On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 03:06:32 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

Try looking at it from the viewpoint of the original Americans and it might
be easier to understand the problem. This assumes, of course, that you
realize the original Americans were pagans, not Christians.

=============================================

The cynical definition of a pagan is someone who believes in a
different imaginary friend. The founding fathers of the constitution
had seen quite enough of state enforced religious practices when they
started writing. Wise men.

No. When you were 7 or 8 years old in the fifties you were able to grasp
the rudiments of a simplistic explanation. Apparently, you haven't given
the matter much observation or thought since.

You may think you live in an "overwhelmingly Christian nation." Even if you do,
one of the reasons generations of immigrants came to this country was a freedom
to practice the religion of their choice. Forcing kids to recite a "Christian
prayer" at the beginning of a school day has no place in a school that exists
to serve the interests of all students. Why should devout Jewish families pay
taxes to support public schools where their kids will be compelled, (at a
minimum through peer pressure), to pray to Jesus, or Virgin Mary, and/or a host
of Christian saints? Are Buddhist, Muslim, Wiccan, or Hindu taxpayers less
entitled to respect for their beliefs in the education system than Christian
taxpayers? Should we give the non-Christian taxpayers a discount, if we ask the
kids to recite a Christian prayer at the beginning of a school day?

Is it the proper role of the public schools to teach the children of atheists
that their parents are "wrong"?

Many of our ancestors came to this country because they found being forced to
worship God in a manner dictated by the numerical majority in a society, rather
than by faith and sincere conscious, unacceptable.

It is just as unacceptable in 21st Century America as it was in 18th Century
Britain.

Did you kid ever come to you and say, "But, Dad, most of the other kids are
doing....(insert stupid thing here)..."?

Your answer then still applies. "Just because a majority does something, that
does not make it right."

You want your kids to recite a Christian prayer at the beginning of a school
day?
There are dozens of schools just like that in most communities- they aren't
supported by tax dollars nor should they be.

On 08 Nov 2004 03:29:38 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

You want your kids to recite a Christian prayer at the beginning of a school
day?
There are dozens of schools just like that in most communities- they aren't
supported by tax dollars nor should they be.

=========================================

Unfortunately the prevailing view of the so called christian right is
that anyone of a different belief is a pagan at best, and should be
converted if possible that their soul may be saved. It's hard to hold
a reasonable discussion with someone of that belief system, and it's
ironic to me that it fosters the same kind of intolerance that the
hard line Islamic's are known for.

On 08 Nov 2004 03:29:38 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

No. When you were 7 or 8 years old in the fifties you were able to grasp
the rudiments of a simplistic explanation. Apparently, you haven't given
the matter much observation or thought since.

You may think you live in an "overwhelmingly Christian nation." Even if you do,
one of the reasons generations of immigrants came to this country was a freedom
to practice the religion of their choice. Forcing kids to recite a "Christian
prayer" at the beginning of a school day has no place in a school that exists
to serve the interests of all students. Why should devout Jewish families pay
taxes to support public schools where their kids will be compelled, (at a
minimum through peer pressure), to pray to Jesus, or Virgin Mary, and/or a host
of Christian saints? Are Buddhist, Muslim, Wiccan, or Hindu taxpayers less
entitled to respect for their beliefs in the education system than Christian
taxpayers? Should we give the non-Christian taxpayers a discount, if we ask the
kids to recite a Christian prayer at the beginning of a school day?

Is it the proper role of the public schools to teach the children of atheists
that their parents are "wrong"?

Many of our ancestors came to this country because they found being forced to
worship God in a manner dictated by the numerical majority in a society, rather
than by faith and sincere conscious, unacceptable.

It is just as unacceptable in 21st Century America as it was in 18th Century
Britain.

Did you kid ever come to you and say, "But, Dad, most of the other kids are
doing....(insert stupid thing here)..."?

Your answer then still applies. "Just because a majority does something, that
does not make it right."

You want your kids to recite a Christian prayer at the beginning of a school
day?
There are dozens of schools just like that in most communities- they aren't
supported by tax dollars nor should they be.

Agreed - even in the boonies where I live, there are Muslim, Jewish,
Catholic, Evangelical Christian and I believe, although I can't
remember the particular sub-faith, a Wiccan deal.

My kids all went to private school for elementary and public high
schools. The reason was that my wife teaches in the system and it's
not a lot of fun to be the daughter/son of a school teacher.

I don't believe we need school prayer to make things better - seems a
little silly to me. I'd much rather start teaching readin', writin'
and 'rithmetic than all the touchy feely stuff, learn through play
crap they do now. Socialization my butt. Sit down, shut up and
learn. :)

Take care.

Tom

"The beatings will stop when morale improves."
E. Teach, 1717

Gould 0738 wrote:
There is, however, one benefit to her horse hobby. I can use it as
leverage when I need a new gadget for the boat.


My wife does the same thing, in reverse. Whenever she decides she wants
something in the "talk about it first" category, she merely calculates the
number of "moorage months" involved in her prospective purchase. Darn, she's
shrewd.

In fact she's very shrewd. I love dogs, but I have a cat instead. My wife
*hates* dogs. She has said, "It's me, or a dog." I tease her that when I come
home with a dog, she'll know its time to pack her stuff...(more likely she'd
pack mine.)

She's smart enough to know that she doesn't want to present, "It's me or the
boat." There are some things, like a dog, that a guy could live without.....



