Soap Box Religion Poll

[Edzo]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Uhlek:<BR>My answers:<BR><BR>5) Islam. While radical, fundamentalist Christianity can be just as evil as fundamentalist Islam, the latter is far more prevalent and causes far more human suffering throughout the world than Christianity does today. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>I considered answering the same way, but in fairness to Islam, Christianity had a 600 year head start. Where was Christianity in the 1400s? Just a century or two removed from the crusades. Just starting up the Spanish Inquisition, witch-hunts, etc.

 

[lateralis]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkySlash:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Crackhead Johny:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leavitron:<BR>This is why America was born. Freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Kind of funny if we try to twist them that way.<BR><BR>Freedom OF speech, not freedom FROM speech. Some crazy guy on the street corner wants to rant at you, you MUST stand there and listen.<BR>The right to bear arms, not the right to not bear arms. You'd better be packing. <BR>The right to not have soldiers garrisoned in your house, not the freedom to have soldiers in your house. Your buddy who got back from Iraq will have to stay in the back yard. <BR><BR>Wish I was at home with my copy of the constitution and declaration beside the computer (libertarian friend gives them out to everyone) this looks like it could be a humorous game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>You're making the odd assumption that because you have the right to do something, you're compelled to do that thing.<BR><BR>Uhhmmm, no...<BR><BR>-SS </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>that's kind of his point. saying "freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion" follows from the misguided notion that you're free to have any religion you want, except "none of the above".<BR><BR>it's why Bush 1 said “No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God.”<BR><BR>he was, of course, wrong just as anyone who says that there's a difference between freedom OF and freedom FROM is wrong.

 

[Ffael]

I wonder if the xian view point "freedom of!=fredom from" would change if there became a Muslim majority(Muslims because it is the most likely, otherwise any nonchistian religion will do). If your local school board (due to a different majority) implemented Islamic law and mores. Suzy Q has to be completely covered would be the least of the issues that would arise, but they (based on that arguement) would be correct and lawful. Everyone likes majority rules when they are in the majority.

 

[leavitron]

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Crackhead Johny:<br>Maybe "In God We Trust" was but is seems like more of a slogan these days... like "In God We Trust, all others pay cash.". Sure some whackos can point at it on a coin and say "we are a Christian nation." but that opens up a whole conversation that will leave them angry and possibly violent (it is their way, we must respect it). <br>So buddy, as a christian nation which is more important "loving your enemies" or "kicking @ss!"? "Turn the other cheek" or "pay back!"? I expect the reply is "Dude I got no idea what you are babbling about, all I know is that Jesus said if I didn't have a sword I should sell my cloak and buy one." And then they get angry.<br><br>{snip}<br><br>In the US that would be christian law. <br>Congratz Mr Muslim on your new US citizenship! Oh yeah, here are the divorce papers for 3 of your wives! With no job skills and poor English, I'm sure they will be fine here in the US or if we deport them!<br>Hi Mr Mormon, sorry you won't get a seat in Heaven. Say, if you don't get one of those seats, where do you go when you die?<br>Sorry Mr Crackhead Johny, Liquor stores are closed on Sunday. <br>Sorry Mr Aztec, you cannot sacrifice other people and eat their hearts... No wait, this one works. I'm good with the no "heart eating".<br><br>We are not just against religious things that are harmful to people we are also against religious freedoms and/or expectations that simply conflict with the current iteration of the dominant religion. Consensual/victimless crime is bad!! </div>
</blockquote>
<br>You have a couple of very good points. -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif -- (<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MightySpoon:<br>The mention on the money is a relatively recent development. </div>
</blockquote>
<br>Fully and completely aware of that. Sorry I did not mention that. I was merely countering Jason's statement with the fact that it would ALL have to replaced at great cost. However, I refuse to pay for it.<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I think you are confusing the personal religious beliefs of people and "religious motivations behind the founding of our country". The first settlers didn't found the United States, regardless. </div>
</blockquote>
<br>But would there have been Colonies to come to, if not for them? That is the great question.<br><br>Starbuck79 - I was merely answering Jason's knee-jerk that anything government-related with "God" on it was unconstitutional. The DOI is a historical document and naturally would be preserved on such grounds rather than be re-written to fit a "PC" mold. The odds of anyone insisting that the Supreme Court building be leveled and rebuilt to remove the Ten Commandments carving is similarly absurd. (Think hyperbole here.)<br><br>Son-volt - I am enjoying being better than you since you cannot admit it when you have been proven wrong.<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Crackhead Johny:<br>Just basing my statement off of the Freedom OF X doesn't mean freedom FROM X argument that Christians bring up, which says you have the freedom of it and must indulge in it. </div>
</blockquote>
<br>Please do show me where I have said that the freedom of something means one <b>must</b> indulge in it. -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif --

 

[MightySpoon]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Fully and completely aware of that. Sorry I did not mention that. I was merely countering Jason's statement with the fact that it would ALL have to replaced at great cost. However, I refuse to pay for it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>You're already paying to take old bills out of circulation to be replaced by newer ones. The actual cost is irrelevant; it's a political concern.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>But would there have been Colonies to come to, if not for them? That is the great question.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Does the question matter? I'm guessing you don't care that the actual native Americans weren't Christian.

 

[Ffael]

The way I see the Freedom from religion part is; I have freedom from <B>your</B> religion, just as you have freedom from <B>mine</B>.<BR><BR>How would would you feel about hearing a prayer to Zues during a Government sponsored ground breaking for a public park? <BR><BR>Would it seem inappropriate? <BR><BR>Yet prayers for the big G-d happen at Government everything all the time. Hell, if it was a mayor, I bet his prayer would make news time, with a hefty dose of ridicule.<BR><BR>[<I> Zues is used purely for demonstrative purposes</I>

 

[death_to_novell]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Just because a minority want to re-write history to exclude religious motivations behind the founding of our country does not make that history so. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>And just because some other people want to rewrite history to invent religious motivations behind the founding of this country doesn't make it so. <BR><BR>Know how many times there was some sort of prayer at the constitutional convention? None (at least on record). It was suggested and shot down.<BR><BR>Know how many times God is mentioned in the constitution? Zero.<BR><BR>Know how many times the original oath of office mentioned God? Zero Again.<BR><BR>Know who described the 1st amendment as a wall of separation between church and state? That would be Thomas Jefferson<BR><BR>Remember that time Adams signed off on a treaty that said "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"?<BR><BR>The founders really did an amazingly poor job of letting their religious motivations be known.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'm not lying. You said "My disdain for religion..." You didn't specify a religion, or denomination, or sect. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that you are condemning all religion with your very broad brush. I cannot go by what you meant to say, only what you said. You have to fix it, not me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>"more" does not imply that they currently spend none, which is what you lied and said I said, which is, let us be clear, a <I>lie</I>. You are lying, and you and I and everyone who cares to look knows it.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

I would wholeheartedly dismiss religion and even call for its banning if not for:<BR><BR>1. A strong conviction that simplified myth is about as strong an "intellectual framework" as can be reached by many, due to either a lack of access to knowledge or a lack of grey power, or both. I guess I am saying idiots have a need for a world view, too, and myth is as good as it gets. No sense explaining why GR breaks down at sub-Planck distances to them, or how eons of evolution can work, nor anything much, really. I mean, the CD tray is a coffee cup holder for these guys.<BR><BR>1A. I know that (1) is horrible, but I hold to no egalitarian myths, either. How that leads to still being fully committed to democracy is an argument for a different thread.<BR><BR>2. At least the myths provide a moral framework. I fully grant that a satisfying argument can be made for moral or ethical behavior without recurring to the Spaghetti Monsters, but I have yet to find one that could be used en masse. Fear of hell is a useful, um, cattle prod.<BR><BR>3. Banning religions makes martyrs and terrorists.<BR><BR>So we need <B>better myths</B> (or global genetic engineering /kidding).<BR><BR>Edit: added "too"

 

[MightySpoon]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"more" does not imply that they currently spend none, which is what you lied and said I said, which is, let us be clear, a lie. You are lying, and you and I and everyone who cares to look knows it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I agree with JasonF. The statement was very clear and twisting it to mean something more extreme then was obviously meant is disingenuous.

 

[leavitron]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JasonF:<BR>"more" does not imply that they currently spend none, which is what you lied and said I said, which is, let us be clear, a <I>lie</I>. You are lying, and you and I and everyone who cares to look knows it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>On the contrary. Lying requires intent. You would have to be able to see into my heart to know my intent. My intent is not to misrepresent you. Since my intent is not to do so, I cannot be lying. When I read your statement, I missed the word "more" completely. I apologize for misreading and therefore misunderstanding you.<BR><BR>However, I stand by my assertion that it is entirely possible that you are looking in all the wrong places so as to bolster your prejudices.

