|
Kerry really concedes
Bright and sophisticated on the east and west
coats and the upper midwest, and Look at the bright side, Harry. If we can liberate a few minds in just a couple of little states across the northern Rockies, the moderate to liberal blue states will have the more conservative red states "surrounded." :-) When the war between the red and blue states erupts, the reds will have the geographic advantage of being contiguous. The blues will have the advantage of controlling most of the economy, (between the NE and California). Or we can just suck it up and go on. The increased Republican majority in congress and Bush's 3% "landslide mandate" will move America even more to the right than we have gone in the last four years. Unless the population follows along, (as it appears to have done, somewhat, in the last four), our conservative friends and brothers will appear pretty far out of the mainstream next time the big prize is up for grabs. The pendulum will swing back toward the middle in '08, it always does.Take heart. Kerry made a much better showing than Dukakis or Mondale in similar situations. Remember when Fritz Mondale won Minnesota, period? |
|
"Gould 0738" wrote in message ... Bright and sophisticated on the east and west coats and the upper midwest, and Look at the bright side, Harry. If we can liberate a few minds in just a couple of little states across the northern Rockies, the moderate to liberal blue states will have the more conservative red states "surrounded." :-) When the war between the red and blue states erupts, the reds will have the geographic advantage of being contiguous. The blues will have the advantage of controlling most of the economy, (between the NE and California). You have no manufacturing. You have no oil supply. And the military backs our guy 3 to 1. Bring it on! ;) Or we can just suck it up and go on. The increased Republican majority in congress and Bush's 3% "landslide mandate" will move America even more to the right than we have gone in the last four years. Unless the population follows along, (as it appears to have done, somewhat, in the last four), our conservative friends and brothers will appear pretty far out of the mainstream next time the big prize is up for grabs. The pendulum will swing back toward the middle in '08, Yes, but 2008's "middle" will be far to the right of where the middle is right now. Frist may be our "liberal left wing" of our party. it always does.Take heart. Kerry made a much better showing than Dukakis or Mondale in similar situations. Remember when Fritz Mondale won Minnesota, period? Dukakis and Mondale didn't have hundreds of millions of dollars helping them in the form of 527's. They didn't have foreign countries and enemies operating a propaganda war to have them defeated. They didn't have hundreds of celebrities campaigning, or hosting free concerts for them. They didn't have the mainstream news media aiding them with dirty tricks like forged documents and false missing weapons reports. They didn't have the bitterness of a hotly-contested election going against their party 4 years earlier. And they weren't running against an incumbent while World oil prices were at an all-time high. Considering all the advantages that Kerry had going for him, I can't believe he did so poorly. |
|
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 08:31:08 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:
The people with their hands on the button of the economy are not, for the most part, in your camp. The people who paint your states blue are all those "defendants" of the social safety net that usually scurry around in the duller parts of the big cities. Perhaps they should be. Historically, the economy does better under a democrat administration. It's a myth that Republicans are the fiscally conservative party. Just go back and look at the past several administrations. Growth in government, Republicans. Deficits, Republicans. |
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 16:32:02 +0000, Gould 0738 wrote:
The more extreme you guys become, the prouder I am to be a liberal. There has never been a better time. Reminds me of those "Don't blame me, I'm from Massachusetts" bumper stickers during Watergate. |
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 09:27:57 -0500, thunder
wrote: On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 08:31:08 -0500, Dave Hall wrote: The people with their hands on the button of the economy are not, for the most part, in your camp. The people who paint your states blue are all those "defendants" of the social safety net that usually scurry around in the duller parts of the big cities. Perhaps they should be. Historically, the economy does better under a democrat administration. It's a myth that Republicans are the fiscally conservative party. Just go back and look at the past several administrations. Growth in government, Republicans. Deficits, Republicans. I'm sure you overlooked the Carter administration somewhere in there. Actually the state of the economy has little to do with the current sitting president. The president has about as much effect on the economy as a water tuber has control on where he goes when behind the boat. It's more of a wag the dog scenario. The economy goes south. People (wrongly) blame the sitting president. They elect the opposition. The economy rebounds and he claims credit. Dave |
|
Dave Hall wrote:
.... WE are not the ones who are getting more extreme. We're just now standing up for what we used to have and have slowly lost. You mean like all the Constitutional rights that Ashcroft has given you? Or the rosy economy that Bush & Cheney have brought in? DSK |
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 07:18:04 -0500, DSK wrote:
You mean like all the Constitutional rights that Ashcroft has given you? Or the rosy economy that Bush & Cheney have brought in? Rumor has it that Ashcroft is out. Perhaps, Guiliani is in. |
And that's the rub. WE are not the ones who are getting more extreme.
