Stop The ACLU Blogburst: ACLU Monitoring School Bible Handouts
Monday, April 16, 2007
ABC7 News Online
COLLIER COUNTY:Â Â
A Collier County man who hands out bibles to Collier County high school students is under fire by the American Civil Liberties Union. Officials with the ACLU spent Monday night talking to Collier County democrats about the issue.Â
People on one side of the argument say it’s not a separation of church and state issue while the other side says it is in fact a perfect example and neither side is backing down.
The debate begins with bibles handed out by Jerry Rutherford to Collier County high school students. He says there’s no harm in what he’s doing.
“This is not a church and state issue. It’s a free speech issue,” said Rutherford.
But the ACLU says the separation of church and state is exactly the issue.
“There is a time to speak you religious beliefs and that is in your church. *But the public education is not the forum for bible distribution,” said ACLU Attorney Yale Freeman.
Typical ACLU position in their ongoing attempt to remove Christianity from the public sphere, and contain it to a more localized, segregated place in society.
Yeah, I’ve heard all the lefts’ defense of the ACLU, saying that the ACLU has defended Christians in the past. Small cases that didn’t amount to much of anything other than PR and to give the appearance of equal treatment. If Labor Unions represented their members in the same manner, members and liberals would be going ballistic.
Thomas More Law Center To Argue For Reversal of Decision Permitting Public Schools to Teach Students to “Become Muslims”: where was the ACLU?
Public Minnesota College to Install Foot-Washing Basins for Muslim Students:where is the ACLU?
Seattle Airport Removes Christmas Trees Instead of Putting Up Menorah:ACLU?
Muslims Seek Prayer Room at Airport:ACLU?
Rumsfeld supports Scouts meeting on military bases: “The ACLU contends the government sponsorship violates religious freedoms since the Boy Scouts require members to pledge allegiance to God.”
JONES INTRODUCES BILL TO PROTECT PRAYER IN
OUR MILITARY ACADEMIES: “In May 2001, the Virginia Chapter of the American Civil Liberty
Union sued the Virginia Military Institute on behalf of two former cadets who opposed the non-
denominational pre-supper prayer.”
Taxpayers fund Islamic center: “An announcement that the U.S. Marine base at Quantico, Va., has refurbished a building to be used as a prayer room for Muslim soldiers and civilians on base is a “bad signal,” one critic has concluded.”: where is the ACLU?
_______________________
*But the public education is not the forum for bible distribution,” said ACLU Attorney Yale Freeman.
The Founders that gave us the First Amendment is also the same that sanctioned the “Aitken’s Bible” and permitted its’ printing under the authority of Congress.
Fisher Ames-Framer of the First Amendment
“Our liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits . . . it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers.”
(Source: Fisher Ames, An Oration on the Sublime Virtues of General George Washington (Boston: Young & Minns, 1800), p. 23.)
James McHenry-Signer of the Constitution
“[P]ublic utility pleads most forcibly for the general distribution of the Holy Scriptures. The doctrine they preach, the obligations they impose, the punishment they threaten, the rewards they promise, the stamp and image of divinity they bear, which produces a conviction of their truths, can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses, and at the same time enjoy quiet conscience.”
(Source: Bernard C. Steiner, One Hundred and Ten Years of Bible Society Work in Maryland, 1810-1920 (Maryland Bible Society, 1921), p. 14.)
Benjamin Rush-Signer of the Declaration of Independence
“The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.”
(Source: Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical (Philadelphia: Thomas and William Bradford, 1806), p. 8.)
George Washington-Father of Our Country
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of man and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice?And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?”(Source: George Washington, Address of George Washington, President of the United States . . . Preparatory to His Declination (Baltimore: George and Henry S. Keatinge), pp. 22-23. In his Farewell Address to the United States in 1796.)(Source: George Washington, Address of George Washington, President of the United States . . . Preparatory to His Declination (Baltimore: George and Henry S. Keatinge), pp. 22-23. In his Farewell Address to the United States in 1796.)
(Source: George Washington, Address of George Washington, President of the United States . . . Preparatory to His Declination (Baltimore: George and Henry S. Keatinge), pp. 22-23. In his Farewell Address to the United States in 1796.)
In front of the Collier County democrats, Freeman said the county shouldn’t overlook this incident.
“If we had one religion, one voice saying this is the religion we must practice, we would have a very different society today,” said Freeman.
Freeman says handing out bibles is no different than colleges handing out literature and military branches handing out literature in high schools. He says that’s all the same thing.
But for Roger Brown, President of the American Foundation for Separation of Church and State, that comparison is nowhere near the same.
“They’re passing out non-religious material they not trying to recruit students to come to their church,” said Brown.