 

[Starbuck79]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JasonF:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Just because a minority want to re-write history to exclude religious motivations behind the founding of our country does not make that history so. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>And just because some other people want to rewrite history to invent religious motivations behind the founding of this country doesn't make it so. <BR><BR>Know how many times there was some sort of prayer at the constitutional convention? None (at least on record). It was suggested and shot down.<BR><BR>Know how many times God is mentioned in the constitution? Zero.<BR><BR>Know how many times the original oath of office mentioned God? Zero Again.<BR><BR>Know who described the 1st amendment as a wall of separation between church and state? That would be Thomas Jefferson<BR><BR>Remember that time Adams signed off on a treaty that said "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"?<BR><BR>The founders really did an amazingly poor job of letting their religious motivations be known.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>++ It seems obvious that whatever the personal beliefs of the framers they were building a secular nation. One in which individuals would be free to practice as they choose without government involvement.<BR><BR>If, as some argue, they were creating a "Christian Nation" they seemed to do a piss poor job of it. Many of the founders were religious to some degree or another but they reccognized that a government should be secular.

 

[Vampyre]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Metasyntactic:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkySlash:<BR>Because like it or not, free excercise of religion is a protected civil right. <BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>No it is not. Your right to exercise your religion freely stops when it violates the law. Want to rape women because your religion tells you to? Too fucking bad. Want to torture children? Too fucking bad. <BR><BR>Want to murder? Too fucking bad.<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>Like it less or not, some idiots at the state level take that protection further than intended, and pass idiotic laws.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Yes. SO your precedent comment *still* makes no sense. The precedent set is that religious laws do not trump the state's laws. But this child endangerment case is the exception that sets a *bad* precedence. You *should* want to get rid of it since by not doing so, you send the message that people can commit the worst and most heinous acts, and then get away with it because they say their god told them to do it.<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>Not that I'm saying I think it should be that way, it just is.<BR><BR>-SS </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I understand that that's the way it is. My point is that what you said is *non sensical*. It just does not make sense *period*. You can't make an argument that deals with precedence when you have everything related to precedence *backwards*. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>You miss the point where it doesn't. Raping women, murdering, torturing, that's something you do to someone else.<BR><BR>What if my religion means I want to scar my face. Do you let me do that? How about hack off a peice of skin on my genitalia? Refuse surgery because I believe in faith-healing?<BR><BR>It's a pretty big grey area. The parents are the guardians of their children; they get to decide these things. How much control does the government have in forcing them to accept interference? Can the government force immunization shots? How about preventative appendix removal? How about sterilization for the poor?<BR><BR>We're all about protecting the children, I see, but how far does that go? How much violation of the CHILD'S rights are permissible in order to make them conform to our standards of religious belief when, at worst, their actions harm only themselves?<BR><BR>And who pays for forcing them into medical treatment when it turns out to be unnecessary and dangerous? Do we string up the doctor then, or the government official who forced it? Or do we just say 'Sorry, our bad.' and walk away?<BR><BR>People here wants the government to stay out of their business, and then wants the government to shove their nose into everyone else's business. Don't pay attention to whom you're having sex with, but make sure them kids get their shots and their surgeries and their medications, even if they don't like it.<BR><BR>Besides, the number of people who actively resist medical treatment on religous grounds is pretty small. The ones needing treatment even smaller. The media blows it up into a big problem when it's actually not, most of the time.<BR><BR>But, I've taken note. It's A-OK to fuck with someone else's beliefs, just don't fuck with yours. That seems logical and equitable.

 

[Metasyntactic]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leavitron:<BR>This is why America was born. Freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You cannot have the former, without the latter. <BR><BR>Consider if the gov came down and said "you can be christian, but you must pray to mecca 5 times a day". Since you don't have the right to be free "FROM" religion, this is ok to you. But, in reality, i don't think you'd be ok with this. I think you recognize that in order to be free to your own beliefs, you must free *from* other religious beliefs being pushed on you.<BR><BR>That's why the two go hand in in hand. I'm pretty sure you know this as well since it's not the first time this has been pointed out in the Box. <BR><BR>There's a good synopsis of that here: http://atheism.about.com/od/ch...hs/a/freedomfrom.htm

 

[Crackhead Johny]

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leavitron:<br>Please do show me where I have said that the freedom of something means one <b>must</b> indulge in it. -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif -- </div>
</blockquote>
<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leavitron:<br>This is why America was born. Freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.<br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>I may be misreading "Freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion." but it sounds like I have to indulge in whatever laws the dominant religion wants to force on the infidels, blasphemers, unwashed, etc. <br>Just like if I said "Freedom OF speech, not freedom FROM speech." sounds like I'd better have a speech prepared or be ready to sit through whatever speech anyone else wants to make (not sure which of these 2 options "freedom FROM speech" would protect me from) I'd like to think that I do not have to make speeches and I can walk away from the crazed street preacher at the gun store who is swinging a dead cat around his head and ranting about how the socialist is going to take our guns. <br>When a religion gets one of their laws made into the law of the land it is a glaring failure. Either then need it because their own followers will not follow that law in which case it pointless as it should be an internal religious issue or they want to force their religious ways on those of other religions/no religion which sort of goes against "Freedom of religion". When the Jews or Muslims get the majority in the US and try to take my bacon they can pry it from my cold, dead, greasy, mmmm bacony, hands.

 

[Metasyntactic]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ffael:<BR>The way I see the Freedom from religion part is; I have freedom from <B>your</B> religion, just as you have freedom from <B>mine</B>.<BR><BR>How would would you feel about hearing a prayer to Zues during a Government sponsored ground breaking for a public park? <BR><BR>Would it seem inappropriate? <BR><BR>Yet prayers for the big G-d happen at Government everything all the time. Hell, if it was a mayor, I bet his prayer would make news time, with a hefty dose of ridicule.<BR><BR>[<I> Zues is used purely for demonstrative purposes</I> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Fortunately, said prayers are usually illegal and we are getting more and more court cases that are striking them down. Eventually, it will be a non issue when all these people realize that they cannot do what they're doing.

 

[Thank You and Best of Luck!]

There's no tracking in the poll to know if it's correlated, but it's funny that almost the same number of people who counted themselves as identifying with a religion is roughly the same number of people that noted that Islam was more detrimental to society than Christianity.<BR><BR>Anyway, it's a pretty dubious claim to make in any respect, and only carries any inkling of significance if you utterly fail to consider each in the whole lifetime of their tradition.

 

[lateralis]

so when do we get into the cognitive dissonance arising from the fact that the "leave me alone to my faith healing, even if it means my kid dies" people are probably also the ".gov absolutely MUST ban abortion because the death of an embryo is a sure sign of the end times" people?<BR><BR>what if I PRAYED for the fetus to self-abort?

 

[Metasyntactic]

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vampyre:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Metasyntactic:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkySlash:<br>Because like it or not, free excercise of religion is a protected civil right. <br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>No it is not. Your right to exercise your religion freely stops when it violates the law. Want to rape women because your religion tells you to? Too fucking bad. Want to torture children? Too fucking bad. <br><br>Want to murder? Too fucking bad.<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<br>Like it less or not, some idiots at the state level take that protection further than intended, and pass idiotic laws.<br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>Yes. SO your precedent comment *still* makes no sense. The precedent set is that religious laws do not trump the state's laws. But this child endangerment case is the exception that sets a *bad* precedence. You *should* want to get rid of it since by not doing so, you send the message that people can commit the worst and most heinous acts, and then get away with it because they say their god told them to do it.<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<br>Not that I'm saying I think it should be that way, it just is.<br><br>-SS </div>
</blockquote>I understand that that's the way it is. My point is that what you said is *non sensical*. It just does not make sense *period*. You can't make an argument that deals with precedence when you have everything related to precedence *backwards*. </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>You miss the point where it doesn't. Raping women, murdering, torturing, that's something you do to someone else.<br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>No. I missed no point. We're talking about child endangerment. Child endangerment is something you do to someone else.<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<br>What if my religion means I want to scar my face. <br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>Fine. There are no laws against that.<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<br> Do you let me do that? How about hack off a peice of skin on my genitalia? <br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>Fine. There are no laws against that.<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Refuse surgery because I believe in faith-healing? <br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>Fine. There are no laws against that.<br><br>Again, how can he be worried about precedence here? Stopping them from killing their child does *not* in any way set a precedent for what they can do to *themselves*.<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<br>It's a pretty big grey area. The parents are the guardians of their children; they get to decide these things. <br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>No they don't. I already addressed that above. It's a specious argument. To the parents of a child get to rape the child? Of course not. Do they et to torture a child? Of course not. Are there child endangerment laws that they must follow? Of course. Do those child endangerment laws *specifically* address the case of denying a child life saving medical care? Of course.<br><br>They are directly putting a child in harms way, and that is not something they get to do just because they are the parent. <br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<br>How much control does the government have in forcing them to accept interference? <br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>Total. If the state views that their actions equate to child endangerment, then they can do anything and everything to stop that (including putting the child into protective services and declaring teh parents unfit or worse).<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<br>Can the government force immunization shots? <br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>If not giving the shot would count as child endangerment, then yes.<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<br> How about preventative appendix removal? <br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>If not giving removing the appendix would count as child endangerment, then yes.<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> How about sterilization for the poor?<br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>What on earth does that have to do with child endangerment?<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<br>We're all about protecting the children, I see, but how far does that go?<br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>Exactly as far as it goes today with the *non religious*. We already have child endangerment laws. Do you get that? We already have laws that if a *non religious* person were to break, we arrest them and take away their children. But we give the religious a pass because they say that their god told them it was ok to kill their children.<br><br>There is no need to take anythign further. You simply apply the same law to everyone regardless of their religion. *Not* doing that sets a bad precedent. Do you believe that xtians should get away with murder if their god told them to? No? Then why is it ok if it's a child?<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<br>And who pays for forcing them into medical treatment when it turns out to be unnecessary and dangerous? <br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>What are you talking about?<br><br>The same people who pay *today* in the cases where the parents are not religious but are endangering their child.<br><br>We have a system that deals with this *today*. We understand that the state has a vested interest in overriding the will and action of the parents when those parents are endangering their children. But we make an exception for the religious because... well... i have no fucking idea why frankly. <br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<br> Do we string up the doctor then, or the government official who forced it? Or do we just say 'Sorry, our bad.' and walk away?<br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>We do *exactly* the same thing we do today. Having religious parents changes nothing.<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<br>People here wants the government to stay out of their business, and then wants the government to shove their nose into everyone else's business.<br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>If i rape, torture, murder, or otherwise wantonly endanger the life of my child, i want the gov sticking its nose in my business.<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<br> Don't pay attention to whom you're having sex with, but make sure them kids get their shots and their surgeries and their medications, even if they don't like it.<br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br> -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif --<br><br>Wow. Strawman much?<br><br>Let me break this down to you simply:<br><br>We have a concept in this country of *child endangerment*. We have ample precedent in this country that the state can step in and take over if parents are endangering the life of their child.<br><br>This is the state of our country *today*.<br><br>But, as it stands, religious parents are given a pass in this one area for some unknown reason. (we certainly don't give them a pass in other areas, like say, child murder). All i'm saying is that we should be doing exactly what we do with other non-religious parents to these religious parents. <br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<br>Besides, the number of people who actively resist medical treatment on religous grounds is pretty small.<br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>So it the number of people murdering, raping, or torturing children on religious grounds. That doesn't mean we shouldn't stop them.<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<br>But, I've taken note. It's A-OK to fuck with someone else's beliefs, just don't fuck with yours. That seems logical and equitable. </div>
</blockquote>Could you be any more of a disingenuous jerk?<br><br>I have made it very clear from the beginning. I am talking about applying teh *same* rule equally to *everyone*. Atheist parent who lets your child die by not taking them to the doctor? State will step in. CHristian parent who lets your child die by not taking them to the doctor? State will step in.<br><br>Being religious does not give you a pass to put a child's life at harm. What about that is difficult to understand? The country has ample precedent that you do not get to murder based on your religion. You do not get to rape. You do not get to commit crimes and get away with them. So why is the crime of child endangerment any different?

