You're gonna have to clarify, even though I don't see how you're gonna
be able to do so and still make a valid point.

Jim G.

unread,

Mar 22, 2012, 3:01:41 PM3/22/12

to

Mason Barge sent the following on 3/21/2012 6:04 PM:

Note to self: don't ever invite Mason over for a beer.

> Furthermore, if challenged, I will plead medical necessity.

Don't be ashamed to buy Depends at the store. Just tell the clerk that
they're for your wife.

Jim G.

unread,

Mar 22, 2012, 3:07:01 PM3/22/12

to

Robert Bannister sent the following on 3/21/2012 7:50 PM:

As someone else pointed out with a quote, Fluke was speaking of
contraception. Therefore, in the context of a discussion of Fluke's
self-confessed concerns, it *is* just a case of contraception, and not
one dealing with a number of other medical conditions. Which is why I
keep pointing out that the "as you have been told several times" moments
are irrelevant when it comes to what Fluke wants.

--
Jim G. | Waukesha, WI

“The length of a film should be directly related to the endurance of the
human bladder.” -- Alfred Hitchcock

Jim G.

unread,

Mar 22, 2012, 3:07:39 PM3/22/12

to

tony cooper sent the following on 3/21/2012 10:16 PM:

Which wasn't said. But thanks for the misrepresentation. Are you always
this intellectually dishonest?

David Dyer-Bennet

unread,

Mar 22, 2012, 3:10:13 PM3/22/12

to

In fact, you're denying it. But it *is*, for quite a few women.

My point, though, is that it's *medical*; you need a prescription and
you have to get it through a pharmacist (except for two kinds of barrier
methods which aren't very good).

tony cooper

unread,

Mar 22, 2012, 7:25:43 PM3/22/12

to

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 14:07:39 -0500, "Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com>
wrote:

Here's what prompted it: "Well, it's generally a valid point unless
the woman in question is so stupid and/or slutty that she's used to
having sex with guys she can't trust."

Here's your latest on that: "...I'm perfectly willing to go on record
as believing that any woman who lets herself get conned in this regard
is well on her way down Stupid Street, for starters. And the fact that
she apparently doesn't know that the guy is capable of cons *before*
she decides to sleep with him suggests that she might be familiar with
Slut Street, as well, given that she can't know the guy very well and
is still going to sleep with him."

Where's the intellectual dishonesty?

Remysun

unread,

Mar 23, 2012, 1:53:04 PM3/23/12

to

On Mar 21, 5:21 pm, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:

> Nope, does no damage to the carpet.

Depends. Does it still match the drapes?

Jim G.

unread,

Mar 23, 2012, 2:09:33 PM3/23/12

to

David Dyer-Bennet sent the following on 3/22/2012 2:10 PM:

You seem to be confused between (a) using contraceptives as
contraceptives (which is what Fluke was referring to with her $3K
nonsense) and (b) using contraceptives to treat another condition for
which those contraceptives have become known to be useful.

> My point, though, is that it's *medical*; you need a prescription and
> you have to get it through a pharmacist (except for two kinds of barrier
> methods which aren't very good).

Once again, it's interesting to see how some people claim that certain
birth control methods suddenly "aren't very good" when such an
inefficacy is convenient for their argument. Besides, no one has a
"right" to a risk-free sex life, but *everyone* has a right to religious
freedom.

Jim G.

unread,

Mar 23, 2012, 2:16:58 PM3/23/12

to

tony cooper sent the following on 3/22/2012 6:25 PM:

Yes. Note the "unless." And note the "the woman in question." (I've
already pointed out the "and/or" that you ignored in the past, but I'll
mention it again here, as well.) In other words, it wasn't a blanket
indictment of *all* women. The fact that you didn't qualify "women" in
any way in your own statement above is a gross misrepresentation of what
I have said.

> Here's your latest on that: "...I'm perfectly willing to go on record
> as believing that any woman who lets herself get conned in this regard
> is well on her way down Stupid Street, for starters. And the fact that
> she apparently doesn't know that the guy is capable of cons *before*
> she decides to sleep with him suggests that she might be familiar with
> Slut Street, as well, given that she can't know the guy very well and
> is still going to sleep with him."
>
> Where's the intellectual dishonesty?

It's in the fact that you're implying--when you're not outright
stating--that I intend any of this to apply to *all* women. Some women
are stupid and/or slutty. Some aren't. Some *men* are stupid and/or
slutty. And some aren't. It's important to be clear on which subset is
being discussed, and I believe that my statements above make it
perfectly clear which subsets I'm talking about in both backquotes.

Snidely

unread,

Mar 23, 2012, 2:45:34 PM3/23/12

to

It happens that Jim G. formulated :

And you are being very cledar that any woman that disagrees weith your
idea of how contraception should be dealt with is stupid or slutty.

Pah.

/dps

--
Who, me? And what lacuna?

tony cooper

unread,

Mar 23, 2012, 3:42:52 PM3/23/12

to

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 13:16:58 -0500, "Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com>

No, there's no implication, or thought in my mind, that you are
applying those terms to *all* women. But, you are willing to apply to
*any* woman who can be deceived by a man. That's objectionable
enough.

>Some women
>are stupid and/or slutty. Some aren't. Some *men* are stupid and/or
>slutty. And some aren't. It's important to be clear on which subset is
>being discussed, and I believe that my statements above make it
>perfectly clear which subsets I'm talking about in both backquotes.

While some women are either sluts or stupid, or both, an occasional
irresponsible act does not make them either. I get the impression
that you think that any woman who becomes pregnant unintentionally is,
by nature, a slut.

The next time you go to mass, look around at all of the virtuous,
intelligent women in the pews and try to figure out which may have
married less than nine months before the birth of their first child.

David Dyer-Bennet

unread,

Mar 23, 2012, 3:49:00 PM3/23/12

to

It's not that simple. Apparently you've never known very many women
well enough to actually talk about this kind of thing.

>> My point, though, is that it's *medical*; you need a prescription and
>> you have to get it through a pharmacist (except for two kinds of barrier
>> methods which aren't very good).
>
> Once again, it's interesting to see how some people claim that certain
> birth control methods suddenly "aren't very good" when such an
> inefficacy is convenient for their argument.

Objectively true, too, which is convenient for me, eh?

> Besides, no one has a "right" to a risk-free sex life, but *everyone*
> has a right to religious freedom.

But not a right to impose their religious beliefs on others.

Paul Wolff

unread,

Mar 23, 2012, 4:34:58 PM3/23/12

to

In message <ylfkwr6b...@dd-b.net>, David Dyer-Bennet
<dd...@dd-b.net> writes

>"Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com> writes:
>
>> Besides, no one has a "right" to a risk-free sex life, but *everyone*
>> has a right to religious freedom.
>
>But not a right to impose their religious beliefs on others.

Come on. No-one since the seventeenth century has had the authority, nor
the power, to impose a religious belief on anyone else at all.
--
Paul

David Dyer-Bennet

unread,

Mar 23, 2012, 5:18:22 PM3/23/12

to

Checked Texas science textbooks lately? They're imposing their
religioius beliefs on the public school students *today*.

Mason Barge

unread,

Mar 24, 2012, 12:47:29 PM3/24/12

to

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 08:50:29 +0800, Robert Bannister <rob...@bigpond.com>
wrote:

There is no issue about health insurance coverage of the Pill for medical
reasons. Everybody agrees it should be covered, even the Catholic Church.

Dano

unread,

Mar 24, 2012, 12:55:44 PM3/24/12

to

"Mason Barge" wrote in message
news:egurm7d7grn64q123...@4ax.com...

There is no issue about health insurance coverage of the Pill for medical
reasons. Everybody agrees it should be covered, even the Catholic Church.

=========================================

Why should we care what "The Church" has to say on this?

Mason Barge

unread,

Mar 24, 2012, 1:00:42 PM3/24/12

to

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 00:10:35 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
<evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:

>tony cooper <tony.co...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 08:50:29 +0800, Robert Bannister
>> <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 22/03/12 5:03 AM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>> Fertility is not an illness or a medical problem.
>
>But, of course, pregnancy is.