Brown sited a court case that allows bibles to be handed out in schools as to why he should also be allowed. He added the students seemed to want the bibles.
“The reason is the students wanted them. Had they not wanted them, they wouldn’t have picked them up and taken off with them,” said Rutherford.
But in a letter written to Freeman by a school board attorney, the attorney states that Rutherford and his attorney have been advised that they are not permitted to continue handing out bibles. The letter also stated that district high school principals have been advised not to allow distribution at the building level.
But Rutherford isn’t backing down until the court case is overturned.
“Until then, we will continue giving out bibles in schools,” said Rutherford.
The ACLU isn’t backing down either. They will continue to monitor the incident and push so that it does not happen again.
This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 240 blogs already on-board.
Stuck On Stupid Stop The ACLU Blogburst: ACLU Monitoring School Bible Handouts
Adam’s Blog Podcast #238: Freedom of Religion Doesn’t Belong Outside the Church
Conservative Culture ACLU monitoring school bible handouts – Blogburst
Â
April 19, 2007 - 08:51 AM on April 19th, 2007
Leave it to the infamous ACLU to oppose this i mean i.ll bet they would,nt say a thing if someone was handing out KORANS to these same students or manybe some THE EARTH IS MY MOTHER bumper stcikers the infamous ATHEISTS,COMMUNISTS and LAWYERS,UNDERGROUND:mad:
April 19, 2007 - 10:04 AM on April 19th, 2007
Seperation of church & state is nowhere in the constitution; besides, Thomas Jefferson’s usage of it simply meant “No state church;” not “no religion in public places.” When I was in public school, our mornings always started with a Bible reading, followed by the Lord’s Prayer, then the pledge to the flag. That had been done for eons of time (probably from the inception of public schools), then, suddenly, thanks to Madelyn Murray O’Hare, it became unconstitutional. Maybe we need to restore the schools to their original place – with the churches.
April 19, 2007 - 12:37 PM on April 19th, 2007
Completely other topic (but somehow related to the bible):
Peejz,
there was yesterday a cruel terror/murder assault in eastern Turkey at christian bible publishers (which supports you conservative view on those cruel muslims; ), and today public protests in Turkey against those assaults (which supports my view that there is a clear and also self-expressed difference between peaceful muslims and radical islamists)…
April 22, 2007 - 07:21 PM on April 22nd, 2007
I have just two questions for the ACLU.
1. What part of “or restricting the free exercise thereof” from the First Amendment are you failing to comprehend?
2. If burning a flag or throwing feces at someone is protected free expression, exactly why isn’t handing them a Bible?
The first question is in direct response to the issue of the “establishment clause” of the Constitution which reads ” Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion, OR RESTRICTING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF.” He’s simply exercising his religion.
The second was in reference to a number of cases in which the ACLU has argued that both burning flags and throwing feces are Constitutionally protected forms of free expression.
Don’t you just love it when a liberal organization shoots itself in the foot? It’s not like they haven’t been giving everyone enough ammunition over the years.
April 23, 2007 - 03:27 AM on April 23rd, 2007
1. What part of “or restricting the free exercise thereof”from the First Amendment are you failing to comprehend?
2. If burning a flag or throwing feces at someone is protected free expression, exactly why isn’t handing them a Bible?
Probably the part where it’s occuring in a publicly funded high school. Can I swing buy any high school and hand out “impeach Bush” literature, Korans, the Satanic Bible, or NAMBLA propaganda? Can everyone who feels like doing so do the exact same thing? Should we open up our schools to each religious/fringe/interest group that wants to treat it as a space to spread its propaganda? Or is Christianity somehow different from all these other groups?
Freeman says handing out bibles is no different than colleges handing out literature and military branches handing out literature in high schools. He says that’s all the same thing.
Colleges and the military typically distribute literature in one of two ways. Either they drop the information off at the guidance office and students who know it’s there can stop in and pick it up (it’s usually tossed at the end of the year); or, the school designates a specific day(s) during which all colleges in the area (or all branches of the military) set up tables in an auditorium and students are able to visit them if their interested. I guess that schools could have a “religion day” where representatives of every religion (along with outspoken atheists) could peddle their goods (though, personally, I think that religious dogma has no place in education). But these complaints about the ACLU aren’t really about free speech, are they?
April 23, 2007 - 06:59 AM on April 23rd, 2007
5- You must have missed the stories about the Father in MA going to jail for homosexual literature being given to his kindergardener, or the story about another school in the east that handed out a how to “cruise” book at a middle school..all protected free speech, and lets not forget about the middle eastern themed public school in New York
And the bibles weren’t handed out by the school, they were handed out by an individual, and if you said “no thanks” that was the end of it.