 

[SkySlash]

Okay, Meta & Starbuck, I've thought about the question on what do I mean by precedent, and I think have a non-confusing answer that should finally explain what I meant.<BR><BR>We have established that it is not only okay to restrict religion when it harms others, but that it is necessary, and we are in agreement on that. <BR><BR>Here begins the description of what I was stating concerns me, and mind you, we aren't there yet, but the horizon is visible. My concern on how far we go in setting precedent involves theoretical future limitations on religious freedom, in the interest of "protecting" children for the sake of progressing society.<BR><BR>Example: Tolerance for Homosexuality<BR><BR>Certain religions believe that homosexuality is an absolute sin, and they do not under any circumstances, want their children to be taught that tolerance for homosexuality is ok. These same religions find the idea of gay marriage to be a fundamental breakdown of society, and from a religious perspective, it is something they will not tolerate or accept under any circumstances whatsoever. In order to further their beliefs and "protect" (in their minds) their kids, many parents will spend small fortunes to send their kids to private religious schools to shield them from the idea that tolerance for gays and gay marriage is ok. They consider homosexuality to be an affront to their religious beliefs, and they believe it is an infringement upon those beliefs for the state to demand tolerance for homosexuals, or that they teach their kids tolerance for homsexuality or gay marriage. I'm not saying that is happening everywhere, though in some locales it is (Tango makes Three), but it is what they fear will ultimately happen. This is one of the motivations for sending their kid to a private religious school. This isn't necessarily the primary motivation, but it is a motivation nonetheless. In their mind they are protecting themselves and their families religious beliefs from infringement by the state through forced indoctrination of tolerance for homosexuality and gay marriage.<BR><BR>Hold that thought for a moment.<BR><BR>Our society is slowly, but surely moving towards further tolerance for homosexuality, up to the point in some locales of granting them full protection under the law as a protected class; thus granting them full and equal rights and equal status as other married couples. As a result, some locales have also opted to begin incorporating the concept of tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality and gay marriage (Tango Makes Three) into the public school curriculum, and are teaching kids that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, and that a belief otherwise is wrong, intolerant, and cruel to others. Effectively a campaign to teach tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality among school kids. <BR><BR>Now let's merge the two where I'm saying I think religious people want to know precedent won't go too far in the direction of limiting religious freedom, in the interests of "protecting" others.<BR><BR>Let's say hypothetically, a state government passes a law that states that all school children in the state, regardless of age or school, will be required to have a course on a topic of tolerance for homosexuals, and part of that curriculum requires critical review of material such as the book "Tango makes Three." The state, in this scenario, insists that this curriculum is justifiable and in the interests of the greater good, and responds to objections to it by simply insisting that the objections are intolerant of others or hate speech, and thus unworthy of consideration. <BR><BR>Under that scenario, the religious beliefs of parents will most definitely be infringed by the state, in order to push the ideology of tolerance on kids whose parents want precisely the opposite ideology taught. This is actually happening in some public schools right now, and parents whose religious beliefs disagree with tolerance for homsexuality and/or oppose gay marriage on religious grounds, are effectively having their religious beliefs infringed upon if they can't afford an alternative to public school. After all, the state does require kids attend school, so the option to remove kids altogether is not on the table. <BR><BR>Summary:<BR>I'm not getting into the morality of one viewpoint or another, I'm just trying to offer a sterilized view of where both sides, in their minds, have legitimate arguments. In this scenario, is it justifiable for the state to override the wishes of the parent and infringe upon their religious beliefs, for whatever justification the state deems appropriate?<BR><BR>This is the "precedent" that <B>could</B> be set that I was trying to infer earlier. This type of precedent, in my mind, is the shaky line on which I'm torn on how far to cross. It's what I was suggesting I struggle with in terms of deciding where I fall. And in practical terms, this type of change is precisely why the religious right goes to extreme lengths to fight this particular effort, because they are legitimately terrified they are going to lose this fight, and that their personal religious beliefs will be infringed through state indoctrination of their kids.<BR><BR>Discuss, and hopefully this finally puts a functional understanding on what I piss poorly tried to convey earlier.<BR><BR>-SS

 

[Frennzy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This is actually happening in some public schools right now, and parents whose religious beliefs disagree with tolerance for homsexuality and/or oppose gay marriage on religious grounds, are effectively having their religious beliefs infringed upon if they can't afford an alternative to public school. After all, the state does require kids attend school, so the option to remove kids altogether is not on the table. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>There is always home-school. <BR><BR>The bottom line is that, if a curriculum can be justified, it can be justified. So long as it doesn't cross that line into proselytizing religion, I fail to see any problem with teaching tolerance and understanding. Anyone who doesn't wish their child to be taught such things (above and beyond being an unconscionably bad parent) will be forced to make tough choices. Public school is there to meet a minimum standard of education, not cater to extreme religious viewpoints. <BR><BR>This is not infringement, it's simply stating that they are free to take advantage of the public education, <B>but there may be parts of the curriculum they disagree with.</B><BR><BR>In every instance of this I have ever heard of (mostly related to sex-ed) the parents had the option of withdrawing their children from a particular class, lecture, or topic. The school would fine an alternative activity for those kids. IME, this was basically spending an hour or so in the library. <BR><BR>Why wouldn't that be good enough here?

 

[SkySlash]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frennzy:<BR>Public school is there to meet a minimum standard of education, not cater to extreme religious viewpoints. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Would a parent not be able to justifiably ask, if that is the case, why the school is attempting to teach or influence a moral sphere? What minimum standard of education is included in teaching morality in public school? <BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In every instance of this I have ever heard of (mostly related to sex-ed) the parents had the option of withdrawing their children from a particular class, lecture, or topic. The school would fine an alternative activity for those kids. IME, this was basically spending an hour or so in the library. <BR><BR>Why wouldn't that be good enough here? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>In this scenario, it isn't an option to opt out, as the state has decided intolerance is unacceptable and/or hate speech. I know we're not there right now, today, but it's easily possible on the near horizon. After all, we teach racial tolerance, and absolutely squelch racism from the classroom and society as best we can. Nobody objects to that on religious grounds, at least not anymore, but it would be pretty easy to justify gender/sexuality tolerance teaching by utilizing the same route taken to justify race equality, wouldn't it?<BR><BR>Would parents religious objections be heard? Or would they be dismissed as regressive and outdated bigotry? These are questions, btw, not assumptions.<BR><BR>-SS

 

[lateralis]

well I think his original topic is important to keep in mind. we were specifically talking about OPTING OUT of treating sick children.<BR><BR>yes, in the education example, if your religion conflicts with the curriculum, you opt out and home school. maybe not the optimal solution, but at least a mutually tenable one. in the health care example, opting out is exactly the problem we'd be trying to avoid. <BR><BR>your religion means, for example, that you can't accept any treatment that is derived from embryonic stem cell research lets say. you as a parent choose to pray for your sick daughter instead of accept the treatment (which, for sake of argument, lets say is covered by your insurance through your employer).<BR><BR>is opting out of treatment (what has been called child endangerment in the thread), an acceptable solution to us as a society? if we collectively decide that it is NOT, and legislate accordingly, in what ways is that different FROM THE RELIGIOUS PERSONS POINT OF VIEW from the education example?<BR><BR>edit to add:<BR>what I hoped to show but maybe didn't elucidate completely is the MORAL similarities TO THE RELIGIOUS PERSON between tolerating homosexuality (a sin to them) and medically benefitting from embryonic stem cell research, (also morally objectionable). for them, the child dying without sinning (using dead babies to get better) may be a better solution to them than living but then bearing the sin.<BR><BR>what is the "neutral" in this situation? what is the default? the opt-out?<BR><BR><BR>edit #2-<BR>"you" and "your" used generically, not aimed at anyone in particular.