Oh, man. :-) Mrs.E actually suggested that once in a hypothetical way.
During one of our "conversations" she asked how I would like it if she
said that I had to choose between her and the boat, and I answered,
"Well, I suppose there is some things I can live without". She doesn't
always appreciate my humor and I damn near caught a horseshoe off the
back of my head.

Eisboch

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 06:40:26 -0500, Eisboch wrote:

Gould 0738 wrote:
There is, however, one benefit to her horse hobby. I can use it as
leverage when I need a new gadget for the boat.


My wife does the same thing, in reverse. Whenever she decides she wants
something in the "talk about it first" category, she merely calculates the
number of "moorage months" involved in her prospective purchase. Darn, she's
shrewd.

In fact she's very shrewd. I love dogs, but I have a cat instead. My wife
*hates* dogs. She has said, "It's me, or a dog." I tease her that when I come
home with a dog, she'll know its time to pack her stuff...(more likely she'd
pack mine.)

She's smart enough to know that she doesn't want to present, "It's me or the
boat." There are some things, like a dog, that a guy could live without.....

Oh, man. :-) Mrs.E actually suggested that once in a hypothetical way.
During one of our "conversations" she asked how I would like it if she
said that I had to choose between her and the boat, and I answered,
"Well, I suppose there is some things I can live without". She doesn't
always appreciate my humor and I damn near caught a horseshoe off the
back of my head.

It funny, but my family never once, even in theory, have begrudged me
the boats I've owned over the years.

Then again, it get's me out of the house and out of their hair. [1]

Later,

Tom

[1] And I make it sound much worse than it actually is. :)

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 03:01:25 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 08:31:44 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

It's going to be fun to watch America squander its future.

=============================

That's irresponsible to put it mildly.


You're right. It's irresponsible for a country to squander its future.

========================

Or enjoy watching it.


Well, you've got to admit something, Wayne. If you tell someone repeatedly
that if they do "A", then the unfortunate result will be "B", and they
continue to do "A", there is a certain pleasure in watching them writhe like
a slug sprinkled with salt when they get the expected result. Some people
never learn from experience, and have absolutely no observation skills.

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 06:40:26 -0500, Eisboch wrote:

Gould 0738 wrote:
There is, however, one benefit to her horse hobby. I can use it as
leverage when I need a new gadget for the boat.


My wife does the same thing, in reverse. Whenever she decides she wants
something in the "talk about it first" category, she merely calculates
the
number of "moorage months" involved in her prospective purchase. Darn,
she's
shrewd.

In fact she's very shrewd. I love dogs, but I have a cat instead. My
wife
*hates* dogs. She has said, "It's me, or a dog." I tease her that when
I come
home with a dog, she'll know its time to pack her stuff...(more likely
she'd
pack mine.)

She's smart enough to know that she doesn't want to present, "It's me
or the
boat." There are some things, like a dog, that a guy could live
without.....

Oh, man. :-) Mrs.E actually suggested that once in a hypothetical way.
During one of our "conversations" she asked how I would like it if she
said that I had to choose between her and the boat, and I answered,
"Well, I suppose there is some things I can live without". She doesn't
always appreciate my humor and I damn near caught a horseshoe off the
back of my head.

It funny, but my family never once, even in theory, have begrudged me
the boats I've owned over the years.

Then again, it get's me out of the house and out of their hair. [1]

Later,

Tom

I must've gotten lucky. Two months before I got my boat, my ex was
constantly feeling miserable about our financial situation. It wasn't bad -
it was just a completely different way of looking at things. Anyway, one day
I'm sitting on the couch with boat brochures. She sits down (and this is
January) and says something like "Well, I don't know the solution to the
money problem, but I think you should buy the boat anyway. It'll be like a
hundred a month on your Visa card (cheap boat), and since our son's too big
for 3 of us to fit the canoe, it'll be another way to get outside more
often. I'll wait till April to look at pianos."

I just kept my mouth shut, got up, and called the marina to find out how
late they were open. The deal was done the same day.

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 03:06:32 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

Try looking at it from the viewpoint of the original Americans and it
might
be easier to understand the problem. This assumes, of course, that you
realize the original Americans were pagans, not Christians.

=============================================

The cynical definition of a pagan is someone who believes in a
different imaginary friend. The founding fathers of the constitution
had seen quite enough of state enforced religious practices when they
started writing. Wise men.


What???

Every Christian or Jew has an imaginary friend. The native Americans saw
divinity everywhere, and "state enforcement"??? How do you connect that idea
with their spiritual beliefs???

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 12:46:42 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Wayne.B" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 03:06:32 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

Try looking at it from the viewpoint of the original Americans and it
might
be easier to understand the problem. This assumes, of course, that you
realize the original Americans were pagans, not Christians.

=============================================

The cynical definition of a pagan is someone who believes in a
different imaginary friend. The founding fathers of the constitution
had seen quite enough of state enforced religious practices when they
started writing. Wise men.


What???

Every Christian or Jew has an imaginary friend. The native Americans saw
divinity everywhere, and "state enforcement"??? How do you connect that idea
with their spiritual beliefs???

Sometime off line, I'll tell you the story of my experience with a
Navajo shaman - totally unscripted, off the beaten path kind of thing.

It was REALLY freaky and kind of scary in a way.

I've always believed in a spirit/other world for a lot of reasons, but
this experience just clinched it for me.

All the best,

Tom
--------------

"What the hell's the deal with this newsgroup...
is there a computer terminal in the day room of
some looney bin somewhere?"

Bilgeman - circa 2004