April 23, 2007 - 10:52 AM on April 23rd, 2007
You must have missed the stories about the Father in MA going to jail for homosexual literature being given to his kindergardener, or the story about another school in the east that handed out a how to “cruise”book at a middle school..all protected free speech
I sure did. Care to link to it? As for the middle-eastern school: I can’t get a handle on what this would entail from the stories I’ve read. I haven’t heard any indication that the school would be non-secular (though I can certainly see that happening). Is the idea just that they’d serve falafel rather than tater tots (actually, that sounds great)? Or that they’d spend time studying Persia in Ancient History rather than Greece and Rome?
And the bibles weren’t handed out by the school, they were handed out by an individual, and if you said “no thanks”that was the end of it.
Did I suggest that the school was handing them out? I would, however, like to know how you feel about opening the doors of our schools to every single religious group/individual (Christian, Muslim, Moonie, Satanist, Wiccan, etc., etc.) who wants to get his/her message across. I’d honestly like to know your position on this. I suspect that a lot of parents would be pissed off if their 13 y/o came home with a pamphlet on the ins-and-outs (no pun intended) of Priapus worship.
April 23, 2007 - 11:09 AM on April 23rd, 2007
Should we open up our schools to each religious/fringe/interest group that wants to treat it as a space to spread its propaganda? Or is Christianity somehow different from all these other groups?
We have already opened them up to the Religion of Global Warming. Seriously. They have representatives of GW promotion groups coming into elementary schools and putting out GW propaganda. Of course these airheads only know what they’ve memorized from the talking points; they can’t answer a tough question. But they are everywhere.
And yes, it has become a religious cult.
April 23, 2007 - 12:12 PM on April 23rd, 2007
AKD, what about the zealots on CA forcing the Muslim religion upon their students against the wishes of their parents? Oh, I forgot, if it is Anti-American or Anti-Christian, Democrats like you AKD are all for it.
April 23, 2007 - 01:37 PM on April 23rd, 2007
My daughter middle school class was shown “An Inconvenient Truth”. You may as well have religion taught in the schools.
As for religion in school- that should be thew community’s decision, not the federal governement. Just like it should be each communities decision to have the 10 Commandments in their court house, a Crescent and Star displayed in the public square, or a menora during Chanakah.
Or all of the above.
April 23, 2007 - 01:48 PM on April 23rd, 2007
Here’s my problem with that Ted. While I don’t doubt we can all take better care of our environment I have a serious problem with the alarms being set off the way they are by our politicians on this issue. That movie is just as much propaganda as Moore’s F9/11 film. There is a commercial on tv showing children crying about the seriousness of global warming making you think the end is near. Cluck, cluck, the sky is falling. I don’t buy it and I have serious problems alarming children like that.
Further, because they won’t acknowledge there is even debate over the issue makes it that much worse. imo.
April 23, 2007 - 02:49 PM on April 23rd, 2007
So… Are you all saying that the schools should be open to every fringe religious group? I hear a lot about global warming, muslims, and Michael Moore, but not too much about whether the schools should welcome anyone who wants to preach Jesus, Satan, Mohammed, or Gaia.
I’m sorry that you don’t like the documentaries being shown in the schools; when I was a student they made us watch the first Home Alone film…
if it is Anti-American or Anti-Christian, Democrats like you AKD are all for it.
I have as little respect for Islam as I do for Christianity. I consider all the great religions of the world harmful and untrue. I’m also not a Democrat.
BTW (totally unrelated): There should be a thread on the French elections somewhere on this site. The country is going to swing hard to the right (Sarkozy) or to the left (Royal) and the rest of Europe is going to be affected.
April 23, 2007 - 03:51 PM on April 23rd, 2007
13.
“Are you all saying that the schools should be open to every fringe religious group?”
I don’t know about any one else here, but what I am sayimg that it is a community’s perogotive to make such decisions.
“I’m sorry that you don’t like the documentaries being shown in the schools…”
It is a documentary only in the losest sense of the word, just as Farenheit 9/11 was a documentary in the loosest sense of the word. They are both political propaganda. Out of my daughter’s class of 26 students, only four was allowed to watch it.
April 23, 2007 - 05:26 PM on April 23rd, 2007
13-”I don’t know about any one else here, but what I am sayimg that it is a community’s perogotive to make such decisions.”
So,
Faith-based religious ‘propaganda’ to students= good.
Science-based ‘propoganda’ on global warming= bad.
April 23, 2007 - 05:39 PM on April 23rd, 2007
Correction:
Junk Science-based ‘propoganda’ on global warming= bad
Faith-based religious ‘propoganda’ on global warming= bad
April 23, 2007 - 05:49 PM on April 23rd, 2007
“So,
Faith-based religious ‘propaganda’ to students= good.