 

[Thank You and Best of Luck!]

Though somewhat pedantic, the distinction is that as a society we don't view education as having a sufficiently strong correlation with a person's wellbeing, but have no such problem asserting that a specific medical treatment for a specific ailment does provide a sufficient correlation to warrant intervention.

 

[Starbuck79]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">After all, we teach racial tolerance, and absolutely squelch racism from the classroom and society as best we can. Nobody objects to that on religious grounds, <B>at least not anymore, </B>but it would be pretty easy to justify gender/sexuality tolerance teaching by utilizing the same route taken to justify race equality, wouldn't it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I think you very much answered your own question. I have a feeling there was very similar "freedom of religion" argument for people who teach racism or Creationism. Infact there still are.<BR><BR>Just like with Racism the schools will teach those things that the society deams valuable. If someone objects they can either A) Pull thieir kids out of school or B) Teach them differently at home.<BR><BR>It's my opinion but Racism is no different that homophobia. As you said, in both cases society is slowly moving. The schools will reflect that.<BR><BR>If parents have a religious problem with that they can pressure school boards, votes for new leaders, etc etc. These sorts of classes, liek Evolution, do not infringe on their ability to practice religion. They are free to be bigots at home and teach thier children bigotry at home.

 

[Frennzy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Nobody objects to that on religious grounds, at least not anymore, but it would be pretty easy to justify gender/sexuality tolerance teaching by utilizing the same route taken to justify race equality, wouldn't it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>Yes, it would. And it *should* be that way. Intolerance for homosexuality is no less bigoted than racism based on a person's skin color. This is not infringing on religious rights, it's engendering the notion of tolerance and equality. The rallying cry used to be "miscegenation." Replace that with "abomination" and we are in a fundamentally equivalent position today.<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>In this scenario, it isn't an option to opt out, as the state has decided intolerance is unacceptable and/or hate speech. I know we're not there right now, today, but it's easily possible on the near horizon. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> <BR><BR>I realize it is your scenario, but it seems far-fetched. Desegregation happened decades ago, and we are no closer to removing opt-out clauses than we ever have been. It seems like a non-sequitur to me.<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> <BR>Would parents religious objections be heard? Or would they be dismissed as regressive and outdated bigotry? These are questions, btw, not assumptions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> <BR><BR>You're creating a slippery slope argument, which could just as easily be bent the other direction (banning books from the library, etc). <BR><BR>I think a person should be able to opt-out of public education classes on religious grounds, but at some point it becomes disruptive, at that point, they should home school. Especially if these objections center around those same outdated notions of bigotry.

 

[SkySlash]

Hmm...<br><br>You'll like this analogy Starbuck. <br><br>Cookie Jar. -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif --<br><br>As in, it's been theirs for a long time, and people keep trying to take their cookies. Some of these people even have the audacity to think they get to put their own cookies in the jar, or worse, to take some of what's already there out.<br><br>It worked in that other thread, and I think it works here just as well. And I further think it's yet another reason people are going apeshit at town halls and tea-parties.<br><br>They're facing the identity crisis of a lifetime, because they are losing their stranglehold on the balls of America. Interesting times these...<br><br>-SS

 

[vhold]

On the Islam thing: I personally think it's silly to claim that Islam is inherently any more backward and violent than Christianity - one only has to look at the long history of similar eras of fanaticism in Christianity to doubt this idea.<BR><BR>I think it's more accurate to say that in backwards cultural environments, the religion as practiced is more likely to be backwards and violent, whatever the dominant religion might be.

 

[Starbuck79]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">They're facing the identity crisis of a lifetime, because they are losing their stranglehold on the balls of America. Interesting times these... </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I don't doubt that. Someone mentioned the identity issue in the ACORN thread and I think you are onto something as well.<BR><BR>And I would suspect their parents faced the very same on 40 years ago. I'm NOT saying that all these conservatices are racist BUT the situation is similar. Society over time almost alway becomes more progressive/accepting. Those who fight this kind of progress will always be disapointed.<BR><BR>It is interested to look at the post New Deal history. By the 50's Republicans pretty much stopped complaining about the new deal. Everyone accepted it. What happened was in the late 50's and early 60's saw a rise of a new breed of Elitest Conservatism in some ways inspored by Buckley and the National Review. There was the intellectual bases of the movement. It began to be supported by big business. Then as the Civil Rights movement started you had a new breed of states rights sountern whites that were experiencing dramatic changes in their communities. States rights Movement Conservatives tapped into this fear and anger.<BR><BR>In many ways this kind of Movement Conservatism took off under GoldWater but was highlighted by Reagan's 1964 Convention speech. Then we have Ragan's classic "Welfare Queen" Line from the 1976 which seems to be at best an exaguration and and worst a lie. What is interesting is that he would villify those on welfare in the cities like these wlefare queens but when discussing it in the souther he would talk about about how upset workers must be to see an able-bodied man using food stamps at the grocery store. In the South — but not in the North — the food-stamp user became a “strapping young buck” buying T-bone steaks.<BR><BR>He spoke in support of "States Rights" and everyone knows what that meant at the time. There is simply no question that the rise of movement conservatism is rooted in the exodus of southern whites over race.<BR><BR>Now, I think that after 40 years society and the republisan party has changed for the better. Issues like Segregation are unthinking to the vast majority. But progress happens slowly.<BR><BR>Anyway I know that is a little off topic but it is related to the identity thing.

 

[Metasyntactic]