And pregnancy coverage is not at issue.
[....]

>
>The failure rate for condoms under "typical use" is about 12-15%.

And yet, they are still touted by schools and public health officials. The
reason? Condoms are sold "for the prevention of disease", whereas
advertising for birth control pills is require to state that they will not
prevent the transmission of disease.

And so what, anyway? My wife pays for her Pill prescription. Fluke's
implied rationale that abstinant people should be forced to pay for birth
control simply because it might cost a lot is no rationale at all; the
more it costs, the more the non-participants are going to have to pay.

>
>On a differenct tack: Has anybody yet brought up the notion that for
>some Orthodox Jews, hormonal birth control is acceptable, but barrier
>methods are not? Surely it would be a violation of a woman's
>religious freedom to dictate that if she is going to use contraception
>she has to expect her husband to use a method they feel their religion
>forbids.

Surely it would. So what? The people arguing against Fluke's opinion
think that brith control should be completely individual.

Although, I have to say, the idea of an Orthodox Jew going to a Catholic
University and telling them that they have to provide her with a specific
form of birth control, because of her religious beliefs, is mind-boggling
in its irony.

Mason Barge

unread,

Mar 24, 2012, 1:09:09 PM3/24/12

to

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 16:18:22 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net>
wrote:

>Paul Wolff <boun...@two.wolff.co.uk> writes:
>
>> In message <ylfkwr6b...@dd-b.net>, David Dyer-Bennet
>> <dd...@dd-b.net> writes
>>>"Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Besides, no one has a "right" to a risk-free sex life, but *everyone*
>>>> has a right to religious freedom.
>>>
>>>But not a right to impose their religious beliefs on others.
>>
>> Come on. No-one since the seventeenth century has had the authority,
>> nor the power, to impose a religious belief on anyone else at all.
>
>Checked Texas science textbooks lately? They're imposing their
>religioius beliefs on the public school students *today*.

I'd probably agree with that -- I don't really know what's going on in
Texas. I'd certainly agree that they're *trying* to. There are groups
trying to have evolution taken out of textbooks in Georgia, as well.

On the other hand, I think that public schools promote atheism by
forbidding any mention of God. The notion that enforced atheism is
somehow religiously "neutral" strikes me as untenable.

the Omrud

unread,

Mar 24, 2012, 1:15:14 PM3/24/12

to

On 24/03/2012 17:09, Mason Barge wrote:

> I'd probably agree with that -- I don't really know what's going on in
> Texas. I'd certainly agree that they're *trying* to. There are groups
> trying to have evolution taken out of textbooks in Georgia, as well.
>
> On the other hand, I think that public schools promote atheism by
> forbidding any mention of God. The notion that enforced atheism is
> somehow religiously "neutral" strikes me as untenable.

Atheism is not a "thing", any more than a failure to believe in the
fairies which live in my holly bush is a "thing" (they're just starting
to emerge from their hibernation - this is the first warm day of spring
and I've been disturbing them by cutting the grass). What the US public
schools are doing is *not actively promoting* religion. That's very far
from *actively promoting* something. I bet they don't actively promote
cricket either - would you say that they are giving their students a
lesson that it's good to be anti-cricket, or even just a-cricket?

--
David

tony cooper

unread,

Mar 24, 2012, 1:45:05 PM3/24/12

to

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 13:09:09 -0400, Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com>
wrote:

In Florida, they're trying an end run on the school prayer issue in
public schools. A bill has just been approved that would allow
"inspirational messages" by the students at any assembly.
Administrators and other school personnel would be forbidden to review
the message before delivery.

Supporters said it affirms the right of Florida students under the
First Amendment to proclaim their religious beliefs without fear of
being restricted. Detractors say it would subject students from
minority religions to possible discrimination. Some Jewish opponents
of the bill feel that the messages inevitably be Christian prayers.

In regard to your comment, I do not see how forbidding prayer in
school enforces atheism. The school day should be neutral time.
There is time before and after school for prayer.

tony cooper

unread,

Mar 24, 2012, 1:58:41 PM3/24/12

to

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 13:00:42 -0400, Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com>
wrote:

When someone says "The college will provide them with birth control
pills", I take it to mean that the college will physically provide
them with the pills...that the college will hand them out in the
dispensary or someplace.

If that's not what you mean, then it shouldn't be phrased that way.

Mike L

unread,

Mar 24, 2012, 2:28:00 PM3/24/12

to

I have an absolutely unresearched and unquantified gut feeling that
the lack of religious education is a major factor in the prevalence of
the loonier and more fraudulent shades of Christianity in the US. If
people haven't been exposed to the more time-tested versions, I
suspect they're more vulnerable to fast-talking fundamentalists. From
that point of view, it's also possible that having an established
(strictu sensu) church may have a protective effect.

I don't know if the present seeming increase in fundamentalism in the
UK is an argument against my suggestion, or a reflection of the
decline in religious education in schools, or a reflection of
Afro-British culture.

--
Mike.

the Omrud

unread,

Mar 24, 2012, 3:16:33 PM3/24/12

to

I was about to make a similar comment. British schoolchildren are
(theoretically) exposed to a daily act of collective worship. It never
did me any harm, it certainly didn't turn me into a Christian, but it
did give me an abiding respect for the language of the King James Bible.
And it hardly turns us into a nation of religious folk.

--
David

tony cooper

unread,

Mar 24, 2012, 4:06:43 PM3/24/12

to

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 19:16:33 +0000, the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I had no objections to the morning prayer in school, and don't see
that it is objectionable in a public school. I managed to mumble
through the words without thinking anything about them. Those that
didn't want to mumble, remained silent or moved their lips in an
imitation of mumbling.

What I object to in the Florida bill is the deceit. The backers are
playing to their religious base.

Paul Wolff

unread,

Mar 24, 2012, 5:28:30 PM3/24/12

to

In message <ylfkehsj...@dd-b.net>, David Dyer-Bennet

<dd...@dd-b.net> writes
>Paul Wolff <boun...@two.wolff.co.uk> writes:
>
>> In message <ylfkwr6b...@dd-b.net>, David Dyer-Bennet
>> <dd...@dd-b.net> writes
>>>"Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Besides, no one has a "right" to a risk-free sex life, but *everyone*
>>>> has a right to religious freedom.
>>>
>>>But not a right to impose their religious beliefs on others.
>>
>> Come on. No-one since the seventeenth century has had the authority,
>> nor the power, to impose a religious belief on anyone else at all.
>
>Checked Texas science textbooks lately? They're imposing their
>religioius beliefs on the public school students *today*.

I've got deja vu all over again, thinking I've already replied to this.

What I meant to say in response was that there's a difference between
promoting a view and imposing a view. Imposing a religious doctrine on a
population means making it pretty well compulsory for the population to
accept the doctrine, like imposing protestantism, or imposing sufism,
does it not? I think of Mary Tudor attempting to impose her favourite
doctrines on Thomas Cranmer, making him go all hot under the collar
rather than submit to them. I don't think we do it that way any more.

http://englishhistory.net/tudor/monarchs/marygovt.html

--
Paul

Mason Barge

unread,

Mar 24, 2012, 7:10:03 PM3/24/12

to

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 17:15:14 +0000, the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 24/03/2012 17:09, Mason Barge wrote:
>
>> I'd probably agree with that -- I don't really know what's going on in
>> Texas. I'd certainly agree that they're *trying* to. There are groups
>> trying to have evolution taken out of textbooks in Georgia, as well.
>>
>> On the other hand, I think that public schools promote atheism by
>> forbidding any mention of God. The notion that enforced atheism is
>> somehow religiously "neutral" strikes me as untenable.
>
>Atheism is not a "thing",

No, but it is a belief.

> any more than a failure to believe in the
>fairies which live in my holly bush is a "thing" (they're just starting
>to emerge from their hibernation - this is the first warm day of spring
>and I've been disturbing them by cutting the grass). What the US public
>schools are doing is *not actively promoting* religion.

I'd agree with that. They're actively suppressing it.