Science-based ‘propoganda’ on global warming= bad.”
It has nothing to do with what is “good” or “bad”. It has to do with the rights are granted under the Constitution. A community has the right to make these decsions. What decision they make isn’t for the federal governement to decide.
As the Constitution says “OR RESTRICTING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF”, as FAO accurately pointed out. What has happened over the last 40 years or so has done exactly that.
April 23, 2007 - 05:56 PM on April 23rd, 2007
7- AKD, here are the links:Is this appropriate for kindergarden?
Critics Slam ‘Gay Agenda’ in Public Schools
Something Rotten in Massachusetts
April 24, 2007 - 03:26 AM on April 24th, 2007
As the Constitution says “OR RESTRICTING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOFâ€
Would you take this to mean that any community that restricts the free exercise of any religion in its schools is in violation of the Constitution? I don’t see how stating that the community decides settles this question, insofar as an entire community could certainly be in violation of the constitution (e.g., if Atlanta decided to reinstitute slavery).
I do wonder what would happen if a bunch of schools in Kansas or wherever actually began to teach creationism on a regular basis. I know that a number of administrators from Ivy League schools have said that if something like this occurred they would have to reconsider accepting any undergraduates from these areas (insofar as believing that creationism/ID is science is basically equivalent to believing that “cat” is spelled “k-a-t”).
As for the “teaching homosexuality” thing: If a sociology class is going to deal with different sorts of family structures, I don’t see why they shouldn’t include homosexual families as one sort of family. This isn’t the same as endorsing homosexuality anymore than teaching a class about ancient Rome is an endorsement of Roman civilization. If they are endorsing a certain lifestyle (in the sense of “it’s better to be ‘x’ than to be ‘y’”), they should stop. In high school, we studied Christianity in an ancient history class, which seems fine to me.
I guess I’m somewhat traditional in that I believe that K-12 should provide students with a solid foundation in reading, writing, math, history, and science. I don’t care for classes in “tolerance” any more than I care for classes in any other sorts of values. I don’t see any reason to have prayer in schools because it wastes time that students could be using to memorize presidents or discuss Wordsworth or learn Latin.
April 24, 2007 - 05:38 AM on April 24th, 2007
“Would you take this to mean that any community that restricts the free exercise of any religion in its schools is in violation of the Constitution? I don’t see how stating that the community decides settles this question, insofar as an entire community could certainly be in violation of the constitution (e.g., if Atlanta decided to reinstitute slavery). “
Unlike the free excercise of religion, there is no right of slavery in the Constitution so you are comparing apples to oranges. The so called “esatblishment clause” does not appear in the Constitution as you would like to interpret. The functionality of it was to prevent the establsishment of an “official state religion” of the federal governement. If a Community hangs the 10 Commandments in their courthouse or diplays a Koran, that does absolutely nothing to establsih a federal religion. However, what is happening is that citizen’s right to free excercise of religion as based upon the Constitution is being infringed upon. Communities should have this right, as it interferes with those individuals free excercise of religion.
April 24, 2007 - 05:51 AM on April 24th, 2007
Unlike the free excercise of religion, there is no right of slavery in the Constitution so you are comparing apples to oranges.
No, no. You’ve misunderstood me. I’m agreeing that there is the right to exercise religion freely; my question pertains to the spaces in which this religion is exercised and consequently an (opposed) right to restrict religious activities. This is why I wrote “Would you take this to mean that any community that restricts the free exercise of any religion in its schools is in violation of the Constitution?” That is, if you’re arguing that the school has no right to keep, e.g., Christian preachers with bibles out of their schools (because this would be to limit the free exercise of religion), would you be willing to extend this position to include all religions (muslim, satanist, etc, etc.). If not, why not?
Again, if the community has no right to curtail religious practices (just as it has no right to allow slavery), then the idea that it should be up to the community becomes, by your own standards, problematic.
April 24, 2007 - 06:29 AM on April 24th, 2007
re 20:
It is entirely the community’s decision. If they wish to have a Muslim Cleric within their schools, that is their choice. If they wish to hang a menora abouve the court house, that is again their right.
Rights are there to be excerised. It is also their right not to excercise those freedoms also.
“Again, if the community has no right to curtail religious practices (just as it has no right to allow slavery), then the idea that it should be up to the community becomes, by your own standards, problematic. ”
Again, not a valid comparision. You are contrasting a positive (allow slavery) against the negative (curtailing freedom). The Bill of Rights, from whence the “establishmwent clause” is derived, simply defines restrictions of the federal governement.