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkySlash:<br>Okay, Meta & Starbuck, I've thought about the question on what do I mean by precedent, and I think have a non-confusing answer that should finally explain what I meant.<br><br>We have established that it is not only okay to restrict religion when it harms others, but that it is necessary, and we are in agreement on that. <br><br>Here begins the description of what I was stating concerns me, and mind you, we aren't there yet, but the horizon is visible. My concern on how far we go in setting precedent involves theoretical future limitations on religious freedom, in the interest of "protecting" children for the sake of progressing society.<br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>Thnks for taking the time to do this. Now allow me to go and rip it all apart -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif --<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<br>Example: Tolerance for Homosexuality<br><br>Certain religions believe that homosexuality is an absolute sin,<br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>Good for them. They are welcome to. <br><br>Certain religions also teach that other religions are sins against their god. Certain religious people feel that other *races* are a sin. Certain religions feel that having sex out of marriage is a sin. Certain religious people feel that birth control is a sin. Some believe that evolution is a lie. etc. etc. etc.<br><br>They are all welcome to their beliefs. What they are not welcome to is the the belief that just because they think this way that the rest of society (or the gov) has to humor them. <br><br>You are free to exercise your religion (as long as it doesn't intrude on others), but that does not mean you are free from having to deal with the fact that others won't like or follow your religious beliefs.<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<br> and they do not under any circumstances, want their children to be taught that tolerance for homosexuality is ok.<br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>That's totally fine. They have a perfect solution. Homeschool their kids, or send them to a religious school. <br><br>They do *not*, under any circumstance, have the right to believe that in a public education that the state has any need to kowtow to their belief system when teaching children. Some fundies don't want evolution taught. Too fucking bad. The needs of the state to teach about science override your religious desires. Some fundies don't want integrated schools. Too fucking bad. The needs of the country to act in a non-discriminatory fashion to people regardless of race trumps your backwards beliefs. <br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<br> These same religions find the idea of gay marriage to be a fundamental breakdown of society,<br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>They are welcome to think that. They are even welcome to teach that. No one is stopping them. This is the same with things like evolution, birth control, racial issues, and whatnot. You want to teach your kids that stuff, fine. But don't think that if you then send them to public school that they're not going to be told different things.<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<br> and from a religious perspective, it is something they will not tolerate or accept under any circumstances whatsoever.<br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>They are welcome to not tolerate it. The system is alerady designed for that. Don't tolerate people talking about evolution? Homeschool your kids. Don't tolerate a school system that allows black teacher to teach? Homeschool your kids.<br><br>Done and done.<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<br> In order to further their beliefs and "protect" (in their minds) their kids, many parents will spend small fortunes to send their kids to private religious schools to shield them from the idea that tolerance for gays and gay marriage is ok. <br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>Yup. The system works. As you can see, these issues exist today on a variety of factors that the country accepts and religious bigots dislike. Their views are tolerated, and it is accepted that their children can be taught by thte parents to believe what they want. However, separation of church and state means that when it comes to state run schools that religion plays no part in it. If Foo religion hates gays, too fuckind bad. If Bar religion hates evolution, too fucking bad. If Baz religion hates women, too fucking bad.<br><br>Do we kowtow to religious extremists who don't think that our schools should teach women and treat them equally to men? Of course not. It's utterly absurd. <br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<br>They consider homosexuality to be an affront to their religious beliefs, <br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>They are welcome to. Nothing is stopping that.<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<br>and they believe it is an infringement upon those beliefs for the state to demand tolerance for homosexuals,<br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>They have no right for their beliefs to not be infringed when it comes to:<br>a) greater state interests<br>b) separation of church and state<br><br>I'm sure that there are many who believe their beliefs are being infringed upon when the state teaches about evolution. Too fucking bad. Your backward religious beliefs end at your church, your home, and your mind. They're all welcome there and will not be infringed. But the rest of us are free *from* your religion. You want to impose it on the rest of us and you fuck right off.<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<br> or that they teach their kids tolerance for homsexuality or gay marriage. I'm not saying that is happening everywhere, though in some locales it is (Tango makes Three), but it is what they fear will ultimately happen.<br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>It is not the responsibility of society to subject and subjugate itself to the fears of the religious. <br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<br> This is one of the motivations for sending their kid to a private religious school. This isn't necessarily the primary motivation, but it is a motivation nonetheless. In their mind they are protecting themselves and their families religious beliefs from infringement by the state through forced indoctrination of tolerance for homosexuality and gay marriage.<br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>And they are welcome to.<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<br>Hold that thought for a moment.<br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>I am holding...<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<br>Our society is slowly, but surely moving towards further tolerance for homosexuality, up to the point in some locales of granting them full protection under the law as a protected class; thus granting them full and equal rights and equal status as other married couples. As a result, some locales have also opted to begin incorporating the concept of tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality and gay marriage (Tango Makes Three) into the public school curriculum, and are teaching kids that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, and that a belief otherwise is wrong, intolerant, and cruel to others. Effectively a campaign to teach tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality among school kids. <br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>Yup. Where have we seen this before. Oh right... this happened when we moved toward treating women equally to men, and toward treating blacks equally to whites. <br><br>Society believes in tolerance, and believes that teaching children that is a good thing. <br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<br>Now let's merge the two where I'm saying I think religious people want to know precedent won't go too far in the direction of limiting religious freedom, in the interests of "protecting" others.<br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>What the? <br><br>Those religious people will just have to suck it the fuck up. Want to send your child to *public school*? Well, guess what, we have separation of church and state here. So if you want to benefit from the state, then you're going to have to put your church beliefs on the back burner. If you want your church beliefs to take precedence, then you take your children out of *public school*.<br><br>This happened in the past with the equal rights movements for women and blacks. I fail to see why religious types would suddenly find it so much different now that it's with gays.<br><br>Sure, they'll bitch and moan, and protest and whine and do all the same stuff they did in the past. But so what? Did we bend to them and decide 'you know what... teaching tolerance between blacks and whites limits the religious freedoms of some people. ergo we won't do it'. No, of course not. <br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<br>Let's say hypothetically, a state government passes a law that states that all school children in the state, regardless of age or school, <br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>Let's say hypothetically, that you're full of it. When has the state *ever* done this before? <br><br>You're worried about the precedent set and you're using hypotheticals that have no basis in reality? <br><br>If we allow that, then we have to be worried about the precedent set by *anything*. OMG, we're pushing for universal healthcare. Now let's say, hypothetically of course, that the government then starts killing all people over the age of 50 so that they can afford this, and also starts sterilizing black people. Now can you see the bad precedent that universal healthcare sets? can you not see why i would be worried about universal healthcare!?!<br><br>What sort of ridiculous nonsense is this? <br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<br>will be required to have a course on a topic of tolerance for homosexuals, and part of that curriculum requires critical review of material such as the book "Tango makes Three." The state, in this scenario, insists that this curriculum is justifiable and in the interests of the greater good, and responds to objections to it by simply insisting that the objections are intolerant of others or hate speech, and thus unworthy of consideration. <br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>I reject, wholeheartedly, your hypothetical. When has the state ever passed a law like this that applied to al l children, regardless of age or *school*?<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<br>Under that scenario, the religious beliefs of parents will most definitely be infringed by the state, in order to push the ideology of tolerance on kids whose parents want precisely the opposite ideology taught. This is actually happening in some public schools right now,<br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>Yes. The key word being *public*. We already have the precedent here. Your religious beliefs do not get to impinge on the school. Hence the whole freedom of religion thing.<br><br>How would you like it if your school system were suddenly at the beck and call of islamic beliefs? What about the beliefs of wiccans? You already expect that the school will not subject your children to those beliefs, so why can't you accept that you cannot subject the school and all its students to your christian beliefs?<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<br> and parents whose religious beliefs disagree with tolerance for homsexuality and/or oppose gay marriage on religious grounds, are effectively having their religious beliefs infringed upon <br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>Of course. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.<br><br>Repeat that 1000 times and then come back.<br><br>When you go to *public* school you do not have the right to not have your religious beliefs infringed upon. If your religious beliefs tell you math is a sin. Too fucking bad, your kids are learning math in school. If your religious beliefs tell you evolution is a lie. Too fucking bad, your kids are learning about evolution in school. <br><br>You don't like it? Stop going to the state to get an education for your child.<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<br> if they can't afford an alternative to public school. After all, the state does require kids attend school, so the option to remove kids altogether is not on the table. <br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>The precedent is already here for what you describe. Gay marriage is irrelevant in the discussion. Religious parents *already* have to decide if they want to leech off of society's willingness to teach their children, or if they want to have full control over waht is taught. Gay marriage/homosexual-tolerance does not change that core issue at *all*.<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<br>Summary:<br>I'm not getting into the morality of one viewpoint or another, I'm just trying to offer a sterilized view of where both sides, in their minds, have legitimate arguments. <br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>You have provided *nothing* legitimate for the religious side. In order ot defend that POV you had to create a hypothetical with no basis in reality. <br><br>if that's allowed, then you can legitimize *any* argument.<br><br>here, i'll start:<br><br>I believe that all blacks should be killed. Why? Well, hypothetically, there could be a black uprising in the future where they kill everyone else (esp. now that Obama is in the blackhouse). Sure, it's a hypothetical. But it definitely legitimizes my belief that we should strike first, lest we all be slaughtered.<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<br>In this scenario, is it justifiable for the state to override the wishes of the parent and infringe upon their religious beliefs, for whatever justification the state deems appropriate?<br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>Of course. It's *PUBLIC SCHOOL*.<br><br>Where do these religious people get the idea that their religious beliefs are sacrosanct and override the rest of society? If your religious beliefs tell you you can murder, wel too fucking bad. They're going ot get infringed by the state. "is it justifiable for the state to override the wishes of the parent and infringe upon their religious beliefs...?" Of course it fucking is. <br><br>Same with PUBLIC SCHOOL. Public school is supposed to be a tool of the state. And the state is supposed to be separated from the church. Ergo, public school is supposed to be secular. And if you want to partake in it, then you're going ot have to deal with the idea that secularity overrides your religious desires. Don't like it? Then go teach your kids on your own? But if you want to benefit form the state (including subsidized education), then you dont' get to then turn around and say 'oh, but it can't be secular' <br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<br>This is the "precedent" that <b>could</b> be set that I was trying to infer earlier. This type of precedent, in my mind, is the shaky line on which I'm torn on how far to cross.<br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>To be honest, i've got to say that your reasoning here is pretty disgusting SS. I appreciate that you are willing to talk about it, but i am amzed by the mental contortions you go through to defend this sort of thing.<br><br>It seems like bigots (not you, but the people you're referring to), want to be able to have their cake and eat it too. They want to benefit from state subsidized education. But they also want to tear down the walls of that separate the church and the state.<br><br>Of course, if they were to see any other religions trying that (say muslims insisting that all females in school wear a chador), they would raise holy hell about religious extremism infringing on their beliefs. THey are the worst sort of hypocrit. They will gladly take whatever benefits they can from a system, will scream to holy hell about any sort of affront to their own religion, and will then turn around and try to impose their religious beliefs on everyone else.<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<br> It's what I was suggesting I struggle with in terms of deciding where I fall.<br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>How can you struggle? It is very simple:<br><br>We have rules about child endangerment. You believe that they are correct, right? i.e. if a non-religious adult abused their child, you would want it ot be stopped by the state, right? So why does that change if they are religious? Why is child endangerment suddenly ok in that case?<br><br>Is child murder suddenly ok if your religion tells you so? What about child rape? What about child torture? DO you believe that any of these child abuses suddenly become ok because someone can say that their god allowed it? No? Then why do you accept it elsewhere?<br><br>And your tie in to christians+homosexuality is utterly specious as well. Again, we have the precedent already established that your religious beliefs do not get to interfere with the state's education in *state schooling*. We have separation of church and state for that reason. Want church education? Send them to church school. Want state education? Then accept that state beliefs will conflict with your own. <br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<br> And in practical terms, this type of change is precisely why the religious right goes to extreme lengths to fight this particular effort,<br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>Because they are illogical, and blind to the precedent of the past? Yes.<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<br> because they are legitimately<br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>No they are not. There is precisely *zero* legitimacy to this. <br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<br> terrified they are going to lose this fight, and that their personal religious beliefs will be infringed through state indoctrination of their kids.<br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>Tough shit. That's the state *today*. That's why there is *zero* legitimacy here. Their religious beliefs are already infringed upon. Don't believe in evolution, but want to send your kid to public school? Too fucking bad, they're going to learn about evolution. <br><br>Homosexuality is just hte latest thing they can latch on to in the hope that they can impose *their* religious beliefs on a secular school system. <br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<br>Discuss, and hopefully this finally puts a functional understanding on what I piss poorly tried to convey earlier.<br><br>-SS </div>
</blockquote>All it has done is *solidify* the arguments for why your POV here is wrong.<br><br>You had precedent reversed for the child-endangerment argument. And you have precedent reversed for the separation of church and state argument.<br><br>Again, to make this totally clear. Precedent shows us:<br>a) religious laws do not trump state laws.<br>b) religious beliefs do not dictate secular education.<br><br>This is the precedent we *already* have (and have had for hundreds of years). If religious people can't grasp these fundamental concepts, then they have no one to blame but themselves. These are concepts the country was founded upon and which it has repeatedly defended against the efforts of religious extremists. How can you be worried about precedent when the precedent was established ages ago.<br><br>You should be worried about the bad precedent set by:<br>a) allowing religious people to override state laws with religious laws<br>b) allowing religious people to dictate what can/can't be taught in public school*<br><br>---<br><br>* Again, ask yourself this: would you approve of another religion coming in and saying that it's unacceptable for the state to teach the concepts of tolerance toward the sexes and races? Would you be upset at the precedent shown by telling those extremists to fuck right off? If not, then why are you struggling with the issue of acting the same way toward christian extremists?