We're just now standing up for what we used to have and have slowly lost. Dave You lost it in the late 19th and early 20th Century, when America enacted industrial safety regulations. You lost it in the 1960's, when we finally *really* acknowledged that minorities weren't merely 3/5 of a person. You lost it in the 1970's, when we realized that there were social costs involved with using the public waterways as industrial sewers for private enterprise. You're absolutely right.....er, correct. The America you long for existed once upon a time. 48% of the people have no interest in seeing you recreate it our kids to live their lives in. |
Rumor has it that Ashcroft is out.
I've heard that. Is it still appropriate to stand while humming the Hallelujah Chorus? |
|
Wow, you really can spin with the best of them. None of those things
was what I was referring to, and I suspect you knew that. Dave If we can just get every conservative a pair of those Normal Rockwell goggles so you can all sit around and pretend its 1956, and if we can legalize cannabis so enough of the liberals are too stoned to give a rip what you do, peace will prevail on the American political scene. :-) |
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 16:44:25 +0000, Gould 0738 wrote:
If we can just get every conservative a pair of those Normal Rockwell goggles so you can all sit around and pretend its 1956, and if we can legalize cannabis so enough of the liberals are too stoned to give a rip what you do, peace will prevail on the American political scene. :-) Oh yeah, '56 was a good year. Now if you had said '54, that was the year McCarthy got his "mandate" with a 50% approval rating (Gallup). What a difference two years can make! |
|
I'm sure If I really wanted to, I could come up with a bunch more.
Dave But they would all say the same thing: Certain groups were granted extra-legal privilege and status merely because they were more numerous and that was the way it had *always* been done. |
|
What "extra" privilege? They all had to pull their own weight. What
"privilege" they had, they EARNED. How did they earn the right to devote a portion of the public school day to Christian religious practice, (all the while demanding that non-Christians either participate or just shut the f up- out of a respect the more numerous demanded but were unwilling to demonstate in return)? How did they earn the right to send people they felt were inferior to designated rest rooms, drinking fountains, the back row or second floor in a theater, and substandard employment opportunities? How does anyone earn the right to be a self righteous, intolerant, bigot, (and put those prejudices into the core of the social fabric)? How did you guys earn the right to ruin the lives and reputations of thousands of innocent people in the McCarthy political witch hunt? We didn't need a social safety net, because no one would be caught dead with the shame that would accompany someone on public assistance. Funny comment from a guy who probably enjoys, as most Americans do, subsidized housing (tax break for home mortgage interest), subsidized education (publicly funded schools and taxpayer subsidized colleges and universities), a government funded Ponzi-scheme fantasy retirement system (most people outlive their SS contributions by many, many years), subsidized medical coverage (medicare, medicaid, etc).....and like you I could go on and on. When the public treasury steps up to meet you needs, that's OK- but if it meets the needs of a seven-year-old child with irresponsible parents or an adult you deem less worthy than yourself that is a "shame"? |
|
|
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 13:53:50 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:
Them's the breaks when you live in a society where majority rules. It's what the majority wanted, and it's what they got. The way it should be. Not the majority's wishes being held hostage to the whining whims of the small, but highly vocal minority. Not quite, you are touching on the fundamental reason our forefathers decided on a constitutional republic, to avoid the tyranny of democracy (mob rule). |
|
Them's the breaks when you live in a society where majority rules. It's
what the majority wanted, and it's what they got. The way it should be. Not the majority's wishes being held hostage to the whining whims of the small, but highly vocal minority. Perhaps you can identify such a society? Personally, I live in the United States. The people rule here, and we self govern by means of a Constitution. There are steps outlined whereby a "majority" can change the constitution- but until the constitution is changed it guarantees equal protection and rights for all. It specifically protects minority and dissenting elements from extra-legal persecution by the majority. Public sentiment is fickle. We see it all the time in the state where I live. One year the "majority" approves a new government program at the state level, (with the required spending, of course), and the next year the "majority" calls for tax revisions that wipe out the funding for the programs recently voted into place. That's not government, that's anarchy, and it's why we have federal and state constitutions. |
