warning this can offend law abiding citizens - Which I'm not one of.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


You can plug anything into that quote and it would work... in a different country without our constitution. The pursuit of happiness does not hold money nor it it an organization which has a somewhat terrible history.


PLaying word games is for poetry not serious discussion not to mention a fallacious argument as those plugs do not represent even remotely the subject being discussed.

Instead of trying to sum up counterpoints because maybe YOU want YOUR beliefs to be held above all or YOU feel YOUR god has his rightful place to be put everywhere then move to the Vatican. This is AMERICA where you can worship freely anywhere you like as long as others right are not undermined.

Try instead of always proving your point to see others instead of making self- mocking arguments that hold no water.

reply to post by IamBoon

You can plug anything into that quote and it would work... in a different country without our constitution. The pursuit of happiness does not hold money nor it it an organization which has a somewhat terrible history.

Oh yeah, Attila the Hun's pursuit of happiness was quite pacifying. Hitler's pursuit of happiness was just spun into tragedy, really. The pedophiles pursuit of happiness is just normal stuff, really. Rockefeller, and the Rothchild's didn't start their organizations out of a pursuit of happiness, really.

PLaying word games is for poetry not serious discussion not to mention a fallacious argument as those plugs do not represent even remotely the subject being discussed.

Uh-huh. "No one is asking any anyone to keep their religious views quite...quite the contrary. Only when..." is most certainly playing word games, and as far as poetry goes, it is pretty bad poetry.

Instead of trying to sum up counterpoints because maybe YOU want YOUR beliefs to be held above all or YOU feel YOUR god has his rightful place to be put everywhere then move to the Vatican. This is AMERICA where you can worship freely anywhere you like as long as others right are not undermined.

Maybe I want equality under the law, and not have anyone's beliefs held above another. Maybe if you stopped pretending that what the principal did at that game undermined other peoples rights, you might understand where all your anger is coming from, because after all, you're not asking anyone to suppress their rights to please you...quite the contrary. Only when you disagree.

Originally posted by endisnighe

Hell, I keep bringing up the free speech zones.

Notice how only the boldest and most foolhardy censors touch upon the free speech zone issue here.

Some seem to say that they don't agree with free speech zones, then go on to explain, in great detail, how anything connected with government shouldn't be allowed to have free speech present. They seem to think anywhere other than within the boundaries of your own private property should be a free speech exclusion zone. It's ok if you want to think it quietly inside your own head, though. Government doesn't own that... yet.

It appears a form of insanity to me. A delusion of some sort perhaps.

Maybe they MEANT to say: "I think free speech zones are wrong... Only during local, state, and federal events should this separation occur to offset special interests."

Imagine that criterion being applied to criticism of the government. I mean, it's only free speech, same as a religious utterance, right? Not much real difference there. There are folks around who don't like my political philosophies, and just don't want to hear it. Likewise for THEIR political philosophies, too.

To censor religious speech is no different than censoring political speech. NO different. BOTH are composed of merely words, yet there are people who recoil from them as if stricken, as if a mere word could harm them in some way. They feel censorship is the answer. As I said above, when you establish censorship for one variety of speech, it opens the door for censorship against ALL varieties of speech.

It would appear that these censors would much prefer the Brave New World of Huxley or Orwell.

Originally posted by jinx880101

Anyz- Your response was appreciated and I believe it was sincere. Just for the record (not that it really matters) I am female. Hence all the pink,lol. Somehow I don't dig people thinking I'm a guy....

Apologies. That makes twice for me, in this one thread. I'm going to the optometrist tommorrow...

Originally posted by IamBoon
This is AMERICA where you can worship freely anywhere you like as long as others right are not undermined.

Except, apparently, publicly owned, sponsored, or administered facilities and property... and as long as the "you" doing the worshipping is not in receipt of government money, or a government paycheck...

Seems quite a LOT of restriction on speech if you really get down to analyzing it.

reply to post by nenothtu


Hey, this off shoot brought up a component.

Obama is the head of the Executive branch of government right?

He should not even state whether or not he is a religious person or follows any specific religion.

That could cause the unwary to catch his disease right?

This is the argument that they bring forth.

I just do not get their argument. Once someone is in government does not mean that they cannot talk about their views, be they political, personal, or by GOD even religious.

I find it hilarious they do not see this component of their argument.