>That's very far
>from *actively promoting* something. I bet they don't actively promote
>cricket either - would you say that they are giving their students a
>lesson that it's good to be anti-cricket, or even just a-cricket?

Students in US schools know absolutely nothing about cricket, but it has
nothing to do with the schools being forbidden to mention it.

Robert Bannister

unread,

Mar 24, 2012, 7:14:24 PM3/24/12

to

Not talking about something is definitely not the same as encouraging
everyone to believe/disbelieve in it. When you say "forbid", that sounds
a bit over the top and I find it hard to credit - if you mean forbid
creationism, I'd have thought they would have dismissed it rather than
have forbidden it.

--
Robert Bannister

Peter Brooks

unread,

Mar 24, 2012, 10:37:59 PM3/24/12

to

On Mar 25, 1:10 am, Mason Barge <masonba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Atheism is not a "thing",
>
> No, but it is a belief.
>

No, it is not. It's the default position of somebody who doesn't have
beliefs in things for which there is no evidence. It's the opposite of
a belief in the sense of 'belief in magic'.

the Omrud

unread,

Mar 25, 2012, 5:34:00 AM3/25/12

to

On 24/03/2012 23:10, Mason Barge wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 17:15:14 +0000, the Omrud<usenet...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 24/03/2012 17:09, Mason Barge wrote:
>>
>>> I'd probably agree with that -- I don't really know what's going on in
>>> Texas. I'd certainly agree that they're *trying* to. There are groups
>>> trying to have evolution taken out of textbooks in Georgia, as well.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, I think that public schools promote atheism by
>>> forbidding any mention of God. The notion that enforced atheism is
>>> somehow religiously "neutral" strikes me as untenable.
>>
>> Atheism is not a "thing",
>
> No, but it is a belief.

Oh no it isn't. Your turn.

>> any more than a failure to believe in the
>> fairies which live in my holly bush is a "thing" (they're just starting
>> to emerge from their hibernation - this is the first warm day of spring
>> and I've been disturbing them by cutting the grass). What the US public
>> schools are doing is *not actively promoting* religion.
>
> I'd agree with that. They're actively suppressing it.

They must also be actively suppressing the information about my
holly-bush-dwelling fairies then.

>> That's very far
>> from *actively promoting* something. I bet they don't actively promote
>> cricket either - would you say that they are giving their students a
>> lesson that it's good to be anti-cricket, or even just a-cricket?
>
> Students in US schools know absolutely nothing about cricket, but it has
> nothing to do with the schools being forbidden to mention it.

I don't believe that US schools are forbidden from mentioning religion.
AIUI, they are not allowed to teach or promote religions, but there's
a respectable academic subject called Theology, which is a perfectly
proper subject for study. I know atheists who have theology degrees.

--
David

Peter Moylan

unread,

Mar 25, 2012, 5:40:16 AM3/25/12

to

Mike L wrote:

> I have an absolutely unresearched and unquantified gut feeling that
> the lack of religious education is a major factor in the prevalence of
> the loonier and more fraudulent shades of Christianity in the US. If
> people haven't been exposed to the more time-tested versions, I
> suspect they're more vulnerable to fast-talking fundamentalists. From
> that point of view, it's also possible that having an established
> (strictu sensu) church may have a protective effect.

Looking at Western European countries, I do get the impression that the
least religious countries are those with an established religion. I
suspect, though, that if everyone gets an automatic default religion
then they'll be likely to get a mindset where they just go through the
motions without thinking much about religion. For a long time I've had
the impression that in England the Anglican church is a church that
doesn't really insist on a belief in a deity.

A bigger factor, in my opinion, is that Western Europe has had universal
and mostly uniform education for longer. The US system permits a much
larger variation in school quality. I have the impression -- but perhaps
someone can correct me if I'm wrong -- that historically the southern US
states have had a much poorer education system, on average, than the
northern states.

Education has a huge influence on how much one questions traditional
beliefs. That's why the loony right in the US puts so much effort on
things like suppressing textbooks. If you can control the education
system, you control what the children think.

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

Katy Jennison

unread,

Mar 25, 2012, 6:33:54 AM3/25/12

to

On 25/03/2012 10:40, Peter Moylan wrote:

> For a long time I've had
> the impression that in England the Anglican church is a church that
> doesn't really insist on a belief in a deity.

Correct. I know more than one Anglican priest who doesn't have a
(literal) belief in a deity. They don't make any secret of it, and it
seems their bishops don't care, nor their congregations mind.

--
Katy Jennison

the Omrud

unread,

Mar 25, 2012, 6:57:48 AM3/25/12

to

The CoE can be more like a cultural organisation than a religion. Up to
the 17th Century, that was the basis of most Western religions - nobody
thought in terms of "belief", but they shared a culture and rituals. It
would have been meaningless to ask somebody if they "believed in God".

--
David

Cheryl

An almost identical phenomenon exists in its US counterpart, the
Protestant Episcopal Church, which although not a state-sponsored church,
has a fairly large number of people who it claims as members but who
belong more as a matter of form than belief. It provides suitable and
fairly lavish facilities for the upper classes to have weddings and
funerals.

>A bigger factor, in my opinion, is that Western Europe has had universal
>and mostly uniform education for longer. The US system permits a much
>larger variation in school quality. I have the impression -- but perhaps
>someone can correct me if I'm wrong -- that historically the southern US
>states have had a much poorer education system, on average, than the
>northern states.

This is not simply historical. Public schools in the Southeast (the old
Confederacy, or slave states) are the worst in the nation, with the
exception of Florida.

In case you are interested in the social geography of the US:

Calling these states "southern" is still perfectly okay, but realize that
it involves considerable geographic imprecision. The US is a large place
and geographic designations are slowly moving away from Civil War
terminology. The Southwest is radically different from the Southeast, and
that terminology is slowly gaining in prevalence. And both are quite
different from the Midwest -- which as a matter of culture extends east of
the Southeast!

>Education has a huge influence on how much one questions traditional
>beliefs. That's why the loony right in the US puts so much effort on
>things like suppressing textbooks. If you can control the education
>system, you control what the children think.

Here we have a point of view problem. From my position, the loony left is
as big a gadfly as the loony right. I identify them by their similar
insistence on suppressing free speech.

Mason Barge

unread,

Mar 25, 2012, 1:11:49 PM3/25/12

to

Here's a good one. More people attend Anglican Sunday services in Nigeria
than in the UK.

tony cooper

unread,

Mar 25, 2012, 1:42:15 PM3/25/12

to

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 12:26:10 -0400, Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>But what is most markedly unnatural is an absence of inquiry, which is
>exactly what public schools (state-run free schools) in the U.S. provide
>-- an enforced injunction on inquiry. That this occurs in schools is
>absurdly ironic.

I rather support that injunction because the inquiry would have to be
dealt with by the teacher. In any classroom, the inquiry would be
answered with the bias and belief, or non-belief, of the teacher. The
same inquiry would receive a different answer from a different
teacher.

Further, if texts are supplied, the texts would be determined in most
areas by the school board. In an area where the school board members
are elected, this can result in a wide disparity of what the message
must be in a text.

There is a system in place that can provide answers to religious
inquiries...church, Sunday School, and parents. Whether or not this
leads to "brainwashing" - as some here suggest - it is the traditional
and accepted system. What that system doesn't always provide is
diversity and encouragement of free thinking different from the
thinking of those that make up the system.

Mason Barge

unread,

Mar 25, 2012, 1:43:50 PM3/25/12

to

You might be under some degree of misimpression about governance of US
schools. They are generally organized at the county level, with a great
deal of state oversight. Sometimes cities or towns will have independent
schools from their county, sometimes not.

The only time I see suburbs with their own schools is when they manage to
split off and incorporate as towns. Often, this is an affluent white
suburb of a city dominated by poorer "minority" population.

But the alternative is usually just as bad. If you force affluent whites
into badly-run minority school districts, they either move or send their
children to private schools. Who's to blame them? No matter how civic
minded they may be, their children are more important to them.

I live in the City of Atlanta, and quite truthfully, I don't know any
white couple living in the city who send their children to a public middle
school or high school. The Atlanta School District, I should also point
out, is so badly run that its basic accreditation is currently on
probation.