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 15:15:31 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: JohnH wrote: Maybe a solution would be to take the child away from the irresponsible parents. Maybe if the parents realized they wouldn't get a bigger check with each child, there wouldn't be as many illegitimate children and/or more responsible parents. John H You planning on adopting some kids? It would be silly for me to do so. I'm over 60 years old and couldn't give an infant, or even a seven year old the parenting they would deserve. Responsible foster care would be preferable to irresponsible mother- or fatherhood. I would rather the check go to responsible foster parents than the irresponsible babymakers. My daughter is planning to adopt, and we do get a couple children from the Chernobyl region for six weeks each summer. John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
|
There is a difference between recognizing and allowing for the wishes
of the minority, and denying the rights of the majority in the process. The law equally protects the rights of the majority. It does not, and should not, protect illegal or extra-legal privileges presumed by the majority- this is where we disagree on this issue. |
|
It is not illegal if the majority of public school attendees want to
cite a prayer in school. Anyone can pray in school, at any time. No problem. According to the courts, (but what do they know?) it becomes illegal when that prayer becomes an official part of the school day. Why do you fundies think its necessary to throw your religion in everybody else's face? Would God refuse to listen to you if you gathered all the kids who felt they needed to pray, aloud, (and in the schoolhouse) in the gymnasium, or the auditorium, or the lunchroom 15 or 20 minutes before the beginning of the actual school day and prayed? Nothing stops your kids from doing so now. No, what you guys all seem to want is for the official school day to begin with not only the Flag Salute (which is appropriate in a public school) but the Lord's Prayer as well. If you think the majority of kids want to pray before the actual school day begins, fine. Give them a palce and an opportunity to do so. Even if only one kid wants to pray before school begins, give him or her an opportunity to do so. Just don't make a religious ceremony part of the official, taxpayer funded, school day. And before you get all cranked on about the majority, ask yourself how you'd feel if you were a Protestant Christian in a neighborhood where the "majority" of residents were Catholic Christians. Would you be excited about somebody handing your kid a rosary at the beginning of first period and then instructing the class to repeat, "Hail, Mary, full of grace......."? Sure, your kid could make a big nasty scene by refusing to go along.....but how many kids will just buckle under to peer pressure and pray as instructed? Do you feel its the job of the school to teach religious values, or is that the responsibility of the family and the church. Does the answer to that question change when the school is teaching *your* specific religious values rather than some others? If the local town wants to put up Christmas decorations and the majority of the town is in agreement, then they should be allowed to do so. Once again, your opinion is different than the top legal minds in the US, but what do they know? A town can put up snowmen, Santa Claus, candy canes, and even decorated trees. The government cannot establish or promote a religion, and at the point where the decorations begin broadcasting a religious message about angels, virgins, and etc the decorations are promoting an offshoot of Christianity. Christmas isn't really Christian. It was never celebrated by Jesus, the apostles, or the early church. Jesus never referred to a miraculous birth in any of his teachings. All other major incidents in the life of Jesus are recorded in all four gospels, but two of the gospels don't even *mention* an incident where an enormous star appeared, hordes of angels hovered over a herd of sheep, three Arab soothsayers arrived on camels to give gold and other precious treasures to a stranger's baby, born in a stable. You think maybe all four books would have mentioned something almost as dramatic in its own right as the crucifixion, had it occured? (Many scholars agree that the stories of the Virgin birth, etc, were added to the Christian religious literature sometime in the second century. A number of Roman gods, and sometimes even the Roman Emporer himself would claim to be born of a virgin and the early church tweaked the tradition to keep up. Potential converts might otherwise ask, "Why should we adopt your religion? Heck, your guy wasn't even born of a virgin...") To the degree that Christmas isn't Christian, I could go along with the manger display in city park. Unfortunately, Christmas becomes Christian when 99% of the Christians in town assume that it is. You probably have some people in your town who think it's extremely religious to dance naked around a pole on the First of May. Would you support the expenditure of town funds to put up the pole? Would you say