They use the slippery slope in the wrong direction.

reply to post by endisnighe


Oh they see it, and they are well aware that Congress begins each session with a prayer. They think we don't know this, because they are certain that they are smarter than us.

Originally posted by nenothtu
To censor religious speech is no different than censoring political speech. NO different. BOTH are composed of merely words, yet there are people who recoil from them as if stricken, as if a mere word could harm them in some way.

i couldnt possibly disagree with you more. how is it that you have no respect for the power of words and ideas? in my conceptualization of reality, words and ideas are the ONLY source of true power. so, first off: let us not downplay them as "MERE words".


the mistake that was made by the principal in the OP has been repeated over and over again in this thread, including by yourself high up on your pedestal. its pretty simple really. but i will not bore you with the long explanation.

suffice to say that in the strata of ideas, GOD is pretty high up there. in fact, many people would say that by taking a certain position on the reality of god, you can inform all of the lower-strata ideas such as condoms and homosexuality and all the other things that the principal commented on.

whereas, each of the lower-strata ideas are able to co-exist independently without conflict.


do you see? the idea of GOD is quite a bossy one. it is a very very BIG idea that likes to push other ideas around and tell them what to do.


such a BIG idea as god is not at all the same as a somewhat smaller idea such as political affiliation. to suggest that these are the same is laughable and i honestly have a hard time understanding your position.


BIG ideas are immediately suspect, particularly in the concerns of conspiracy theorists and founders of civilised society. and as such, BIG ideas need to be appropriately handled in the interest of the progress of society as a whole.

reply to post by tgidkp


Wow! Big ideas, especially to conspiracy theorists, should be suspect? God should be reigned in for being so omnipotent, and merely his mention is an affront to civilized progressives? Well, God knows, we wouldn't want to offend the civilized progressives. I mean, who cares if a civilized progressive offends a backward God fearing ignoramus or two if it is done in the name of progressiveness? Progressiveness is not really so aggressive...quite the contrary it is instructive and protective, and all the progressive really wants to do is protect the mystical fools from themselves. It is one of those strangely divine ironies that has destined the skeptical progressive to work God's will, but the progressive knows that ultimately the religious will accept this irony, as the religious accepted long ago that God works in mysterious ways.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


yes, i understand that by this point of the thread you all have gotten yourselves whooped up into quite a fervor.

i have read and appreciated many of you posts in the past, and i know you have the ability to produce well-formed arguments, so i will do you the favor of not replying to that trash that you just threw in my general direction.


i have a very difficult time understanding this usage of the word "progressives". surely you realise that its root is PROGRESS? yes? what is so bad about progress? i genuinely dont get it. perhaps i need to listen to more conservative daytime talk radio.

reply to post by tgidkp


I wouldn't know if conservative talk radio would help you out at all, as I don't listen to it...too much talk. It is more than just a tad disingenuous of you to get so offended by my usage of the term progressive since I was responding to your assertions of progress, but of course, you were just being civilized, while I am just another philistine, who can't possibly understand that your arguments for suppression are really in the best interest of us all.


[edit on 28-5-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


meh. i am not offended. and i am neither disingenuous. however, i do find it to be a coincidence that i never not once heard this word being used this way before the election of the big O. it just sorta came out of no where.


i would never dream of suppressing anyone's right to say anything that they wish, as i couldn't possibly care less what stupid ideas the majority of my fellow humans are carrying around in their heads. i suffer myself silently through many prayers on a nearly daily basis. they cause me no distress.

conversely, i would also never dream of putting my own BIG ideas into someone else's head unwittingly. sure, if someone wants to know how i feel about such-and-such i will answer the question. but i do not think so much of my own way of life so as to seek out converts.


considering the above two points, though, it often crosses my mind why other people are unable to afford to me the same berth. how do other people whom surround me reconcile in their own minds their lack of respect for me?



as a point of illustration, and at the risk of being long-winded.....

a couple of weeks ago, i was in the company of a couple of my cousins who are both mormon. i live in Utah, and so i recognise their customs as being of the majority and i frequently go out of my way to accommodate them.

however, in the conversation that ensued, my one cousin called the other cousin a "faggot". both of them know full-well that i am a self-identified homosexual.

now again, i am a hard one to offend. i barely flinched at the utterance. it honestly is meaningless to me, and i would never pretend to censor my cousins language. nevertheless, it leaves me with the odd sensation that simply because i am in the minority of society, that no considerations for respectfulness ought to be made in my behalf.



i really do get the feeling sometimes that people actually ENJOY tromping harshly all over my own measly little part of this existence.




but in reality, i would never find myself at such a football game or in such terrible company.....

