On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 12:48:10 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Correct. I had a short fiction class in college. Key word: fiction. One
student decided to write a non-fiction article about economics. We had to
read our work in front of the class. Within a minute or so, the prof
realized it was non-fiction, and told him to stop, that he wasn't following
the assignment. He protested, saying that it was an opinion piece. The prof
said... in any case, it's not appropriate. End of discussion.

You said that already. :)

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 12:47:06 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Correct. I had a short fiction class in college. Key word: fiction. One
student decided to write a non-fiction article about economics. We had to
read our work in front of the class. Within a minute or so, the prof
realized it was non-fiction, and told him to stop, that he wasn't
following
the assignment. He protested, saying that it was an opinion piece. The
prof
said... in any case, it's not appropriate. End of discussion.

1 - All economics is fiction. :)

2 - I'm sorry, but that's not how it works. You can not tell a middle
school student - sorry, you're full of ****, now pay attention.

I'm really surprized that none of you has come up with the answer.


What are you ranting about? This was a college level class. And, it's
totally appropriate to tell a middle-school student to stop interrupting
with things that are not part of the class. Talk about full of it... look in
the mirror!

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 12:48:10 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Correct. I had a short fiction class in college. Key word: fiction. One
student decided to write a non-fiction article about economics. We had to
read our work in front of the class. Within a minute or so, the prof
realized it was non-fiction, and told him to stop, that he wasn't
following
the assignment. He protested, saying that it was an opinion piece. The
prof
said... in any case, it's not appropriate. End of discussion.

You said that already. :)


So, you replied to it both times. I guess you never made a mistake. What a
hero.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"CalifBill" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 17:45:57 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

Ok - fair enough. Let's take a hypothetical journey.

You're a Middle School science teacher and as part of the biology
section you teach the section on evolution. Two students, solid A
honor roll types tell you that they believe in the New Earth model as
part of their religious upbringing - that it is a tenant of their
belief system.

What do you do?

I would point out that they are entitled to their belief system, as
are others who believe differently. I would also point out the
differences between a belief system and the scientific method.

Most of the problems arise when one group proclaims that their
particular belief system is the only one that should have standing,
demands that it be taught to everyone, and tries to influence
legistation and other governmental functions to that end.

The founding fathers of this country were very aware of this
phenomenon thanks to ongoing struggles with the Church of England over
the years, and that is why we have constitutional guarantees regarding
the separation of church and state. If you love this country, you
have to love the constitution also. They are inseparable but some
people just don't get it.



Thank you! Well said Wayne.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Actually the Constitution does not demand separation of church and state.
IT demands that a state religion not be enabled. There are lots if
religious references in the founding documents. They enabled any
religion to be practiced. As long as it did not harm others.

"Demand"?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

Seems relatively clear to me...

--
Nom=de=Plume


Yup, clear. Says the Congress shall not establish a religion, which would
be a state religion. Goes back to the Church of England. And they said you
could not prohibit the free exercise of a religion. Let religion put up a
cross, menora, etc on public property. The people own the property.

On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 21:59:42 -0700, "CalifBill"
wrote:

Let religion put up a
cross, menora, etc on public property. The people own the property.

How would you feel about Muslim or Rastafarian religious symbols in
your town square?

The problem is that once you start you can't say no to the next group,
and you can't say no to bigger and better.

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 21:59:42 -0700, "CalifBill"
wrote:

Let religion put up a
cross, menora, etc on public property. The people own the property.

How would you feel about Muslim or Rastafarian religious symbols in
your town square?

The problem is that once you start you can't say no to the next group,
and you can't say no to bigger and better.


Since I am an semi agnostic married to a Catholic, I can accept all
religions putting up displays in the town square. I was married by a
Monsignor in a Catholic Church with a JW best man, and a Jewish usher.
Locally the Jewish community puts up a Menorah during their holidays, and
Christians put up Christmas Displays during their holidays, and we have had
different religions also. Seems to work fine. I believe there may be a
higher power, but not sure what it is. May be the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

"CalifBill" wrote in message
m...

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 21:59:42 -0700, "CalifBill"
wrote:

Let religion put up a
cross, menora, etc on public property. The people own the property.

How would you feel about Muslim or Rastafarian religious symbols in
your town square?

The problem is that once you start you can't say no to the next group,
and you can't say no to bigger and better.


Since I am an semi agnostic married to a Catholic, I can accept all
religions putting up displays in the town square. I was married by a
Monsignor in a Catholic Church with a JW best man, and a Jewish usher.
Locally the Jewish community puts up a Menorah during their holidays, and
Christians put up Christmas Displays during their holidays, and we have
had different religions also. Seems to work fine. I believe there may be
a higher power, but not sure what it is. May be the Flying Spaghetti
Monster.