it's fine to allow this celebration to use up all the space in the public park? How about naked people dancing around the pole for several weeks prior to May First, as it is the "season"? Should you send your kids to school naked on May First? From a legal perspective, in a nation where we have equal rights under the law, what makes the manger display and the loudspeakers blaring "Hark the Herald Angels Sing" in City Park any more acceptable than a bunch of naked people pounding on drums and dancing around a pole or a fire? If 80% of a graduating class of a typical suburban high school is white, then it stands to reason that the top candidates for college admission would follow this demographic. Should a portion of the majority of this class be denied their earned place in the college admission because of some slanted minority "quota"? College admissions officers should not be allowed to inquire about the race of an applicant. When an application is received, the data should be transferred into a file where the sudent is referred to by a number, so there could be no subconscious impulse to approve or disapprove Tyrone Johnson, vs. Heather Goldstein, vs. Loc Nguyen Hoy or Miguel Hernandez based on assumptions one might make based on name alone. The law offers "equal" protection, not "special" protection for those in the minority. Yes, yes! The minority cannot prevent the majority from doing something it has a legal right to do. By the same token, the majority cannot simply presume a right that is unconstitutional, and the majority cannot prevent the minority from exercising any and all legal rights. They can choose to either play the game, watch from the sidelines, start their own game, or go home. But they have no right to make the game stop. If the game is unconstitutional, it has no right to begin in the first place and should be stopped. How about a lynching, Dave? There have been plenty of instances where the "majority" of citizens in a town have supported lynchings. Should those who oppose lynching just remove themselves from the act, or they can choose to observe their own prayer. But they CAN NOT deny those who wish to, the opportunity to do so. |
"Anyone can pray in school, at any time. No problem." Not true. Locally the
valedictorian of a couple of years ago was censured for bringing up God in his speech. He earned the right to give his speech by having the best grades in the class. If another person had brought up HIndu's Shiva or Mohammed in his speech, would he have been censured? This is graduation. The winner gets to make a speech. It is their work, not anything demanded by the school or the government. What is your spin to this? "Gould 0738" wrote in message ... It is not illegal if the majority of public school attendees want to cite a prayer in school. Anyone can pray in school, at any time. No problem. According to the courts, (but what do they know?) it becomes illegal when that prayer becomes an official part of the school day. Why do you fundies think its necessary to throw your religion in everybody else's face? Would God refuse to listen to you if you gathered all the kids who felt they needed to pray, aloud, (and in the schoolhouse) in the gymnasium, or the auditorium, or the lunchroom 15 or 20 minutes before the beginning of the actual school day and prayed? Nothing stops your kids from doing so now. No, what you guys all seem to want is for the official school day to begin with not only the Flag Salute (which is appropriate in a public school) but the Lord's Prayer as well. If you think the majority of kids want to pray before the actual school day begins, fine. Give them a palce and an opportunity to do so. Even if only one kid wants to pray before school begins, give him or her an opportunity to do so. Just don't make a religious ceremony part of the official, taxpayer funded, school day. And before you get all cranked on about the majority, ask yourself how you'd feel if you were a Protestant Christian in a neighborhood where the "majority" of residents were Catholic Christians. Would you be excited about somebody handing your kid a rosary at the beginning of first period and then instructing the class to repeat, "Hail, Mary, full of grace......."? Sure, your kid could make a big nasty scene by refusing to go along.....but how many kids will just buckle under to peer pressure and pray as instructed? Do you feel its the job of the school to teach religious values, or is that the responsibility of the family and the church. Does the answer to that question change when the school is teaching *your* specific religious values rather than some others? If the local town wants to put up Christmas decorations and the majority of the town is in agreement, then they should be allowed to do so. Once again, your opinion is different than the top legal minds in the US, but what do they know? A town can put up snowmen, Santa Claus, candy canes, and even decorated trees. The government cannot establish or promote a religion, and at the point where the decorations begin broadcasting a religious message about angels, virgins, and etc the decorations are promoting an offshoot of Christianity. Christmas isn't really Christian. It