Mason Barge

unread,

Mar 25, 2012, 2:09:21 PM3/25/12

to

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 07:14:24 +0800, Robert Bannister <rob...@bigpond.com>
wrote:

Public schools are increasingly viewed as hostile to religion and with
good reason.

Here's are a couple of instructive cases:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=475&invol=534

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-62.ZS.html

Snidely

unread,

Mar 25, 2012, 3:23:37 PM3/25/12

to

Mason Barge formulated on Sunday :

In my experience, no. While not covered as widely or thoroughly as the
courses Skitt mentions from his (overseas) childhood, there still is
considerable coverage of religion, as Tony mentions. Not only does it
come up in the question of who the Pilgrims were, it factors into
discussion of conflict between India and Pakistan and issues of Native
Americans. There is all that stuff about Luther and Calvin and Henry
VIII. And that is just the history side. There are also (elective)
courses on the Bible As Literature. School choirs may sing pieces that
mention prayer or God. The list of pieces played at the winter concert
doesn't include as many carols as it did in my youth, but there are
still some there.

Now, my kids have been out of high school for at least 4 years, but I
think that what I posted is still accurate.

/dps

--
Who, me? And what lacuna?

anim8rFSK

unread,

Mar 25, 2012, 3:53:43 PM3/25/12

to

In article <utcum71moeeb5b9us...@4ax.com>,

Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 19:37:59 -0700 (PDT), Peter Brooks
> <peter.h....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Mar 25, 1:10 am, Mason Barge <masonba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >Atheism is not a "thing",
> >>
> >> No, but it is a belief.
> >>
> >No, it is not. It's the default position of somebody who doesn't have
> >beliefs in things for which there is no evidence. It's the opposite of
> >a belief in the sense of 'belief in magic'.
>
> I have heard this before, but I think the logic is flawed. Atheism is no
> more a default position for human beings than baldness or blindness. It
> is like saying the default color of a bluebird is black.

Black isn't a color, it's a value. :)

Jim G.

unread,

Mar 25, 2012, 4:12:16 PM3/25/12

to

tony cooper sent the following on 3/23/2012 2:42 PM:
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 13:16:58 -0500, "Jim G."<jimg...@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> tony cooper sent the following on 3/22/2012 6:25 PM:
>>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 14:07:39 -0500, "Jim G."<jimg...@geemail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> tony cooper sent the following on 3/21/2012 10:16 PM:

>>>>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 08:50:29 +0800, Robert Bannister
>>>>> <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 22/03/12 5:03 AM, Jim G. wrote:

>>>>>>> David Dyer-Bennet sent the following on 3/19/2012 4:00 PM:
>>>>>>>> "Jim G."<jimg...@geemail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> David Dyer-Bennet sent the following on 3/16/2012 4:31 PM:
>>>>>>>>>> "Jim G."<jimg...@geemail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> David Dyer-Bennet sent the following on 3/16/2012 2:04 PM:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Jim G."<jimg...@geemail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheryl sent the following on 3/16/2012 5:54 AM:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A lot of people who talk about tolerance and acceptance don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seem to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> realize what the words really mean. I'm not being tolerant if I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone's right to do something that I agree with and most of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> society
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't. I am being tolerant if I support someone's right to do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something I disagree with, even if the rest of society agrees
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other person and not me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yep. Tolerance, to some, means "I'll put up with people or ideas
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't bother me too much," and diversity means "I support groups
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I like." As always, the idea of a two-way street just doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> seem to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> penetrate when it comes to those folks. And at the moment, we're
>>>>>>>>>>>>> seeing a lot of people who probably want to consider themselves
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> tolerant and pro-diversity showing a lot of intolerance for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rights
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the Catholic church, and a not-particularly-surprising lack of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> interest in diversity when it comes to beliefs on the issue of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> contraception.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't believe in contraception, don't use. Seems simple enough
>>>>>>>>>>>> to me.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Because it is. But it's irrelevant to the very legitimate complaint in
>>>>>>>>>>> question, so I'm not really sure what good it does either of us to
>>>>>>>>>>> acknowledge it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For the nth time, the core issue here isn't contraception, as the
>>>>>>>>>>> Church is in no way trying to force anyone non-Catholic into living
>>>>>>>>>>> according to the Church's views on contraception.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Church is asking for the right to offer deficient medical care.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since when is contraception a medical care necessity?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since the 1960s. Since modern contraception became possible,
>>>>>>>> basically. It's one of the most important medical advances ever made.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm pretty sure that you're confused about the meaning of "necessity."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And
>>>>>>>>>> to students at a university, of all people and places! That's
>>>>>>>>>> grotesquely morally irresponsible.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, by your logic, any insurance plan that places any limits
>>>>>>>>> *whatsoever* on the price that it will pay to cover a given ailment
>>>>>>>>> must be "grotesquely morally irresponsible," as well, right?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nonsense.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why is it nonsense? You just said that "deficient medical care" is
>>>>>>> "grotesquely morally irresponsible" when it comes to contraception.
>>>>>>> Wouldn't it be even *more* "grotesquely morally irresponsible" in
>>>>>>> matters even more related to life-and-death? Matters like cancer and
>>>>>>> heart disease and the like? As such, how could you ever justify cutting
>>>>>>> off treatment for these more serious matters?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But basic preventive care is one of the most important things
>>>>>>>> to invest in.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fertility is not an illness or a medical problem. As such, contraception
>>>>>>> does not "prevent" an illness or a medical problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If it were just a case of contraception, then condoms would be cheaper,
>>>>>> do the job and not be any concern of medical insurance, but as you have
>>>>>> been told several times already the Pill is used for a number of medical
>>>>>> conditions, some of which are life-threatening.
>>>>>
>>>>> Despite the rather silly and male chauvinistic remark about women
>>>>> being stupid or sluts,
>>>>
>>>> Which wasn't said. But thanks for the misrepresentation. Are you always
>>>> this intellectually dishonest?
>>>
>>> Here's what prompted it: "Well, it's generally a valid point unless
>>> the woman in question is so stupid and/or slutty that she's used to
>>> having sex with guys she can't trust."
>>
>> Yes. Note the "unless." And note the "the woman in question." (I've
>> already pointed out the "and/or" that you ignored in the past, but I'll
>> mention it again here, as well.) In other words, it wasn't a blanket
>> indictment of *all* women. The fact that you didn't qualify "women" in
>> any way in your own statement above is a gross misrepresentation of what
>> I have said.
>>
>>> Here's your latest on that: "...I'm perfectly willing to go on record
>>> as believing that any woman who lets herself get conned in this regard
>>> is well on her way down Stupid Street, for starters. And the fact that
>>> she apparently doesn't know that the guy is capable of cons *before*
>>> she decides to sleep with him suggests that she might be familiar with
>>> Slut Street, as well, given that she can't know the guy very well and
>>> is still going to sleep with him."
>>>
>>> Where's the intellectual dishonesty?
>>
>> It's in the fact that you're implying--when you're not outright
>> stating--that I intend any of this to apply to *all* women.
>
> No, there's no implication, or thought in my mind, that you are
> applying those terms to *all* women.

In that case, you should have qualified your earlier "Despite the rather
silly and male chauvinistic remark about women being stupid or sluts"
comment into something like "Despite the rather silly and male
chauvinistic remark about some women being stupid or sluts."

> But, you are willing to apply to
> *any* woman who can be deceived by a man. That's objectionable
> enough.

A woman who gets deceived by a man in the birth control context has
already done something stupid. Now, whether she is serially stupid or
whether it was an isolated moment of stupidity would depend on the
specifics of her situation.

>> Some women
>> are stupid and/or slutty. Some aren't. Some *men* are stupid and/or
>> slutty. And some aren't. It's important to be clear on which subset is
>> being discussed, and I believe that my statements above make it
>> perfectly clear which subsets I'm talking about in both backquotes.
>
> While some women are either sluts or stupid, or both, an occasional
> irresponsible act does not make them either.