April 24, 2007 - 06:51 AM on April 24th, 2007
The Establishment Clause was put into the COTUS by the Framers, but didn’t get interputed by the SCOTUS until 1947 in Everson v Board of Education
The common interprutation of The Establishment Clause was that intended to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion…The fight then becomes the Free Exercise Clause….at which time Jefferson and Madison’s writings are always used as the example of the need to establish “a wall of separation” between church and state.
1948, the Court found that the practice of inviting religious instructors into public schools to give optional religious instruction violates the Establishment Clause. Then, in the 1952 case of Zorach v Clauson, the Court upheld the practice of giving public school students “release time” so that they could attend religious programs in churches in synagogues. Writing for the Court in Zorach, Justice Douglas said the Constitution does not require “callous indifference to religion.”
Engel v Vitale in 1962, the SCOTUS ruled that New York’s practice of beginning school days with a prayer drafted by school officials violated the Establishment Clause.
The SCOTUS has demonstrated a willingness to strike down any practices that might be likely to be perceived either as coercive or as a state endorsement of religion.
April 24, 2007 - 07:03 AM on April 24th, 2007
14, Tofu, consensus is not science. Science is Galileo and Coppernicus fighting against the “Consensus” of the day.
April 24, 2007 - 07:07 AM on April 24th, 2007
19- AKD- the sociology example is valid, but at an age appropriate level such as HS..not to a 5 year old…As for the soc class, it is how they teach that has parents up in arms..:wink:
April 24, 2007 - 10:21 AM on April 24th, 2007
23. Science is defined by its method, not by who you agree with or who you piss off (though pissing off the church has been, historically, an indication that you’re doing something right).
21. I’ll pose my question again: Does the community have the right to prevent the practice of a specific religion, e.g., can they say that it’s OK to hand out bibles in schools but it is absolutely forbidden to hand out Korans?
April 24, 2007 - 10:35 AM on April 24th, 2007
25.
I already answered the question in post 21. I am not prone to repeating myself.
April 24, 2007 - 10:41 AM on April 24th, 2007
re 25:
“23. Science is defined by its method, not by who you agree with or who you piss off “
Not true, especially as of late. Science has been prone to stray towards “correlation” and away from “causation”.
Science is now defined by whatever funding you can gather from whatever parties that you can. Science is no longer apolitical, but is now political. I’ve found global warming to be the perfect ewample of that, as both side have been shown to have financial ties to those sides they are promoting (and it is EXACTLY that- promoting).
April 24, 2007 - 11:39 AM on April 24th, 2007
26. So you do believe that a community can restrict the exercise of a religion? Is this what you mean in writing that “It is entirely the community’s decision. If they wish to have a Muslim Cleric within their schools, that is their choice.”? Could a community then restrict the right of a Jewish man to wear a yamulke to the market? Or is a public school a space distinct from the wider public sphere?
27. Not true, especially as of late. Science has been prone to stray towards “correlation”and away from “causationâ€.
The distinction between correlation and causation isn’t methodological. The scientific method hasn’t changed much from its early articulations by Bacon. It works according to 1) characterizations (quantifications, observations, and measurements); 2) hypotheses (hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements); 3) predictions (reasoning including logical deduction from hypothesis) and 4) experiments (tests of all of the above). The result is, ideally, a tested theory. There’s certainly bad science (though most science isn’t “bad”), but this isn’t the same thing as the failure of the scientific method. It’s the failure of individuals who’ve ceased to adhere to this method for political, economic, or religious reasons.
April 24, 2007 - 11:51 AM on April 24th, 2007
28, and the Left has abandoned all real research and the method you describe to pontificate hypotheticals as dire facts using scaremonger tactics to shut down debate.
April 24, 2007 - 11:53 AM on April 24th, 2007
Also, AKD, Pedophilia is not acceptable in any way, shape or form no matter what “non-religious” context you wish to put it in to justify your sexual tastes.
April 24, 2007 - 11:54 AM on April 24th, 2007
29. And the right has scuttled research to support it’s buddies in the oil industry. Blah, blah, blah. We’ve been through this. Don’t reject all science because of the failures of individuals within certain fields.
April 24, 2007 - 11:55 AM on April 24th, 2007
Also, AKD, Pedophilia is not acceptable in any way, shape or form no matter what “non-religious”context you wish to put it in to justify your sexual tastes.
April 24, 2007 - 12:05 PM on April 24th, 2007
Sigh…
“So you do believe that a community can restrict the exercise of a religion? Is this what you mean in writing that “It is entirely the community’s decision. If they wish to have a Muslim Cleric within their schools, that is their choice.â€? “
I didn’t say that. 21 was in response to your post 20- take it within it’s context.
Allowing a Muslim Cleric or Catholic priest in a school does nothing to restrict one’s freedom of religion, nor does displaying a statue of the Abraham in the poublic square. It in no way infringes upon the “free practice” of religion.