was never celebrated by Jesus, the apostles, or the early church. Jesus never referred to a miraculous birth in any of his teachings. All other major incidents in the life of Jesus are recorded in all four gospels, but two of the gospels don't even *mention* an incident where an enormous star appeared, hordes of angels hovered over a herd of sheep, three Arab soothsayers arrived on camels to give gold and other precious treasures to a stranger's baby, born in a stable. You think maybe all four books would have mentioned something almost as dramatic in its own right as the crucifixion, had it occured? (Many scholars agree that the stories of the Virgin birth, etc, were added to the Christian religious literature sometime in the second century. A number of Roman gods, and sometimes even the Roman Emporer himself would claim to be born of a virgin and the early church tweaked the tradition to keep up. Potential converts might otherwise ask, "Why should we adopt your religion? Heck, your guy wasn't even born of a virgin...") To the degree that Christmas isn't Christian, I could go along with the manger display in city park. Unfortunately, Christmas becomes Christian when 99% of the Christians in town assume that it is. You probably have some people in your town who think it's extremely religious to dance naked around a pole on the First of May. Would you support the expenditure of town funds to put up the pole? Would you say it's fine to allow this celebration to use up all the space in the public park? How about naked people dancing around the pole for several weeks prior to May First, as it is the "season"? Should you send your kids to school naked on May First? From a legal perspective, in a nation where we have equal rights under the law, what makes the manger display and the loudspeakers blaring "Hark the Herald Angels Sing" in City Park any more acceptable than a bunch of naked people pounding on drums and dancing around a pole or a fire? If 80% of a graduating class of a typical suburban high school is white, then it stands to reason that the top candidates for college admission would follow this demographic. Should a portion of the majority of this class be denied their earned place in the college admission because of some slanted minority "quota"? College admissions officers should not be allowed to inquire about the race of an applicant. When an application is received, the data should be transferred into a file where the sudent is referred to by a number, so there could be no subconscious impulse to approve or disapprove Tyrone Johnson, vs. Heather Goldstein, vs. Loc Nguyen Hoy or Miguel Hernandez based on assumptions one might make based on name alone. The law offers "equal" protection, not "special" protection for those in the minority. Yes, yes! The minority cannot prevent the majority from doing something it has a legal right to do. By the same token, the majority cannot simply presume a right that is unconstitutional, and the majority cannot prevent the minority from exercising any and all legal rights. They can choose to either play the game, watch from the sidelines, start their own game, or go home. But they have no right to make the game stop. If the game is unconstitutional, it has no right to begin in the first place and should be stopped. How about a lynching, Dave? There have been plenty of instances where the "majority" of citizens in a town have supported lynchings. Should those who oppose lynching just remove themselves from the act, or they can choose to observe their own prayer. But they CAN NOT deny those who wish to, the opportunity to do so. |
Gould,
So true, I have never understood why that upsets some conservatives, they can pray anywhere and anytime they want. In many school systems they could start a bible study group and pray in their group. Christians can pray in school already, the same way homosexuals can have a civil contract between each other today. Christians want to have school prayer included in school activities, as a way of confirming their beliefs, the same as homosexuals want to be "married" so the public will confirm lifestyle. Neither group needs society to confirm their belief, they both already have the rights they are seeking. "Gould 0738" wrote in message ... It is not illegal if the majority of public school attendees want to cite a prayer in school. Anyone can pray in school, at any time. No problem. According to the courts, (but what do they know?) it becomes illegal when that prayer becomes an official part of the school day. Why do you fundies think its necessary to throw your religion in everybody else's face? Would God refuse to listen to you if you gathered all the kids who felt they needed to pray, aloud, (and in the schoolhouse) in the gymnasium, or the auditorium, or the lunchroom 15 or 20 minutes before the beginning of the actual school day and prayed? Nothing stops your kids from doing so now. No, what you guys all seem to want is for the official school day to begin with not only the Flag Salute (which is appropriate in a public school) but the Lord's Prayer as well. If you think the majority of kids want to pray before the actual school day begins, fine. Give them a palce and an opportunity to do so. Even if only one kid wants to pray before school begins, give him or her an opportunity to do so. Just don't make a religious ceremony part of the official, taxpayer funded, school day. And before you get all cranked on about the majority, ask yourself how you'd feel if you were a Protestant Christian in a neighborhood where the "majority" of residents were Catholic Christians. Would you be excited about somebody handing your kid a rosary at the beginning of first period and then instructing the class to repeat, "Hail, Mary, full of grace......."