That's where we disagree. Stupid is stupid, but I *will* agree that
there are chronically/serially stupid people out there and others who
are of a more random nature in that regard. And then there are women who
*aren't* stupid, and those would be the ones who don't put themselves in
a situation that will require birth control unless they know that
they're with someone who is not going to deceive them.

> I get the impression
> that you think that any woman who becomes pregnant unintentionally is,
> by nature, a slut.

Nonsense. But short of rape, there is no way for *any* woman to have
"unintentional" sex without a condom. Again, save me the condom failure
nonsense, as the *context* in which this particular bit of irrelevancy
came up was when someone suggested that it was more or less beyond the
woman's control to ensure that a guy wears a condom.

In fact, I just asked three women I know if they could ever imagine
themselves forgetting to require a condom on a guy if a condom was a
priority for them, and--not surprisingly--all three said that the mere
thought was a joke.

> The next time you go to mass, look around at all of the virtuous,
> intelligent women in the pews and try to figure out which may have
> married less than nine months before the birth of their first child.

That's not how I get my entertainment, but thanks for the suggestion.

--
Jim G. | Waukesha, WI
"Television is not real life. In real life people actually have to leave
the coffee shop and go to jobs." -- Bill Gates

Jim G.

unread,

Mar 25, 2012, 4:14:52 PM3/25/12

to

David Dyer-Bennet sent the following on 3/23/2012 2:49 PM:
> "Jim G."<jimg...@geemail.com> writes:
>
>> David Dyer-Bennet sent the following on 3/22/2012 2:10 PM:
>>> "Jim G."<jimg...@geemail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Jim G. sent the following on 3/21/2012 4:03 PM:

>>>> I'm not the one who seems to be trying to suggest that contraception
>>>> is a medical necessity.
>>>
>>> In fact, you're denying it. But it *is*, for quite a few women.
>>
>> You seem to be confused between (a) using contraceptives as
>> contraceptives (which is what Fluke was referring to with her $3K
>> nonsense) and (b) using contraceptives to treat another condition for
>> which those contraceptives have become known to be useful.
>
> It's not that simple. Apparently you've never known very many women
> well enough to actually talk about this kind of thing.

And I suppose they line up to tell *you* about their sex lives and
fertility/reproductive issues?

But to address your point, I've known countless women and couples who
needed help when they chose to *start* a family, but none who needed
help (beyond the available contraceptive options) to *avoid* one. And I
am unaware of any cases among friends and acquaintances of a problem
that could only be treated with the pill. Not that I pry into matters of
that sort, but it's also not as if I and the women around me avoid such
topics at all costs. Still, the number of women I know well enough to
probably have that sort of conversation with is, without a doubt,
statistically significant. As is, I suspect, the number that *you* know
that well. Unless you're an OB/GYN, or some such thing.

>>> My point, though, is that it's *medical*; you need a prescription and
>>> you have to get it through a pharmacist (except for two kinds of barrier
>>> methods which aren't very good).
>>
>> Once again, it's interesting to see how some people claim that certain
>> birth control methods suddenly "aren't very good" when such an
>> inefficacy is convenient for their argument.
>
> Objectively true, too, which is convenient for me, eh?

>
>> Besides, no one has a "right" to a risk-free sex life, but *everyone*
>> has a right to religious freedom.
>
> But not a right to impose their religious beliefs on others.

Once again, Georgetown is not imposing their contraceptive-free beliefs
on anyone. It's too bad that Obama and Fluke can't be happy with a
similar "live and let live" outlook.

unread,

Mar 25, 2012, 6:57:43 PM3/25/12

to

Well, now we've moved onto something that can be discussed without
tripping over people's opinions about religion.

Some people say that black is a colour. Others say that it's an absence
of colour. It depends on whether you ask an artist or a scientist.

There are those who think intellectually, and those who think with their
emotions. The two groups have different opinions on whether atheism is a
belief.

Peter Moylan

unread,

Mar 25, 2012, 6:59:39 PM3/25/12

to

tony cooper wrote:

> What you are not going to find in US public schools is an assembly led
> off with a prayer (as we used to do) or any organized program to
> promote religion or a religion. The most controversial incidents
> involve clubs that meet in schools. We can't allow the "Young
> Christians", or some such, to use school space even if it is an
> after-school program. Organizations like the Boy Scouts cannot use
> school facilities.

The Scouts are a religion? Nobody told me that when I was a member.

Jerry Friedman

unread,

Mar 25, 2012, 8:02:40 PM3/25/12

to

On Mar 25, 11:43 am, Mason Barge <masonba...@gmail.com> wrote:
...

> You might be under some degree of misimpression about governance of US
> schools. They are generally organized at the county level,

In the three places I've lived long enough to notice, the school
districts were smaller than counties (although the district I live in
now comprises parts of two counties).

> with a great
> deal of state oversight. Sometimes cities or towns will have independent
> schools from their county, sometimes not.
>
> The only time I see suburbs with their own schools is when they manage to
> split off and incorporate as towns.

Or when they're long-incorporated towns that have managed to avoid
being swallowed by the city. I think of that as the normal situation,
since that's how it was where I grew up, in the suburbs of Cleveland.
But usually when an American talks about the "normal situation" for
American schools in a.u.e., lots of other Americans have never heard
of it.

> Often, this is an affluent white
> suburb of a city dominated by poorer "minority" population.

That, however, is familiar.

--
Jerry Friedman

anim8rFSK

unread,

Mar 25, 2012, 8:51:14 PM3/25/12

to

In article <ZrCdnR9nsvN3P_LS...@westnet.com.au>,

I have problems defining lack of belief or disbelief as belief. :)

Robert Bannister

unread,

Mar 25, 2012, 9:00:25 PM3/25/12

to

Basically, you think that it is stupid to trust someone you love?

--
Robert Bannister

Robert Bannister

unread,

Mar 25, 2012, 9:02:47 PM3/25/12

to

On 25/03/12 7:10 AM, Mason Barge wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 17:15:14 +0000, the Omrud<usenet...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 24/03/2012 17:09, Mason Barge wrote:
>>

>>> I'd probably agree with that -- I don't really know what's going on in
>>> Texas. I'd certainly agree that they're *trying* to. There are groups
>>> trying to have evolution taken out of textbooks in Georgia, as well.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, I think that public schools promote atheism by
>>> forbidding any mention of God. The notion that enforced atheism is
>>> somehow religiously "neutral" strikes me as untenable.
>>

>> Atheism is not a "thing",
>
> No, but it is a belief.

How on earth can lack of belief be belief? Only believers think this way
because their imaginations cannot comprehend not believing.

>
>> any more than a failure to believe in the
>> fairies which live in my holly bush is a "thing" (they're just starting
>> to emerge from their hibernation - this is the first warm day of spring
>> and I've been disturbing them by cutting the grass). What the US public
>> schools are doing is *not actively promoting* religion.
>
> I'd agree with that. They're actively suppressing it.

Religion has no place in schools or in any other state-run institution.
If you want a theocracy, go to Iran or Israel.

>
>> That's very far
>>from *actively promoting* something. I bet they don't actively promote
>> cricket either - would you say that they are giving their students a
>> lesson that it's good to be anti-cricket, or even just a-cricket?
>
> Students in US schools know absolutely nothing about cricket, but it has
> nothing to do with the schools being forbidden to mention it.

--
Robert Bannister

Peter Brooks

unread,

Mar 25, 2012, 9:03:44 PM3/25/12

to

On Mar 26, 2:51 am, anim8rFSK <anim8r...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
> I have problems defining lack of belief or disbelief as belief. :)
>

Quite - it rather obviates the point of the word 'belief'.