Who gets to decide what symbol gets put up? You can say... oh, let the
locals decided, but how do you deal with the various minority views that are
inevitable? It can't be a simple majority, because it's the obligation of
the majority to protect the rights of the minority. If you put a cross or
spire, you're basically promoting a religion, which without much of a
stretch is prohibiting others from doing so. You're taking sides. The
simplest thing to do is to prohibit all symbols.

--
Nom=de=Plume

nom=de=plume wrote:
"CalifBill" wrote in message
m...
"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 21:59:42 -0700, "CalifBill"
wrote:

Let religion put up a
cross, menora, etc on public property. The people own the property.
How would you feel about Muslim or Rastafarian religious symbols in
your town square?

The problem is that once you start you can't say no to the next group,
and you can't say no to bigger and better.

Since I am an semi agnostic married to a Catholic, I can accept all
religions putting up displays in the town square. I was married by a
Monsignor in a Catholic Church with a JW best man, and a Jewish usher.
Locally the Jewish community puts up a Menorah during their holidays, and
Christians put up Christmas Displays during their holidays, and we have
had different religions also. Seems to work fine. I believe there may be
a higher power, but not sure what it is. May be the Flying Spaghetti
Monster.



Who gets to decide what symbol gets put up? You can say... oh, let the
locals decided, but how do you deal with the various minority views that are
inevitable? It can't be a simple majority, because it's the obligation of
the majority to protect the rights of the minority. If you put a cross or
spire, you're basically promoting a religion, which without much of a
stretch is prohibiting others from doing so. You're taking sides. The
simplest thing to do is to prohibit all symbols.

MINORITY VIEWS DON'T TRANSLATE TO MINORITY RIGHTS. HOW ARE MINORITY
RIGHTS ANY DIFFERENT FROM MAJORITY RIGHTS. ANSWER THIS SWEETIE. HOW HAS
AFIRMATIVE ACTION AFFECTED THE WHITE MANS RIGHT TO COMPETE FOR A JOB.
You are so full of crap. Majority rules in the Supreme Court. Majority
voted in a president I didn't and don't want. Are there federal laws
prohibiting religeous symbols on private or public property? We let
Congress critters decide major issues by writing laws and voting on
them. And guess what, majority rules. How well is that going for us? I
suppose that depends on who you ask.

On 10/8/09 2:33 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 21:59:42 -0700, "CalifBill"
wrote:

Let religion put up a
cross, menora, etc on public property. The people own the property.

How would you feel about Muslim or Rastafarian religious symbols in
your town square?

The problem is that once you start you can't say no to the next group,
and you can't say no to bigger and better.


Since I am an semi agnostic married to a Catholic, I can accept all
religions putting up displays in the town square. I was married by a
Monsignor in a Catholic Church with a JW best man, and a Jewish usher.
Locally the Jewish community puts up a Menorah during their holidays, and
Christians put up Christmas Displays during their holidays, and we have
had different religions also. Seems to work fine. I believe there may be
a higher power, but not sure what it is. May be the Flying Spaghetti
Monster.



Who gets to decide what symbol gets put up? You can say... oh, let the
locals decided, but how do you deal with the various minority views that are
inevitable? It can't be a simple majority, because it's the obligation of
the majority to protect the rights of the minority. If you put a cross or
spire, you're basically promoting a religion, which without much of a
stretch is prohibiting others from doing so. You're taking sides. The
simplest thing to do is to prohibit all symbols.



I think extreme vigilance is necessary to make sure the religious right
doesn't turn this country into the christian theocracy it so fervently
wants.

On 10/8/09 7:43 AM, H K wrote:
On 10/8/09 2:33 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 21:59:42 -0700, "CalifBill"
wrote:

Let religion put up a
cross, menora, etc on public property. The people own the property.

How would you feel about Muslim or Rastafarian religious symbols in
your town square?

The problem is that once you start you can't say no to the next group,
and you can't say no to bigger and better.


Since I am an semi agnostic married to a Catholic, I can accept all
religions putting up displays in the town square. I was married by a
Monsignor in a Catholic Church with a JW best man, and a Jewish usher.
Locally the Jewish community puts up a Menorah during their holidays,
and
Christians put up Christmas Displays during their holidays, and we have
had different religions also. Seems to work fine. I believe there may be
a higher power, but not sure what it is. May be the Flying Spaghetti
Monster.



Who gets to decide what symbol gets put up? You can say... oh, let the
locals decided, but how do you deal with the various minority views
that are
inevitable? It can't be a simple majority, because it's the obligation of
the majority to protect the rights of the minority. If you put a cross or
spire, you're basically promoting a religion, which without much of a
stretch is prohibiting others from doing so. You're taking sides. The
simplest thing to do is to prohibit all symbols.



I think extreme vigilance is necessary to make sure the religious right
doesn't turn this country into the christian theocracy it so fervently
wants.


This is what the religious righties want:


http://tinyurl.com/ybwkffz