 

[Metasyntactic]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lateralis:<BR>well I think his original topic is important to keep in mind. we were specifically talking about OPTING OUT of treating sick children.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Yes. And how is that acceptable? We don't let atheist parents 'opt out' of withholding life saving procedures from their sick parents. Why do the religious get a pass? Oh... just because their religious beliefs say it's ok?<BR><BR>By that logic then, you'd allow a religious parent to stone their child to death for breaking some other religious law, yes? After all, you allowed them to override the law because of their religious beliefs in the above scenarios.<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>yes, in the education example, if your religion conflicts with the curriculum, you opt out and home school. maybe not the optimal solution, but at least a mutually tenable one. in the health care example, opting out is exactly the problem we'd be trying to avoid. <BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Because with health care, the life of the child is on the line. And society has held that you can direct the education of your child, but you don't get to direct their life after birth just because you think that's ok. <BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>your religion means, for example, that you can't accept any treatment that is derived from embryonic stem cell research lets say. you as a parent choose to pray for your sick daughter instead of accept the treatment (which, for sake of argument, lets say is covered by your insurance through your employer).<BR><BR>is opting out of treatment (what has been called child endangerment in the thread), an acceptable solution to us as a society? <BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>No. Of course not. Your rights to your religious beliefs *end* at the point where it can harm the life of another. <BR><BR>The state has a compelling interest in preserving life, and so that overrides your religious desires. So far, the state has not shown a compelling interest in compelling all students to be educated by the state.<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR> if we collectively decide that it is NOT, and legislate accordingly, in what ways is that different FROM THE RELIGIOUS PERSONS POINT OF VIEW from the education example?<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>You must be joking.<BR><BR>What is the difference between a scenario dealing with education, and a scenario dealing with life threatening illnesses?<BR><BR>Really? You have to ask that question?<BR><BR>Here, i'll put it in plain english:<BR>In the school scenario, the life of the child is not on the line.<BR>In the illness scenario, the life of the child is on the line.<BR><BR>Again, we have precedence for this. We don't let people murder, or rape or torture in the name of religion. And yet, for some reason, people aren't going 'OMG!!! LOOK! THEY WON"T LET US MURDER! COMING UP NEXT, THEY'LL BE TAKING AWAY OUR RIGHTS TO TEACH OUR OWN CHILDREN WHAT WE BELIEVE'<BR><BR>I mean give me a fucking break. Trying to relate the two is intellectual dishonesty to the nth degree.<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>edit to add:<BR>what I hoped to show but maybe didn't elucidate completely is the MORAL similarities TO THE RELIGIOUS PERSON between tolerating homosexuality (a sin to them) and medically benefitting from embryonic stem cell research, (also morally objectionable). <BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Then the religious person is out of luck. The state has *long* held that it has a compelling interest in the safety of the lives of its citizens. It will step in and stop you if you try to violate that interest. If religious people can't grasp that, and want to make an utterly absurd connection between that and the state suddenly not being ok with them teaching their children (despite centuries of precedence on their side), then those religious people are *morons*.<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>for them, the child dying without sinning (using dead babies to get better) may be a better solution to them than living but then bearing the sin.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Tough. For them, murdering another individual may be a better solution than letting them live. So fucking what? The state just goes "oh well... it's their religion... guess i gotta put up with it". <BR><BR>No, of course not. The state goes: "i don't give a shit. no matter what batshit crazy religious beliefs you have, they don't override this person's right to life".<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>what is the "neutral" in this situation? what is the default? the opt-out?<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>For what? Illness or education?<BR><BR>For education, it's already an opt-in system. You opt-into state subsidized education. For illness, you have no choice.

 

[leavitron]

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Starbuck79:<br>++ It seems obvious that whatever the personal beliefs of the framers they were building a secular nation. One in which individuals would be free to practice as they choose without government involvement.<br><br>If, as some argue, they were creating a "Christian Nation" they seemed to do a piss poor job of it. Many of the founders were religious to some degree or another but they reccognized that a government should be secular. </div>
</blockquote>
<br>I can agree with this, in part.<br><br>The Founding Fathers wanted no part in a state-sponsored religion. Remember, many came from England where membership in the Church of England was "expected" through heavy taxation, etc. However, I believe it is a stretch to say that they wanted everyone's religious beliefs to be held as a "private matter." Wasn't church membership required in several colonies? Wasn't Harvard founded as a seminary first?<br><br>If anything I think the truth lies somewhere in between "Christian nation" and "secular nation." I think the truth is more like this: The FF's did not want a state-sponsored/endorsed/backed religion but they felt that their beliefs influenced their decisions both public and private.<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Crackhead Johny:<br>When a religion gets one of their laws made into the law of the land it is a glaring failure. Either then need it because their own followers will not follow that law in which case it pointless as it should be an internal religious issue or they want to force their religious ways on those of other religions/no religion which sort of goes against "Freedom of religion". When the Jews or Muslims get the majority in the US and try to take my bacon they can pry it from my cold, dead, greasy, mmmm bacony, hands. </div>
</blockquote>
<br>You have made the point much clearer. Thank you! You've definitely given me "food for thought!"<br><br><font size="1">Pun fully intended.</font>size><br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Metasyntactic:<br>Fortunately, said prayers are usually illegal and we are getting more and more court cases that are striking them down. Eventually, it will be a non issue when all these people realize that they cannot do what they're doing. </div>
</blockquote>
<br>Yet every single session of Congress, many state assemblies, and local boards open and/or close with prayer. You swear upon the Bible (with only a few exceptions) when taking the oath of office for Pres, Supreme Court Justice, member of Congress, etc.<br><br>Is it seriously causing your severe emotional and mental trauma? Are the jackbooted thugs forcing something so vile, so repugnant, down your throat? Fine if you don't want to participate when the graduating class or the football team has a quick prayer before things begin. But don't deny those who opt in. That is where I have a problem! You are infringing on my rights to <b>openly</b> practice my religion.<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by naschbac:<br>Anyway, it's a pretty dubious claim to make in any respect, and only carries any inkling of significance if you utterly fail to consider each in the whole lifetime of their tradition. </div>
</blockquote>
<br>Citation please? This bears deeper discussion rather than careless pot-shots and revisionist history. The beginnings of Renaissance scientific exploration and much art have Christian ties. Where would we be without such exploration?<br><br>The Inquisition killed roughly 1000 people over a 100 year time. How many Armenians did the Ottoman Turks slaughter?<br><br>Stop! I know the first thing you are going to say - Crusades. The Western answer to Muslim conquests of the 7th and 8th centuries, right? -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif --<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkySlash:<br>Would a parent not be able to justifiably ask, if that is the case, why the school is attempting to teach or influence a moral sphere? What minimum standard of education is included in teaching morality in public school? </div>
</blockquote>
<br>Bingo! +++

 

[Metasyntactic]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by naschbac:<BR>Though somewhat pedantic, the distinction is that as a society we don't view education as having a sufficiently strong correlation with a person's wellbeing, but have no such problem asserting that a specific medical treatment for a specific ailment does provide a sufficient correlation to warrant intervention. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>It's not pedantic at all. Thank you for stating this. It baffles me that people can't get this.<BR><BR>They already recognize that the state has an interest in preventing people from murdering in the name of religion, but they cannot somehow understand the distinction between that and education.