The OED on 'belief' is interesting:
"
1.1 The mental action, condition, or habit, of trusting to or
confiding in a person or thing; trust, dependence, reliance,
confidence, faith. Const. in (to, of obs.) a person.
(Belief was the earlier word for what is now commonly called faith.
The latter originally meant in Eng. (as in OFrench) ‘loyalty to a
person to whom one is bound by promise or duty, or to one's promise or
duty itself,’ as in ‘to keep faith, to break faith,’ and the
derivatives faithful, faithless, in which there is no reference to
‘belief’; i.e. ‘faith’ was = fidelity, fealty. But the word faith
being, through OF. fei, feith, the etymological representative of the
L. fides, it began in the 14th c. to be used to translate the latter,
and in course of time almost superseded ‘belief,’ esp. in theological
language, leaving ‘belief’ in great measure to the merely intellectual
process or state in sense 2. Thus ‘belief in God’ no longer means as
much as ‘faith in God’ (cf. quot. 1814 in 2). See believe 1, and 1
b.)

2.2 Mental acceptance of a proposition, statement, or fact, as true,
on the ground of authority or evidence; assent of the mind to a
statement, or to the truth of a fact beyond observation, on the
testimony of another, or to a fact or truth on the evidence of
consciousness; the mental condition involved in this assent. Constr.
of a statement, or (obs.) a speaker; that…; belief in (a thing);
persuasion of its existence.

3.3 The thing believed; the proposition or set of propositions held
true; in early usage, esp. the doctrines believed by the professors of
a religious system, a religion. In modern use often simply = opinion,
persuasion.

b.3.b The term is applied by some philosophers to the primary or
ultimate principles of knowledge received on the evidence of
consciousness; intuition, natural judgement.

4.4 A formal statement of doctrines believed, a creed. the Belief: the
‘Apostles' Creed.’ arch.

5.5 Confident anticipation, expectation. Obs.
"

I don't see any of the definitions as supporting a natural use of
'belief' to describe atheism. Even if belief is simply an 'opinion or
persuasion', that hardly covers the lack of such.

Robert Bannister

unread,

Mar 25, 2012, 9:14:22 PM3/25/12

to

On 26/03/12 12:26 AM, Mason Barge wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 19:37:59 -0700 (PDT), Peter Brooks
> <peter.h....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 25, 1:10 am, Mason Barge<masonba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Atheism is not a "thing",
>>>
>>> No, but it is a belief.
>>>
>> No, it is not. It's the default position of somebody who doesn't have
>> beliefs in things for which there is no evidence. It's the opposite of
>> a belief in the sense of 'belief in magic'.
>
> I have heard this before, but I think the logic is flawed. Atheism is no
> more a default position for human beings than baldness or blindness. It
> is like saying the default color of a bluebird is black.
>
> Merriam Webster gives us:
> "5 a : a selection made usually automatically or without active
> consideration due to lack of a viable alternative<remained the club's
> president by default> b : a selection automatically used by a computer
> program in the absence of a choice made by the user."
>
> If you work with computer programming, you will realize that a default is
> a preset value. Human beings clearly are not preset to believe that no
> higher power exists. Lacking input, they will create or, depending on
> your point of view, discover God, a god, or gods.

Sounds like utter nonsense to me unless it is talking about a time when
knowledge was very limited.

>
> I bet the degree to which this is true will come as a bit of a shock -- it
> did to me. According to Wikipedia, two surveys by the Encyclopedia
> Britannica (one in 1995, one date not given) put the percentage of
> atheists worldwide at 3.8% and 2.4%. The CIA World Book used the 2.4%
> figure as of 2004. The high figure is from 2004 at 8%.

But this is because so many countries allow religious indoctrination of
children whether they call it Sunday School or Madrassa or whatever. The
religious hierarchy have a vested interest in preventing the masses from
learning.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism
>
> A significantly higher number of people answer some sort of question
> indicating that they don't believe in God, which seem to cluster around
> 15%. There are clear methodological problems; apparently the number of
> people who will say "I don't believe in God/a higher power/a spiritual
> life force" is about 15%, but a clear majority of this group call
> themselves "agnostic" rather than "atheist". (Proving for the millionth
> time the importance of methodology in surveys.)
>
> Belief in some sort of god is by definition spontaneous (unless you
> believe that God has come to earth to inform makind) and as natural as
> hair growing on one's head. It is also the norm for humanity, and even in
> the most atheistic nations on earth (the Czech Republic, Estonia, and
> Sweden), a majority of persons believe that a god or God or spiritual life
> force exists.

It was the norm hundreds of years ago when nobody understood the causes
of lightning or earthquakes or disease and assumed they were inflicted
by magic or magical beings who had to be appeased - frequently by
offering up human sacrifices as is still practised ritually in communion
or mass. Today, we still need to be afraid of lightning and earthquakes,
but unless persuaded otherwise, people realise that praying is not going
to stop these events. The people who control the churches, temples or
whatevers see this a limit on their power and use every means to
convince the ignorant that supernatural forces exist.

>
> So how can one possibly conclude that atheism is the "default"?
>
> If you want to adopt the "tabula rasa" fiction of human personality, you
> might conclude that agnosticism is a natural or neutral position. That
> makes more sense to me, for whatever it's worth. Again, though, one has
> to admit that worship of supernatural forces arises spontaneously and
> universally in human culture, which forces at best a huge caveat on the
> proposition that agnosticism is *the* natural state of man.
>
> But what is most markedly unnatural is an absence of inquiry, which is
> exactly what public schools (state-run free schools) in the U.S. provide
> -- an enforced injunction on inquiry. That this occurs in schools is
> absurdly ironic.

In one breath you say it is natural for humans to enquire about
supernatural forces and then you say the enquiry should be kick-started
by schools. This seems to indicate that without outside stimulus,
children will have no interest in god-stuff at all.
--
Robert Bannister

David Dyer-Bennet

unread,

Mar 25, 2012, 11:35:18 PM3/25/12

to

No, but they do sometimes discuss things in my presence. Or for that
matter in public, online, or whatever.

> But to address your point, I've known countless women and couples who
> needed help when they chose to *start* a family, but none who needed
> help (beyond the available contraceptive options) to *avoid* one. And
> I am unaware of any cases among friends and acquaintances of a problem
> that could only be treated with the pill. Not that I pry into matters
> of that sort, but it's also not as if I and the women around me avoid
> such topics at all costs. Still, the number of women I know well
> enough to probably have that sort of conversation with is, without a
> doubt, statistically significant. As is, I suspect, the number that
> *you* know that well. Unless you're an OB/GYN, or some such thing.

I know quite a few who were prescribed the pill for non-contraceptive
reasons, in particular. I'm not sure what your remark about "needed
help...to *avoid* one" is even about, though.

>>>> My point, though, is that it's *medical*; you need a prescription and
>>>> you have to get it through a pharmacist (except for two kinds of barrier
>>>> methods which aren't very good).
>>>
>>> Once again, it's interesting to see how some people claim that certain
>>> birth control methods suddenly "aren't very good" when such an
>>> inefficacy is convenient for their argument.
>>
>> Objectively true, too, which is convenient for me, eh?
>>
>>> Besides, no one has a "right" to a risk-free sex life, but *everyone*
>>> has a right to religious freedom.
>>
>> But not a right to impose their religious beliefs on others.
>
> Once again, Georgetown is not imposing their contraceptive-free
> beliefs on anyone. It's too bad that Obama and Fluke can't be happy
> with a similar "live and let live" outlook.

Yes they are; people get their contraceptives through their medical
providers.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

David Dyer-Bennet

unread,

Mar 25, 2012, 11:37:08 PM3/25/12

to

Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> writes:

> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 16:18:22 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Paul Wolff <boun...@two.wolff.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>> In message <ylfkwr6b...@dd-b.net>, David Dyer-Bennet
>>> <dd...@dd-b.net> writes
>>>>"Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com> writes:
>>>>

>>>>> Besides, no one has a "right" to a risk-free sex life, but *everyone*
>>>>> has a right to religious freedom.
>>>>
>>>>But not a right to impose their religious beliefs on others.
>>>

>>> Come on. No-one since the seventeenth century has had the authority,
>>> nor the power, to impose a religious belief on anyone else at all.
>>
>>Checked Texas science textbooks lately? They're imposing their
>>religioius beliefs on the public school students *today*.
>

> I'd probably agree with that -- I don't really know what's going on in
> Texas. I'd certainly agree that they're *trying* to. There are groups
> trying to have evolution taken out of textbooks in Georgia, as well.
>
> On the other hand, I think that public schools promote atheism by
> forbidding any mention of God. The notion that enforced atheism is
> somehow religiously "neutral" strikes me as untenable.