If a community restricts the wearing of a religious item such as a yamulke in the market place (or burkas in France) that does violate “free practice” of religion.
“The distinction between correlation and causation isn’t methodological. The scientific method hasn’t changed much from its early articulations by Bacon.”
The method hasn’t changed, but it’s practice is certainly tainted now. It is promoted now (mainly because of politics) that correlation equal causation. Global Warming and global cooling are perfect examples of this. The rush from correlation to causation is due to political, when science should be apolitical.
April 24, 2007 - 12:10 PM on April 24th, 2007
Re 29 and 31:
PCD: 28, and the Left has abandoned all real research and the method you describe to pontificate hypotheticals as dire facts using scaremonger tactics to shut down debate.
AKD: “29. And the right has scuttled research to support it’s buddies in the oil industry. Blah, blah, blah. We’ve been through this. Don’t reject all science because of the failures of individuals within certain fields.”
This is both true. The political issue here is global warming. The left has used correlation and not causation in their GW theory, and evidence points to financial reaons. The right has countered as such, and it also points to financial reasons.
Global warming isn’t science, it’s politics. It is a money grab on both sides. It impossible to render fact from fiction here.
April 24, 2007 - 12:28 PM on April 24th, 2007
31, AKD, I reject lies and propaganda by the Left. You resort to the Oil Company cannard because you can’t admit the left is ever wrong.
April 24, 2007 - 03:02 PM on April 24th, 2007
31, AKD, I reject lies and propaganda by the Left. You resort to the Oil Company cannard because you can’t admit the left is ever wrong.
35, PCD, I reject lies and propaganda by the Right. You resort to the Scaremongering cannard because you can’t admit the right is ever wrong.
April 24, 2007 - 03:16 PM on April 24th, 2007
33.
Allowing a Muslim Cleric or Catholic priest in a school does nothing to restrict one’s freedom of religion, nor does displaying a statue of the Abraham in the poublic square. It in no way infringes upon the “free practice”of religion.
So I’ll ask again: Does the community have the right to prevent a Muslim from handing out Korans in the schools? Yes or no?
You seem to want to paint this as a freedom of religion issue without attention to the fact that it’s occuring in a school. I think that it’s fine to had out bibles or korans or whatever but I don’t think that it’s OK to do this in schools. This is my position.
Global warming isn’t science, it’s politics.
I’m a little suspicious of this position because it seems like a way to say “we’ll never know and therefore there’s nothing to worry about.” In other words, it’s the usual right-wing response to the problem dressed up to make it look like a position above the fray.
April 24, 2007 - 04:28 PM on April 24th, 2007
37- If a Muslim is just handing out the book to those that want it and not trying to teach it in a class, or mandating that they take the book, as is with the case we are talking about, then yes, it would be acceptable.
April 24, 2007 - 04:51 PM on April 24th, 2007
38. Then I assume that it would also be acceptable for the 1,000s of representatives of other religions (Satanists, Wiccans, Priapus worshippers, Moonies, Scientologists, Branch Davidians, Heaven’s Gate, etc, etc, etc.). To do the exact same thing? It seems like it could be a little disruptive. The kids will certainly come home with a lot of interesting literature.
April 24, 2007 - 05:00 PM on April 24th, 2007
39- Would it be acceptable yet disruptive? You bet…now, as to legally, and for practical matters..be it a bible or whatever else we are talking about…I would say that with the exclusion of military info(public schools are bound by law to allow it), schools can prohibit the distribution of solicited materials from the school property…in other words, if they ban Bibles or Koran’s, the rule should include all materials like pizza fliers etc…As dumb as that may seem, it will save a great deal of time and energy in the long run!:wink:
April 25, 2007 - 10:26 AM on April 25th, 2007
Re 37:
So I’ll ask again: Does the community have the right to prevent a Muslim from handing out Korans in the schools? Yes or no?
I’ve already answered this question as best I can, and as clearly as possibile. You must have missed it, but the answer is yes, they do.
You seem to want to paint this as a freedom of religion issue without attention to the fact that it’s occuring in a school. I think that it’s fine to had out bibles or korans or whatever but I don’t think that it’s OK to do this in schools.
It is a freedom of religion issue.
The fact that it is on a school as absolutely nothing to do with it. A school is an entity of the community, just like a court house. As long as that school does not reasonably interfere with the practice of a person’s individual religion then ther is no issue.
April 25, 2007 - 10:30 AM on April 25th, 2007
re 39:
“38. Then I assume that it would also be acceptable for the 1,000s of representatives of other religions (Satanists, Wiccans, Priapus worshippers, Moonies, Scientologists, Branch Davidians, Heaven’s Gate, etc, etc, etc.). To do the exact same thing?”