 

[Metasyntactic]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkySlash:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frennzy:<BR>Public school is there to meet a minimum standard of education, not cater to extreme religious viewpoints. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Would a parent not be able to justifiably ask, if that is the case, why the school is attempting to teach or influence a moral sphere? What minimum standard of education is included in teaching morality in public school? <BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>In as much as they can ask why the school is attempting to teach or influence a moral sphere when they tell their students that blacks are equal to whites and women are equal to men.<BR><BR>And if they don't like the answer that:<BR>a) blacks should be treated equally to whites<BR>b) men should be treated equally to women<BR>c) gays should be treated equally to straights<BR><BR>then tehy can stop receiving state subsidized education and they can educate their kids on their own.<BR><BR>They don't get to have their cake and eat it too. They dont' get to say "we want state education! but the state needs to stop telling my kids that girls and boys have equal rights since i don't believe that!" <BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>In this scenario, it isn't an option to opt out, as the state has decided intolerance is unacceptable and/or hate speech. <BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Of course there's an option to opt-out. TAKE YOUR CHILD OUT OF THE SCHOOL.<BR><BR>Don't like it that school won't allow hate speech against blacks, or women, or whites, or men, or gays or straights? Well, TAKE YOUR CHILD OUT OF THE SCHOOL.<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>I know we're not there right now, today, but it's easily possible on the near horizon. After all, we teach racial tolerance, and absolutely squelch racism from the classroom and society as best we can. Nobody objects to that on religious grounds, at least not anymore, but it would be pretty easy to justify gender/sexuality tolerance teaching by utilizing the same route taken to justify race equality, wouldn't it?<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Yes. And it would be fine for the exact same reasons that it was fine to teach religious and sexual tolerance. And religious bigots who hate it can stop using *PUBLIC EDUCATION*. <BR><BR>We have ample precedent for this sort of thing. You repeatedly ignore it. <BR><BR>Why is that?<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>Would parents religious objections be heard?<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Yes. Of course.<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR> Or would they be dismissed as regressive and outdated bigotry? <BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Yes. Of course.

 

[DrPizza]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leavitron:<BR>Really? So the Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>It's certainly not legally binding.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Are you going to have it re-written? What about all that paper and coin money? Who's going to pay to reprint and re-mint it all? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>They're continuously reprinted and reminted anyway. New designs are introduced periodically. It doesn't need to happen overnight, but it should happen.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Seriously, your line of reasoning is absurd. The first settlers came for religious freedom. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Freedom from the prevailing religious beliefs, yes.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Founding Fathers let their religious convictions be known. Just because a minority want to re-write history to exclude religious motivations behind the founding of our country does not make that history so. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>They also made it abundantly clear that they didn't want the US to be a religious nation.<BR><BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This is why the Pilgrims and other early settlers in North America left their homelands. This is why America was born. Freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>You can't have the former without the latter.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Government assistance really and truly began during the Depression. Before that, I think it is pretty clear that community and church groups handled the need just fine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Only if you're blind and/or ignorant.

 

[Metasyntactic]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leavitron:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Starbuck79:<BR>++ It seems obvious that whatever the personal beliefs of the framers they were building a secular nation. One in which individuals would be free to practice as they choose without government involvement.<BR><BR>If, as some argue, they were creating a "Christian Nation" they seemed to do a piss poor job of it. Many of the founders were religious to some degree or another but they reccognized that a government should be secular. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I can agree with this, in part.<BR><BR>The Founding Fathers wanted no part in a state-sponsored religion. Remember, many came from England where membership in the Church of England was "expected" through heavy taxation, etc. However, I believe it is a stretch to say that they wanted everyone's religious beliefs to be held as a "private matter." <BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>No it isn't. Hence why we have 'freedom of religion' as a founding principle of our country. You cannot be free in your religion if other religions are publicly imposed on you. You can only be free if other religions are privately held.<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>Wasn't Harvard founded as a seminary first?<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Harvard is a private school...<BR><BR>I don't see how it's relevant. It's a perfect example of how the system should work. Don't like secular education? Send your kids to church schools.<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>If anything I think the truth lies somewhere in between "Christian nation" and "secular nation." <BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Hunh? How is it a christian nation. Please point to the actual laws, case studies, and whatnot that actually show this. Time and time again christian efforts to influence the state sphere have been rebuked or knocked down. It's fairly clearly it's a secular nation, with a bunch of christians that want it to be a christian nation.<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Crackhead Johny:<BR>When a religion gets one of their laws made into the law of the land it is a glaring failure. Either then need it because their own followers will not follow that law in which case it pointless as it should be an internal religious issue or they want to force their religious ways on those of other religions/no religion which sort of goes against "Freedom of religion". When the Jews or Muslims get the majority in the US and try to take my bacon they can pry it from my cold, dead, greasy, mmmm bacony, hands. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>You have made the point much clearer. Thank you! You've definitely given me "food for thought!"<BR><BR><font size=1>Pun fully intended.</font size><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Metasyntactic:<BR>Fortunately, said prayers are usually illegal and we are getting more and more court cases that are striking them down. Eventually, it will be a non issue when all these people realize that they cannot do what they're doing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Yet every single session of Congress, many state assemblies, and local boards open and/or close with prayer. You swear upon the Bible (with only a few exceptions) when taking the oath of office for Pres, Supreme Court Justice, member of Congress, etc.<BR>[/quote]<BR>And yet, year after year, that happens less and less as the courts decide repeatedly that it is unacceptable.<BR><BR>I never said that it doesn't exist today. I said that the country is clearly moving in the direction where it will be gone at some point. However, the US constantly moves with baby steps on many issues. <BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>Is it seriously causing your severe emotional and mental trauma? <BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Yes. It is an affront to me. Just as it would be an affront to many christians if they started out praising allah.<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>Are the jackbooted thugs forcing something so vile, so repugnant, down your throat?<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>In some cases yes. For example, the efforts of the religious right to prevent me from being allowed to marry is something repugnant forced down on me.<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR> Fine if you don't want to participate when the graduating class or the football team has a quick prayer before things begin. But don't deny those who opt in. <BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>You are welcome to pray on your own (or with your peers). But the state has no business bbeing involved with it.<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR> That is where I have a problem! You are infringing on my rights to <B>openly</B> practice my religion.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>You have no such right. And your rights also end when they impose on *my* own rights.<BR><BR>Do you not get that? <BR><BR>If your religion says 'we can sacrifice a virgin to the gods as part of our ceremonies' then that's too fucking bad. Your religious beliefs will be infringed upon. The same applies when you get the state to get involved in your religious beliefs (for example with prayer). <BR><BR>I don't see how someone raised in this country could be so unaware of the concept of 'SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE'. Were you not taught about this? Have you never studied this? <BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkySlash:<BR>Would a parent not be able to justifiably ask, if that is the case, why the school is attempting to teach or influence a moral sphere? What minimum standard of education is included in teaching morality in public school? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Bingo! +++ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>What are you ++'ing?<BR><BR>The parent can ask, and the state will respond simply: we believe it is desirable for our citizens to be tolerant toward each other regardless of race, sex, orientation, religion, whatever. If you do not believe that that is desirable, then you are welcome to stop benefitting from state subsidized schooling and you can educate them on your own.<BR><BR>Public school is a social contract. The state makes it freely available to everyone (that's the positive). But, the negative is that the state decides what the education system will be. If you don't like the idea of the state educating your child, of telling them that girls and boys are equal, of telling them that blacks and whites are equal, of teaching things like the golden rule, fables like 'The Boy Who Cried Wolf' and other moral lessons, then you can go fucking teach them on your own.<BR><BR>Your religious beliefs do not dictate the public education system (any more than the religious beliefs of muslims, or wiccans, or jews, or hindus, or whatever). It's a very simple concept that the US has held to for god knows how long.

 

[lateralis]

dude, If this is how you treat people who agree with your side but are capable of framing an argument while keeping opposing views in mind at once, remind me never to get on your bad side -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif --<br><br>rather than shout down the devil's advocate, maybe try to look at it from a different point of view for one second. there is a REASON why suicide bombings exist - many religious people believe the immortal soul is MORE important than the physical body. this is not something I'm making up (though it's CERTAINLY not something I espouse.) <b>FOR THIS TYPE OF PERSON</b>, a mortal sin is a mortal sin. ignoring a command from god to teach creationism <b>CAN</b> be equated to partaking of the "debil;s medicine!!" to save the child. <b>I</b> don't equate the two and the fact that you claim to NOT be this type of person should, by it's very nature, allow you to view it from their POV for what it is without threatening the fact that you know you're correct.<br><br>I'm in the "treat the child over the parents objection" camp. but to ignore the opposing position with such vehemence and distain does not help things. as with most things, the way to overcome is to understand. what I posted was framed to hopefully view things from a certain POV and whether you or I like it, the religious POV has a LOT of supporters.<br><br>what you've really stumbled upon here is exactly why the religious element is DYING to frame atheism as "just another religion" and science as "the religion of secularity". to do so puts it on equal footing with their POV and therefore, subject to the same arguments, admonishments and "debates" (I'm reminded of something I read where the city council voted to redefine pi as 3. I think it was satire but these days, who knows).<br><br>obviously, I don't want this anymore than the next thinking being. but there shouldn't be anything in the thought experiment so scary to you that you can't at least try to understand it for what it is.