Except they don't do any such thing; they forbid the authority figures
of the school, teachers and adniminstrators from introducing god
gratuitously, or pushing their beliefs on the topic. But you cant teach
history without mantioning god, and I'm not aware of any schools that
try.

David Dyer-Bennet

unread,

Mar 25, 2012, 11:44:18 PM3/25/12

to

tony cooper <tony.co...@gmail.com> writes:

> In regard to your comment, I do not see how forbidding prayer in
> school enforces atheism. The school day should be neutral time.
> There is time before and after school for prayer.

And nobody, ever, has ever suggested forbidding prayer in school.

People have argued pretty strongly against *formal* prayer *as part of
the school program*. People have argued against blatant public prayer
intended to be seen (but then, Christ preaches against it in the bible,
too).

But nobody has ever suggested that a studend should be forbidden to take
a second before a test to pray they remembered the stuff they studied.
And if any such rule were ever enacted, it would be totally and
completely unenforcable, since that kind of internal prayer isn't
externally detectable.

David Dyer-Bennet

unread,

Mar 25, 2012, 11:47:08 PM3/25/12

to

Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 17:15:14 +0000, the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On 24/03/2012 17:09, Mason Barge wrote:
>>

>>> I'd probably agree with that -- I don't really know what's going on in
>>> Texas. I'd certainly agree that they're *trying* to. There are groups
>>> trying to have evolution taken out of textbooks in Georgia, as well.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, I think that public schools promote atheism by
>>> forbidding any mention of God. The notion that enforced atheism is
>>> somehow religiously "neutral" strikes me as untenable.
>>

>>Atheism is not a "thing",
>
> No, but it is a belief.

Atheism differs from, for example, Christianity, in that an atheist
disbelieves in one more god than the Christian.

>> any more than a failure to believe in the
>>fairies which live in my holly bush is a "thing" (they're just starting
>>to emerge from their hibernation - this is the first warm day of spring
>>and I've been disturbing them by cutting the grass). What the US public
>>schools are doing is *not actively promoting* religion.
>
> I'd agree with that. They're actively suppressing it.

I wish. They are *drenched* in Christianity all over the place, and
it's highly annoying to a non-Christian.

David Dyer-Bennet

unread,

Mar 25, 2012, 11:49:17 PM3/25/12

to

Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> writes:

> So how can one possibly conclude that atheism is the "default"?

Occam's razor?

Snidely

unread,

Mar 25, 2012, 11:59:55 PM3/25/12

to

David Dyer-Bennet scribbled something on Sunday the 25th:

> Atheism differs from, for example, Christianity, in that an atheist
> disbelieves in one more god than the Christian.

Didn't we already use that line in this thread?

tony cooper

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 12:29:31 AM3/26/12

to

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 22:44:18 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net>
wrote:

>tony cooper <tony.co...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> In regard to your comment, I do not see how forbidding prayer in
>> school enforces atheism. The school day should be neutral time.
>> There is time before and after school for prayer.
>
>And nobody, ever, has ever suggested forbidding prayer in school.

I think it's pretty much understood by everyone that when we speak of
school prayer we are speaking of directed prayer in an assembly or a
class or the locker room. It's never been about individuals praying.
I don't think even Madelyn Murray O'Hare objected to that.

>People have argued pretty strongly against *formal* prayer *as part of
>the school program*. People have argued against blatant public prayer
>intended to be seen (but then, Christ preaches against it in the bible,
>too).
>
>But nobody has ever suggested that a studend should be forbidden to take
>a second before a test to pray they remembered the stuff they studied.
>And if any such rule were ever enacted, it would be totally and
>completely unenforcable, since that kind of internal prayer isn't
>externally detectable.

--

Peter Brooks

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 12:56:40 AM3/26/12

to

On Mar 26, 5:44 am, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:

> tony cooper <tony.cooper...@gmail.com> writes:
> > In regard to your comment, I do not see how forbidding prayer in
> > school enforces atheism. The school day should be neutral time.
> > There is time before and after school for prayer.
>
> And nobody, ever, has ever suggested forbidding prayer in school.
>
> People have argued pretty strongly against *formal* prayer *as part of
> the school program*. People have argued against blatant public prayer
> intended to be seen (but then, Christ preaches against it in the bible,
> too).
>
> But nobody has ever suggested that a studend should be forbidden to take
> a second before a test to pray they remembered the stuff they studied.
> And if any such rule were ever enacted, it would be totally and
> completely unenforcable, since that kind of internal prayer isn't
> externally detectable.
>

Yea, right! If it was detectable, it'd show up as cheating and be
dealt with appropriately, wouldn't it...

Peter Brooks

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 1:00:54 AM3/26/12

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 12:53:27 PM3/26/12

to

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 10:57:53 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net>
wrote:

>Peter Moylan <inv...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> writes:
>
>> tony cooper wrote:
>>
>>> What you are not going to find in US public schools is an assembly led
>>> off with a prayer (as we used to do) or any organized program to
>>> promote religion or a religion. The most controversial incidents
>>> involve clubs that meet in schools. We can't allow the "Young
>>> Christians", or some such, to use school space even if it is an
>>> after-school program. Organizations like the Boy Scouts cannot use
>>> school facilities.
>>
>> The Scouts are a religion? Nobody told me that when I was a member.
>
>Recent news articles include a scout being thrown out for being an
>atheist.

Yes, that's the problem with schools allowing Boy Scouts to use school
facilities. The Boy Scouts have a policy that prohibits atheists and
agnostics from membership. The Supreme Court has ruled that this is
legal since they are a private organization. The Scouts also prohibit
openly gay people to be troop leaders.

This makes schools skittish about allowing Boy Scout meetings on
school premises. School officials don't want lawsuits or adverse
publicity. Most Boy Scout troops meet in churches.

Not all Boy Scout troops give a rat's ass about this national policy
on atheism and religion. I suspect very few do. It's only when some
boy wants to join a troop and openly declares (usually it's the
parent, though) that he's an atheist or agnostic as a challenge that
we hear about enforcement.

The prohibition on gay Scout leaders is understandable even if you
understand that "gay" does not mean "pedophile". There's going to
someone who doesn't understand, and has a deep-seated bias, who is
going to raise a stink. The troop doesn't want the focus to be on
this.

I have read some reports where a Scout leader was not openly gay, but
it was discovered he was gay, and the person resigned rather than
subject the boys to controversy.

tony cooper

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 1:01:45 PM3/26/12

to

I don't know about your state, but Florida's legislature has slashed
the public school's budget to the point where they are closing
schools, laying off teachers, and dropping subjects.

The last thing the Florida public schools need is any additional
expense in defending a lawsuit. If school officials are hostile to
any attempt to add something that might put them in court, I certainly
don't blame them.

Funny about words. I would say the schools are being "prudent".
Others see that as "hostile".

Adam H. Kerman

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 1:30:52 PM3/26/12

to

tony cooper <tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I don't know about your state, but Florida's legislature has slashed
>the public school's budget to the point where they are closing
>schools, laying off teachers, and dropping subjects.

Good.

Why the fuck can't taxpayers of the school district pay to improve their
own damn schools? How are schools affordable if paid for on the state
level, but unaffordable if paid for on the local level?

Poverty in the school district in and of itself doesn't prevent schools
from being improved, for in most areas, schools don't levy income taxes,
but property taxes.

Gee. What happens to land values when schools are terrible? What happens
to land values when schools are improved?

Yes, good schools are affordable when paid for at the local level.

Jerry Friedman

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 2:04:33 PM3/26/12

to

That's too bad, but I don't see what it has to do with anything I
wrote.

(In my state, schools are always in bad shape.)

> The last thing the Florida public schools need is any additional
> expense in defending a lawsuit. If school officials are hostile to
> any attempt to add something that might put them in court, I certainly
> don't blame them.

As shown by the two cases Mason cited above, both hostility and
friendliness to religion can put schools in court.