That is up to the community involved imo.
April 25, 2007 - 10:39 AM on April 25th, 2007
“I’m a little suspicious of this position because it seems like a way to say “we’ll never know and therefore there’s nothing to worry about.”In other words, it’s the usual right-wing response to the problem dressed up to make it look like a position above the fray. “
No- the right wing response is that it doesn’t exist.
I am suspicious of both sides of this, and that’s the point. Your looks like a typical elitist left wing response, dressed up to say “I am the authority, you have no reason to listen to anyone but me.”.
My response is that at this time, there is no way to know either way because neither side is being honest in their positions. This may subside over time when it isn’t such a hot button political issue, when oil is no longer the main fuel and there is no money to be made by either side of this issue. But don’t sit there and think that the side you take is purist and altruistic. It is no more altruistic than that of the oil industry.
April 25, 2007 - 01:27 PM on April 25th, 2007
the answer is yes, they do. The fact that it is on a school as absolutely nothing to do with it. A school is an entity of the community, just like a court house. As long as that school does not reasonably interfere with the practice of a person’s individual religion then ther is no issue.
So, based on your reading, a community could also prevent a Muslim from handing out reading materials anywhere in town (because, as you’ve written, a school is no different from any other public space). I wonder where you draw the line between a community’s right to forbid a certain practice and what you call “reasonably interfere with the practice of a person’s individual religion.” It seems conveniently vague. I’m wondering because so many Christians have argued that proselytizing is a fundamental part of their religion; indeed, this has been one of the main arguments for allowing religious speech to continue in schools, the military, etc (they’re deriving their arguments from the gospel of Matthew: “Go to all the nations and make disciples. Baptize them and teach them my commands.â€). Presumably, other religions could make the same claims.
Moreover, if a community is permitted to regulate outward displays of religion (a set of practices that would include proselytizing, I assume), what’s to stop the community from banning any outward displays by minority religions? Your definition is, of course, hopelessly vague. Who will police the community to acertain that it has not “reasonably interfered with the practice of a person’s individual religionâ€? The community (again)? I know that you want to keep the federal government out.
Incidentally, do you also think that a community should have the right to insist that creationism is taught in its science classes? What if the community wants geocentrism taught? Clearly communities often make very bad decisions….
My response is that at this time, there is no way to know either way because neither side is being honest in their positions. This may subside over time when it isn’t such a hot button political issue, when oil is no longer the main fuel and there is no money to be made by either side of this issue. But don’t sit there and think that the side you take is purist and altruistic. It is no more altruistic than that of the oil industry.
That’s fine; as long as you realize that sitting around doing nothing (whatever you believe) doesn’t give you the moral high ground. A consciousness of inauthenticity is, unfortunately, not the same thing as an authentic consciousness.
April 25, 2007 - 01:49 PM on April 25th, 2007
A good rule of thumb when looking at various issues is who supports them. If it is being pushed by the Left alone you can generally assume it’s one or more of the following:
a. stupid
b. another effort in the continuing series to undermine and destroy traditional America
c. inspired at the core by Communist boll weevils here in America
This has been accurate time and time again. Nothing personal, it just is what I have learned on the job over 40+ years of studying the devolution of American society.
April 25, 2007 - 02:20 PM on April 25th, 2007
A good rule of thumb when looking at various issues is who supports them. If it is being pushed by the Left alone you can generally assume it’s one or more of the following…
So, you don’t actually pay attention to the issues. If it comes from the left, you just close your eyes and reject it. This explains a lot.
April 25, 2007 - 02:42 PM on April 25th, 2007
46, not as rigidly as you close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears, and shout “LALALALALALA” to drown out anything to the right of Pol Pot.
April 25, 2007 - 03:01 PM on April 25th, 2007
46: No, just providing a reliable tool to use to cut to the chase when a mountain of bovine fecal material has been built up and obscures the heart of the issue.
Try it sometime. Like with the “humans cause Global Warming” scam/religion/hoax.
April 25, 2007 - 04:00 PM on April 25th, 2007
47, 48
Do you two ever read anything/make an argumet/think? Basically you both stick to one or two line posts in which you write things like “Kennedy’s a liar,” “the left hates america,” or “global warming is a fraud.” You never offer anything resembling support for your positions because you assume, I guess, that everyone else is as poorly informed as you. Basically, you’re snowy egret with a spell-check.
Here’s an idea: read a book for a change (nothing by Ann Coulter, or pop-up); or maybe take a night class. Come back to the site a couple months from now and wow everyone with how much you’ve developed.