....i am progressive, after all.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
...It is more than just a tad disingenuous of you to get so offended by my usage of the term progressive since I was responding to your assertions of progress....

oh, okay....i see the connection now. you were actually responding to my own use of the word "progress" in the previous post.


see, that is the problem with using a word that has a derogatory slang meaning. i thought that by calling me "progressive" you were attempting to sling an insult.

let this be a lesson to all that such name calling only serves to break down communication.....even when the break down is unintentional.

Originally posted by IamBoon
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

No one is saying to anyone to keep their religious views quiet... quite the contrary. Only during local, state and federal events should this separation occur to offset special interests. And there is no such slope that is fear-mongering. Have you ever read a history book? Not to be condescending but history repeats itself.

All religions have a HUGE vested interest in attaining power and wealth to spread its views in the name of god. That usually leads to trouble , fundamentalism , and democratic suicide. I mean , our country does a pretty bad job already and look at the rhetoric and ignorance spread by these conservatives. You can claim fear-mongering at any form of warning and it doesn't detract from its validity as a threat. You should know that!

Go back and reread this thread. There are several, several people saying just that.

I don't take it in a condescending way. You were not understanding what i meant, i believe.

I would like to add that "these conservatives" are no better or worse than "these liberals". It is a fallacious dichotomy meant to grab power. Of course you should be concerned with religious zealotry. But is there that big of a difference between religious zealotry and political zealotry? It seems as though you are promoting one, while trying to stifle the other.

reply to post by tgidkp


To be insulted by the term "faggot" is fine. You have every right to be insulted by it, and to feel disrespected by it if you feel that is what you should do. Your right to do such, however, does not take away the right of the other person to use that word. It is your attachment to that word that holds power over you.

My best friend is gay. I was originally friends with her brother, but she is far, far cooler. She calls me, her mother, her brother, her girlfriend...all of us are called "faggot". Why? Because she thinks it is a fun word to say, and she isn't allowing it any power over her. THAT is how you handle things.

I would also like to add that religious philosophy is as "big" an idea as any. In fact, i would say that it is absolutely no different than religion.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Are you really that dense?

The rights enumerated in the Constitution can't be infringed upon. Period.

Speech is in There. Driving is not.

Do some research before you spout off.

Are you really that dense? Show me where in the constitution it guarantees the freedom of ANY SPEECH ANY PLACE ANY TIME.

It is against the law to call 911 and report a false crime - SPEECH.

It is against the law to make death threats to a person - SPEECH.

It is against the law to shout FIRE in a crowded theater - SPEECH.

Are these things specifically delineated in the constitution?

All of your examples lead to someone being injured or killed.

Once again, apples and oranges.

Originally posted by nenothtu

The religious convictions of most humans, including the religious convictions of atheists (so they don't feel left out

) are among the most deeply held and tenacious convictions they have. That's why they become such hot-button issues.

So far agreed

Now, keeping that in mind, if religious convictions can be suppressed and subjugated, what can't? Are political views immune? Are opinions of ANY sort immune?

Whoa...Now you have gone into bizzaro world.

Religious views have NOT been "Subjugated" or "Censored".

You seem bright...are you just pretending to be unaware of "Freedom of Speech" and "Freedom of Religion"? ...Our government and courts fiercly protect our freedoms in this regard. Thus Mosks in the US and even the Church of Satan...thus KKK Rallies etc. THAT IS HOW STRONGLY USA FEELS IT NEEDS TO PROTECT THOSE FREEDOMS.

If people will allow even their most deeply held convictions to be suppressed by others, ANY idea becomes fair game.

Supressed? How? Try this...

Are folks allowed to have racist views in the USA? Yes...protected
Are they allowed to create or join groups that celebrate those racist views? Yes..Protected
Are they allowed to have protests? rallys" Yes, Protected.

If that principle had gotten on the loud speaker at the school football game and gone on a racist rant and screamed kill the *&%^%s over and over...would you still feel what he did was permissable? If so, why or why not?

Serious question...logical question...please no rhetorical BS.