> Funny about words. I would say the schools are being "prudent".
> Others see that as "hostile".

Others might say that by being hostile to religion in some ways,
they're being prudent.

--
Jerry Friedman

tony cooper

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 2:09:23 PM3/26/12

to

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 17:46:07 +0100, the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I haven't read anything about a Scout being kicked out of a troop for
being an atheist, but I have read about a kid not being accepted as a
Scout because of professed atheism.

I can't cite it, but there was some case where a boy (in California?)
was turned down for this reason. It was his father, though, that
pushed the issue. The parents were divorced, the boy lived with his
mother, and the mother insisted that it was the father that was behind
it. The boy wasn't all that interested in becoming a Boy Scout, but
the father was active in some sort of atheist group and wanted a test
case. The Boy Scouts won the case.

David Dyer-Bennet

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 3:16:37 PM3/26/12

to

The article was quite clear and explicit, and gave a photo of the
teenager in his Scout uniform.

That's consistent with what I know about the BSA, and may be part of why
my joining was never mentioned by anybody (or maybe they were just too
para-military).

I've made no attempt at fact-checking the article, you understand.

David Dyer-Bennet

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 3:18:11 PM3/26/12

to

Oh, what the heck. Here:
<http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/03/boy-scouts-are-from-mars-girl-scouts-are-from-venus/253957/>

"Eagle Scout Darrell Lambert holds a letter expelling him from the
organization for being an atheist"

David Dyer-Bennet

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 3:20:10 PM3/26/12

to

"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> writes:

> tony cooper <tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I don't know about your state, but Florida's legislature has slashed
>>the public school's budget to the point where they are closing
>>schools, laying off teachers, and dropping subjects.
>
> Good.
>
> Why the fuck can't taxpayers of the school district pay to improve their
> own damn schools? How are schools affordable if paid for on the state
> level, but unaffordable if paid for on the local level?

Because the people with the money live in different districts with the
people with kids needing more special help.

> Poverty in the school district in and of itself doesn't prevent schools
> from being improved, for in most areas, schools don't levy income taxes,
> but property taxes.
>
> Gee. What happens to land values when schools are terrible? What happens
> to land values when schools are improved?
>
> Yes, good schools are affordable when paid for at the local level.

No they're not. Everywhere that's faced the issue has had to give up on
that concept.

Mike L

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 4:31:32 PM3/26/12

to

But look what happened to the jolly young fellow who followed the
utterly colourless velvet band.

--
Mike.

Mike L

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 4:54:13 PM3/26/12

to

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:18:11 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net>
wrote:

>the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On 26/03/2012 16:57, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>>> Peter Moylan<inv...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> writes:
>>>
>>>> tony cooper wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What you are not going to find in US public schools is an assembly led
>>>>> off with a prayer (as we used to do) or any organized program to
>>>>> promote religion or a religion. The most controversial incidents
>>>>> involve clubs that meet in schools. We can't allow the "Young
>>>>> Christians", or some such, to use school space even if it is an
>>>>> after-school program. Organizations like the Boy Scouts cannot use
>>>>> school facilities.
>>>>
>>>> The Scouts are a religion? Nobody told me that when I was a member.
>>>
>>> Recent news articles include a scout being thrown out for being an
>>> atheist.
>>
>> Really? A Scout, not an adult Leader? That wouldn't happen in the UK.
>
>Oh, what the heck. Here:
> <http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/03/boy-scouts-are-from-mars-girl-scouts-are-from-venus/253957/>
>
>"Eagle Scout Darrell Lambert holds a letter expelling him from the
>organization for being an atheist"

Quite a few Scout troops in Britain were based on churches, but it
wasn't a requirement, though the Scout Promise did mention the deity.
Those in Musilm etc countries certainly aren't attached to churches.
But, again, I had the impression from French friends that their Scouts
and Guides _were_ viewed as a religious outfit.

I don't know if they've now come back into the fold, but one of the
sad consequences of Irish religio-political divisions was that there
used to be a separate Catholic Boy Scouts of Ireland: many years ago a
troop of them from NI picked me up when I was hitching in the South.
One of the vehicles broke down, and it was interesting to see that
under pressure these Catholics rapidly switched into a posture of
Northern superiority to "Free-Staters" not very different from what
one might have expected from some Ulster Protestants. My dim young
eyes weren't exactly opened at that point, but I did begin to realise
that the whole thing was just going to be too complicated for any
non-local ever to understand.

--
Mike.

Adam H. Kerman

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 5:02:44 PM3/26/12

to

David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> writes:
>>tony cooper <tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>I don't know about your state, but Florida's legislature has slashed
>>>the public school's budget to the point where they are closing
>>>schools, laying off teachers, and dropping subjects.

>>Good.

>>Why the fuck can't taxpayers of the school district pay to improve their
>>own damn schools? How are schools affordable if paid for on the state
>>level, but unaffordable if paid for on the local level?

>Because the people with the money live in different districts with the
>people with kids needing more special help.

State aid tends to go to bedroom communities, people with the clout to
bitch about higher property taxes because they chose a location with
little commercial and industrial property to tax. State aid tends to
go to communities with fast-growing population, to help them build
new schools.

State aid to older communities in central cities with schools predating
WWI? Not so much.

>>Poverty in the school district in and of itself doesn't prevent schools
>>from being improved, for in most areas, schools don't levy income taxes,
>>but property taxes.

>>Gee. What happens to land values when schools are terrible? What happens
>>to land values when schools are improved?

>>Yes, good schools are affordable when paid for at the local level.

>No they're not. Everywhere that's faced the issue has had to give up on
>that concept.

Really? Can you name a location that improved schools that didn't experience
higher land values?

Mason Barge

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 5:41:46 PM3/26/12

to

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 09:57:43 +1100, Peter Moylan
<inv...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>anim8rFSK wrote:
>> In article <utcum71moeeb5b9us...@4ax.com>,
>> Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 19:37:59 -0700 (PDT), Peter Brooks
>>> <peter.h....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mar 25, 1:10 am, Mason Barge <masonba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Atheism is not a "thing",
>>>>> No, but it is a belief.
>>>>>
>>>> No, it is not. It's the default position of somebody who doesn't have
>>>> beliefs in things for which there is no evidence. It's the opposite of
>>>> a belief in the sense of 'belief in magic'.
>>> I have heard this before, but I think the logic is flawed. Atheism is no
>>> more a default position for human beings than baldness or blindness. It
>>> is like saying the default color of a bluebird is black.
>>
>> Black isn't a color, it's a value. :)
>
>Well, now we've moved onto something that can be discussed without
>tripping over people's opinions about religion.
>
>Some people say that black is a colour. Others say that it's an absence
>of colour. It depends on whether you ask an artist or a scientist.
>
>There are those who think intellectually, and those who think with their
>emotions. The two groups have different opinions on whether atheism is a
>belief.

Persons who identify themselves as atheists give reasons for their
assertion that God doesn't exist. But they cannot prove it. That makes it
a belief by any definition.

Mason Barge

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 5:43:40 PM3/26/12

to

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 09:26:07 +0200, James Hogg <Jas....@gOUTmail.com>
wrote:

Black is best only in mourning.

Mason Barge

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 5:49:17 PM3/26/12

to

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 09:14:22 +0800, Robert Bannister <rob...@bigpond.com>
wrote:

>On 26/03/12 12:26 AM, Mason Barge wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 19:37:59 -0700 (PDT), Peter Brooks
>> <peter.h....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>

[...]
>In one breath you say it is natural for humans to enquire about
>supernatural forces and then you say the enquiry should be kick-started
>by schools.

"Kick-started?" I would rather say informed by historical thought and
discussion, just like every other area of intellectual inquiry.

>This seems to indicate that without outside stimulus,
>children will have no interest in god-stuff at all.

In one breath you say that I say it is natural for humans to enquire about
supernatural forces, and then you say that my argument indicates children
have no interest about it.

If we're going to choose our academics by virute of children's natural
interest, I'd say that Latin grammar needs a lot more "kick-starting" than
religious studies.