? Sure, your kid could make a big nasty scene by refusing to go along.....but how many kids will just buckle under to peer pressure and pray as instructed? Do you feel its the job of the school to teach religious values, or is that the responsibility of the family and the church. Does the answer to that question change when the school is teaching *your* specific religious values rather than some others? If the local town wants to put up Christmas decorations and the majority of the town is in agreement, then they should be allowed to do so. Once again, your opinion is different than the top legal minds in the US, but what do they know? A town can put up snowmen, Santa Claus, candy canes, and even decorated trees. The government cannot establish or promote a religion, and at the point where the decorations begin broadcasting a religious message about angels, virgins, and etc the decorations are promoting an offshoot of Christianity. Christmas isn't really Christian. It was never celebrated by Jesus, the apostles, or the early church. Jesus never referred to a miraculous birth in any of his teachings. All other major incidents in the life of Jesus are recorded in all four gospels, but two of the gospels don't even *mention* an incident where an enormous star appeared, hordes of angels hovered over a herd of sheep, three Arab soothsayers arrived on camels to give gold and other precious treasures to a stranger's baby, born in a stable. You think maybe all four books would have mentioned something almost as dramatic in its own right as the crucifixion, had it occured? (Many scholars agree that the stories of the Virgin birth, etc, were added to the Christian religious literature sometime in the second century. A number of Roman gods, and sometimes even the Roman Emporer himself would claim to be born of a virgin and the early church tweaked the tradition to keep up. Potential converts might otherwise ask, "Why should we adopt your religion? Heck, your guy wasn't even born of a virgin...") To the degree that Christmas isn't Christian, I could go along with the manger display in city park. Unfortunately, Christmas becomes Christian when 99% of the Christians in town assume that it is. You probably have some people in your town who think it's extremely religious to dance naked around a pole on the First of May. Would you support the expenditure of town funds to put up the pole? Would you say it's fine to allow this celebration to use up all the space in the public park? How about naked people dancing around the pole for several weeks prior to May First, as it is the "season"? Should you send your kids to school naked on May First? From a legal perspective, in a nation where we have equal rights under the law, what makes the manger display and the loudspeakers blaring "Hark the Herald Angels Sing" in City Park any more acceptable than a bunch of naked people pounding on drums and dancing around a pole or a fire? If 80% of a graduating class of a typical suburban high school is white, then it stands to reason that the top candidates for college admission would follow this demographic. Should a portion of the majority of this class be denied their earned place in the college admission because of some slanted minority "quota"? College admissions officers should not be allowed to inquire about the race of an applicant. When an application is received, the data should be transferred into a file where the sudent is referred to by a number, so there could be no subconscious impulse to approve or disapprove Tyrone Johnson, vs. Heather Goldstein, vs. Loc Nguyen Hoy or Miguel Hernandez based on assumptions one might make based on name alone. The law offers "equal" protection, not "special" protection for those in the minority. Yes, yes! The minority cannot prevent the majority from doing something it has a legal right to do. By the same token, the majority cannot simply presume a right that is unconstitutional, and the majority cannot prevent the minority from exercising any and all legal rights. They can choose to either play the game, watch from the sidelines, start their own game, or go home. But they have no right to make the game stop. If the game is unconstitutional, it has no right to begin in the first place and should be stopped. How about a lynching, Dave? There have been plenty of instances where the "majority" of citizens in a town have supported lynchings. Should those who oppose lynching just remove themselves from the act, or they can choose to observe their own prayer. But they CAN NOT deny those who wish to, the opportunity to do so. |
|