 

[Thank You and Best of Luck!]

Pot-shots and revisionist history?<BR><BR>The entirety of timeline containing deep entrenchment of Christianity and the enforcements of its will (typically exacerbated by control the state, or being sponsored by it), from Constantine to the KKK, is replete with monstrous acts of aggression, violence, and oppression. Shall we compile a bifurcated list extending from 100AD to the present?<BR><BR>The idea that Islam or Christianity is more or less beneficial than its counterpart, or more or less detrimental is as inane a comparison as one could contrive. The magnitudes of similarity in contributions and conflicts simply dwarf their differences.

 

[Crackhead Johny]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by vhold:<BR>On the Islam thing: I personally think it's silly to claim that Islam is inherently any more backward and violent than Christianity - one only has to look at the long history of similar eras of fanaticism in Christianity to doubt this idea.<BR><BR>I think it's more accurate to say that in backwards cultural environments, the religion as practiced is more likely to be backwards and violent, whatever the dominant religion might be. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I think there are some other issues as well. <BR>1. Can someone distance themselves enough from their religion to be able to cast a meaningful/informed vote when their religion is one of the choices? <BR>2. When my TV shows a Muslim it shows someone blowing something up, It doesn't show the nice Iranian guy in MN who lives with his <STRIKE> four</STRIKE> one wife (I'm sure he was glad to get the divorces) and three other women and kids in his big pink house. You are way more likely to see a guy with an AK put on TV to represent Islam than a guy with a pink house and nice lawn (seriously this house was day glow pink.. what is up with that?). <BR>3. Hypocrisy. It is OK for us but not for them. Some people want to be awful monsters and believe they are saints. <BR>4. Ego shored up by membership in a group. The Christians who did bad things were not "real" Christians! The Muslims that blow things up are not real Muslims! If you are participating in something that that tends to revolve around being a good person it is hard for some to admit not being a good person or your groups admittance of bad people and doing bad things. <BR>5. Winning attached to ego/identity. They other guy can't be right. To consider the possibility the other guy might be right, is to lose.<BR><BR>In the end I think Christianity is a more refined business with a better PR dept. I think 911 and the retaliation for 911 would suggest this. <BR><STRIKE>Horus</STRIKE> er Jesus was great, be like him. Mohammad was great, be like him (his later years only please). Just don't be like either of their followers, just forget the marketing. <BR><BR>I also think stupidity is not an acceptable reason to kill kids. If I told you I am a Christian Science Sys Admin and if you pray and God wants your server to come back up, it will come back up... who would actually believe that? If someone here believes this and is hiring Christian Science Sys Admins I'd be interested in a 2nd check (If god wants you to know I'm VPN'd in and doing work, you will know!).<BR><BR>As for homeschooling. Bah, that is so 80s. The hot newness is unschooling! And to think I mentioned it in a thread only a few months back, when I found a friend and her cult of crazy mothers, were going to raise free range wolf children. Can't wait to support their life on the dole.

 

[Edzo]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Metasyntactic:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkySlash:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frennzy:<BR>Public school is there to meet a minimum standard of education, not cater to extreme religious viewpoints. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Would a parent not be able to justifiably ask, if that is the case, why the school is attempting to teach or influence a moral sphere? What minimum standard of education is included in teaching morality in public school? <BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>In as much as they can ask why the school is attempting to teach or influence a moral sphere when they tell their students that blacks are equal to whites and women are equal to men.<BR><BR>And if they don't like the answer that:<BR>a) blacks should be treated equally to whites<BR>b) men should be treated equally to women<BR>c) gays should be treated equally to straights<BR><BR>then tehy can stop receiving state subsidized education and they can educate their kids on their own.<BR><BR>They don't get to have their cake and eat it too. They dont' get to say "we want state education! but the state needs to stop telling my kids that girls and boys have equal rights since i don't believe that!" </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Is tolerance of homosexuality a religious issue? The acceptance of homosexuals into the afterlife, or whether what they're doing is a sin, sure, those are religious issues. But are there religions that say "Thou shalt be mean to gay classmates"? Intolerance to gays isn't a religious issue, it's a social or maybe cultural issue. The state isn't saying in public schools that homosexuals DO, in fact, get into heaven, and it's not trying to smuggle gays in through the pearly gates when Saint Peter has his back turned. <B>That</B> would be the state trying to interfere in religion.

 

[Metasyntactic]

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lateralis:<br>dude, If this is how you treat people who agree with your side but are capable of framing an argument while keeping opposing views in mind at once, remind me never to get on your bad side -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif --<br><br>rather than shout down the devil's advocate, maybe try to look at it from a different point of view for one second. <br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>I have. Repeatedly. I have stated *logically* why that point of view internally contradicts itself.<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<br> there is a REASON why suicide bombings exist - many religious people believe the immortal soul is MORE important than the physical body.<br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>That's wonderful. And?<br><br>Again, it internally contradicts itself. Religious people are already prevented from murdering *even if they believe it is the right thing to do for the immortal soul*. Religious people *already* accept this. <br><br>So it's a canard to imagine there's any sort of bizarre precedent set by holding the life of a child up as being more important than your religious beliefs. That precedent exists *today* and it is specious to now complain.<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<br> this is not something I'm making up (though it's CERTAINLY not something I espouse.) <b>FOR THIS TYPE OF PERSON</b>, a mortal sin is a mortal sin. <br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>Tough. For some it might be a mortal sin to not stone an adulterer to death. So what? We let them do it because their religion tells them to? Of course not. That would go against society's prevailing interest to preserve the lives of its citizens.<br><br>Again, the precedent we have is that religious laws do not trump society's laws (no matter how much that pisses off religious people.<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<br> ignoring a command from god to teach creationism <b>CAN</b> be equated to partaking of the "debil;s medicine!!" to save the child.<br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>Again, tough. Who cares? <br><br>By this logic, we should not consider religious terrorists to be terrorists. After all, they are just acting on their religious beliefs. Those religious beliefs tell them it's the right thing to do to murder on behalf of their religion.<br><br>But no. We're not morons. We recognize that those religious people (regardless of how much they believe in what they're doing) are enemies of the state and are breaking numerous inviolable laws. <br><br>If we do not believe that muslim extremists have the right to kill because of their religion, then why do we believe that our own US religious extremists do have the right to kill?<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<br> <b>I</b> don't equate the two and the fact that you claim to NOT be this type of person should, by it's very nature, allow you to view it from their POV for what it is without threatening the fact that you know you're correct.<br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>I have viewed it from their POV. Their POV is intensely hypocritical, and also egregiously against the desires of the state to preserve life.<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<br>I'm in the "treat the child over the parents objection" camp. but to ignore the opposing position with such vehemence and distain does not help things. <br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>Yes it does. It leads (successfully i might add), to preventing religious loonies from hurting others.<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<br> as with most things, the way to overcome is to understand. <br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>Who said i didn't understand?<br><br>And how does understanding help? Will it make a person who wants to teach their kids to hate blacks to suddenly make them not want to teach them to hate blacks? These are people who for decades have acted in the most backward and hateful manner, and you think that saying 'i understand you and your bigotry' will help out at all?<br><br>No, what helps is simply passing the laws that prevent them from exerting control with their bigotry.<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<br> what I posted was framed to hopefully view things from a certain POV and whether you or I like it, the religious POV has a LOT of supporters.<br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>And they continually lose. We have a working system here that pushes them back over and over and over again (and has done so for centuries).<br><br>Look at them protesting gay marriage and gay equality, when slowly, state by state, they lose their grip over the country.<br><br>As has been mentioned in other threads, many approaches have been tried in the past. None has been as grindingly effective as this one.<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<br>what you've really stumbled upon here is exactly why the religious element is DYING to frame atheism as "just another religion" and science as "the religion of secularity". to do so puts it on equal footing with their POV and therefore, subject to the same arguments, admonishments and "debates" (I'm reminded of something I read where the city council voted to redefine pi as 3. I think it was satire but these days, who knows).<br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>It wasn't satire. But it also wasn't a religious issue.<br><br>And the religious are welcome to die trying to frame atheism in that manner. They've been trying forever, and they've been failing forever <br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<br>obviously, I don't want this anymore than the next thinking being. but there shouldn't be anything in the thought experiment so scary to you that you can't at least try to understand it for what it is. </div>
</blockquote>Dude, i completely understand it. Why do you think i'm able to dissect it so completely?<br><br>I'm not going 'nu unh' in response to it. I'm saying specifically: here is why that position is illogical *and* hypocritical. I am able to break it down because i can understand teh position being put forth (it's not like it was a particularly deep position) and i can see how it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.<br><br>But it sounds like you want me to ignore that and just go: "well... i can understand you guys... i guess that's settled then. your arguments are sound and are not contradictory. your fears do have precedence to back them up. Your religious beliefs do trump the rights of those around you to live. I'm glad we could come to this understanding".