See the thing is we don't get to choose what people believe...Our government strongly believes you are free to believe and express what you like.

BUT...you are not being "SUPRESSED" or having your views "SUBJUGATED" if someone says you can't as a figure of authority get on a loud speaker on school grounds and advocate your religious views...whether they be Christian, Muslim, Satanic etc.

Simply because you weren't able to espouse your personal religious views over a loud speaker to a captive audience who came to see a football game on public grounds...does not mean yoru views are being "supressed". You can still have them...you can still express them...just don't use your profesional capacity as a opublic school teacher to evangalize to parents and students .

WE IN THE USA have chosen to reserve the right to teach our children what (if any) God to believe in..."WE THE PEOPLE" TEACH OUR CHILDREN ABOUT RELIGION....NOT THE GOVERNMENT .....THUS NO PUBLIC SCHOOL SHOULD ENGAGE IN SPECIFIC RELIGIOUS PRAYER OR ADVOCACY.

Censoorship? Subjugation? Government telling us what to think?....Just the opposite.

And you know the same....that is what frustrates me.

Intelligent folks, playing dumb....

[edit on 28-5-2010 by maybereal11]

reply to post by maybereal11


"Appropriate" and "lawful" are two entirely different things. I don't find much of what happens in my daily life to be appropriate. But it is not something to stifle.

I would guess that the person who is paying the man to speak at the game would likely fire him for acting inappropriately. Since it is a "for profit" venture, the internal business processes used are not something that are up for debate, unless we are conducting unemployment hearings, paycheck disputes, etc...HR related issues.

You support everything I say by asking that question. Yes, it is uncomfortable for people to hear. But such is life in a free nation.

[edit on 28-5-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan]

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


It's not apples and oranges. His point is that freedom of speech is free to a point. You can go to jail for merely speaking harmful words.

The point a lot of you have been making is that a prayer is not hurting anyone...that's quite debatable. If a kid at a public school, that follows a different religion than Christianity, is being forced to participate in a group prayer, then that could be very harmful. Especially the younger they are. In many cases they are ridiculed for their religious beliefs, or lack of, because the state decided no tot keep church and state separate.

This is why there are separation of church and state laws. SO THAT PEOPLE ARE TREATED EQUALLY BY THE STATE. Treating people equally, even if they are the minority. Isn't that what America is supposed to be all about???

When you are representing the state, I believe that you should absolutely have to give up some of your rights, because when you are representing the state, you are no longer an individual, you are the STATE. The state can't have the same rights as it's people because it can't be biased. The states job is to protect and serve people equally. It has to be unbiased so it's citizens CAN be biased and have EQUAL rights. Individuals representing the state can have the same rights as all other individuals when they are not acting AS the state. This is the only way separation of church and state can exist. If the state, which is comprised of individuals, is practicing religion then it is no longer an unbiased entity.

If a separation of church and state law is in place, as it was in the op, then any public school teacher, principal, police officer, judge, etc. should abide by that law or be fired. No one is sending them to prison, they are being fired and are free to take all of their rights with them to a job outside of the state.

Jean Paul, I already know you are not in favor of separation of church and state, so don't even bother responding to every single sentence I just wrote like you do with everyone else that is opposed to your ideas.

Originally posted by Reflection
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

 

It's not apples and oranges. His point is that freedom of speech is free to a point. You can go to jail for merely speaking harmful words.

The point a lot of you have been making is that a prayer is not hurting anyone...that's quite debatable. If a kid at a public school, that follows a different religion than Christianity, is being forced to participate in a group prayer, then that could be very harmful. Especially the younger they are. In many cases they are ridiculed for their religious beliefs, or lack of, because the state decided no tot keep church and state separate.

But we are not talking about a child, or a child in school. We are talking about a primarily adult audience at a function separate from school. The children in attendance, presumably, were with their parents. If they weren't, then perhaps those parents have given up some of the parental control.

This is why there are separation of church and state laws. SO THAT PEOPLE ARE TREATED EQUALLY BY THE STATE. Treating people equally, even if they are the minority. Isn't that what America is supposed to be all about???

And you have yet to show how anyone is treated differently.

When you are representing the state, I believe that you should absolutely have to give up some of your rights, because when you are representing the state,

I am stopping with this statement. Nothing else needs to be said about your viewpoints.