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: "Anyone can pray in school, at any time. No problem." Not true. Locally the valedictorian of a couple of years ago was censured for bringing up God in his speech. He earned the right to give his speech by having the best grades in the class. If another person had brought up HIndu's Shiva or Mohammed in his speech, would he have been censured? This is graduation. The winner gets to make a speech. It is their work, not anything demanded by the school or the government. What is your spin to this? The school sets the rules, picks the speakers and, if it wishes, outlines the criteria for using its forum. No one prevented that student from praying to himself or herself. He talked about God in his life, not praying. You still can not comprehend what you read. And they picked the speaker via who has the best GPA. HE earned the right to speak. |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: "Anyone can pray in school, at any time. No problem." Not true. Locally the valedictorian of a couple of years ago was censured for bringing up God in his speech. He earned the right to give his speech by having the best grades in the class. If another person had brought up HIndu's Shiva or Mohammed in his speech, would he have been censured? This is graduation. The winner gets to make a speech. It is their work, not anything demanded by the school or the government. What is your spin to this? The school sets the rules, picks the speakers and, if it wishes, outlines the criteria for using its forum. No one prevented that student from praying to himself or herself. And he did not require nor did the school require the audience to pray along with the speaker. He was giving his view point. |
He talked about God in his life, not praying. You still can not comprehend
what you read. And they picked the speaker via who has the best GPA. HE earned the right to speak. The school was clearly wrong to prohibit a student from mentioning God in a speech. But.....how does this negate the fact that anybody can pray in school at any time? Your example didn't involve prayer, did it? Would seem to me that unless the spectacle was more important than the prayer itself, people could be praying all over the place and who would know? |
The winner gets to make a speech. It is their work, not anything demanded
by the school or the government. What is your spin to this? No spin at all. The school was wrong to punish a student for utilizing an opportunity for free speech. The the student wanted to say, "God. God. God......" 10,000 times- no problem. The school would be just as wrong to demand that students pray, open the school day with a standardized prayer that everyone was expected to say aloud, or otherwise inject religion into publicly funded education. |
I hope you aren't putting anyone who has a conservative bent into the
'fundie' category. Most of us are not 'fundies' and have no problem with the illegality of requiring prayer in a public school. Then the shoe doesn't fit, so don't try to wear it. A couple of traits often exhibited by "fundies" can include: 1) insisting the the United States is a "Christian" nation.........(makes one wonder whether professing Christianity will become a prerequisite for citizenship or voting......) 2) an assumption that if the "majority" follows a certain faith then that majority should be allowed to include formal religious ceremonies or observations as part of secular government functions like public education- without restriction from the constitution and without worrying about the equal rights afforded to folks who believe differently. 3) a generous concession that those not willing to recite a prayer are absolutely free to suffer the embarassing stigma of the "odd man out" while all the good little girls and boys who will be going to heaven recite some impersonal, memorized, dogmatic statement and consider it a prayer. I know of some (Christian) folks who pray by handling live rattle snakes. They theorize that if their faith is strong, they won't die from snakebite. Heck, just think of the fabulous scene in your substitute math class when one of the students pulls out a live rattler to get closer to God during the moment of silence. Now that *would* get the school day off to a memorable start. :-) |
|
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 15:04:18 -0500, JohnH
wrote: Who are you calling 'fundies'? Anyone with traditional values and morals. A label the left hopes to tarnish. I hope you aren't putting anyone who has a conservative bent into the 'fundie' category. Most of us are not 'fundies' and have no problem with the illegality of requiring prayer in a public school. And equally the illegality of preventing prayer in a public school. In my county the compromise is a 'moment of silence' during which a person can pray, think about the last movie seen, worry about the upcoming test, or anything else they wish to do silently. Works well. As it does here. We went from "prayer" to "moment of silence" sometime in the middle 60's. The name changed, but we still knew what it was meant for. Dave |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:42 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com