Christ, I obviously disagree with Ted, FAO, and Peejz 90% of the time (actually, probably only 85% with Ted) but I recognize that they’re actually arguing and not just calling names and repeating the same old barely-bumper-sticker-worthy chants.
April 25, 2007 - 06:03 PM on April 25th, 2007
“So, based on your reading, a community could also prevent a Muslim from handing out reading materials anywhere in town (because, as you’ve written, a school is no different from any other public space).”
Correct.
I wonder where you draw the line between a community’s right to forbid a certain practice and what you call “reasonably interfere with the practice of a person’s individual religion.”It seems conveniently vague.
My definition is no less vague than what has previosly been ruled upon by the courts. It is the same reason why we have free speech, but one isn’t allowed to yell “fire” in a movie theatre. When the excersise of one right directly interferes with the right of another.
I’m wondering because so many Christians have argued that proselytizing is a fundamental part of their religion; indeed, this has been one of the main arguments for allowing religious speech to continue in schools, the military, etc (they’re deriving their arguments from the gospel of Matthew: “Go to all the nations and make disciples. Baptize them and teach them my commands.â€). Presumably, other religions could make the same claims.”
I don’t care what religions think their rights are- I care what the Constitutition defines our rights as being.
“That’s fine; as long as you realize that sitting around doing nothing (whatever you believe) doesn’t give you the moral high ground. A consciousness of inauthenticity is, unfortunately, not the same thing as an authentic consciousness.”
A cleverly inane back-handed slap. Imply that I do nothing- that’s fine. Evidently you follow the old addage “Do something, even if it’s wrong.”
I don’t.
As far as having the moral high ground, I am firmly entrenched when it comes to this issue. I refuse to rally with the politico of the day simply to support a general idealogy. I will examine each issue and each side with a sceptically opened mind, being as objecytive as possible.
THAT is what gives me the moral high ground.
April 25, 2007 - 10:51 PM on April 25th, 2007
“Basically, you’re snowy egret with a spell-check.”
Funniest thing I’ve ever read here.
April 26, 2007 - 02:39 AM on April 26th, 2007
50. “So, based on your reading, a community could also prevent a Muslim from handing out reading materials anywhere in town (because, as you’ve written, a school is no different from any other public space).â€
Correct.
I guess that we simply disagree. I believe that every religious group should have equal rights, regardless of the whims of the community.
It is the same reason why we have free speech, but one isn’t allowed to yell “fire”in a movie theatre. When the excersise of one right directly interferes with the right of another.
I’m not sure that allowing Muslims to hand out religious materials in the same spaces where Christians do so is equivalent to allowing someone to yell “fire” in a crowded movie theater.
As for the GW question: I’m reading refereed scientific journals dedicated to the issue. I agree that it’s politicized, but so are a lot of things (politics, for example) but if one works hard to determine valid sources, real knowledge is possible. The idea that it isn’t reminds me of the response of people who look at the problems between Israel and Palestine, for example, and say “I have no opinion because those two have been fighting for thousands of years.” Just because an issue is complicated or politicized doesn’t make it entirely opaque.
51.
April 26, 2007 - 06:14 AM on April 26th, 2007
“I guess that we simply disagree. I believe that every religious group should have equal rights, regardless of the whims of the community.”
Show me in the Constitution where a religios group has rights.
“I’m not sure that allowing Muslims to hand out religious materials in the same spaces where Christians do so is equivalent to allowing someone to yell “fire”in a crowded movie theater.”
Not the comparison I made.
“As for the GW question: I’m reading refereed scientific journals dedicated to the issue. I agree that it’s politicized, but so are a lot of things (politics, for example) but if one works hard to determine valid sources, real knowledge is possible.”
“Real knowledge” (whatevere that is) has yet to come to the forefront, and that’s the point. I’ve yet to see a valid source, not tainted by either the oil industry or the GW industry. Thus, the issue is politicized.
The idea that it isn’t reminds me of the response of people who look at the problems between Israel and Palestine, for example, and say “I have no opinion because those two have been fighting for thousands of years.”Just because an issue is complicated or politicized doesn’t make it entirely opaque.
Oh, I have an opinion, and I’ve stated it clearly. It is the only valid position to take at this point. To side without clear cut non-tainted facts does nothing but to promote “left” or “right”, “liberal” or “conservative”, “Republican” or “Democrat” idealogies.
It is nothing more than a bunch of idealouges clammering for moneymat this point.
As for Israel/Palestine, that is another UN created mess. Both sides are at equal fault at this point in time for where they are at. Both are terrorist, and thus I refuse to side with either of them, as I do not want that kind of blood on my hands. My conscience will not allow it.
April 26, 2007 - 06:42 AM on April 26th, 2007
49,Carbon Offsets are just a scam! Read that AKD.