Conference back40::soapbox

Ah, the much admired "American Civil Liberties". :^(
This has not (yet) been exported to Australia (Thank God), which still even 
has Scripure lessons for Primary School kids.

\C

    Hi Cheles, 
    
    Nice to see you! :-)

    
    it's about time we had some serious efforts put forth to allow for
    prayer in schools, and i for one support the coalition's efforts. 
    
    when i was attending elementary school (public) in maine, we had a
    moment of silence at the start of the day, and we were told that we
    could pray at that time. no one from the aclu storm troopers came
    crashing through the door to stop us like they would now. in fact,
    at this same public school, our local catholic church rented the 
    cafeteria on sundays and held services there until the new church was 
    built. we even rented a small closet in the school to store the holy water,
    vestments and communion hosts. this all took place back in the late 
    1960's and as it was a conservative community, there were no protests
    about it. the constitution was not "endangered", and the fate of the
    world was not "threatened", as the limo-libs would say today.
                                            
     

RE: 430.3 by DELNI::SHOOK "Dogbert"
    
> it's about time we had some serious efforts put forth to allow for prayer 
> in schools, and i for one support the coalition's efforts. 

"Allow" isn't a problem.  Prayer is "allowed" in public schools.  Not
practical to prohibit it,  or Constitutional as well,  and even if it 
was both I would want prayer "allowed"

What you need to do is to use the word that expresses what the Christian
Coalition wants.  "Required".  If you must hide your intent in misleading 
words and phrases there is probably something wrong with your intent.  
State what you want:  A Mandatory Moment for Prayer.




Phil

      I don't think I'm for official prayer in schools, BUT every 
      individual should have equal right to display their individuality
      unless doing so inflicts very real harm on someone else.
    
      I have come to believe that every mind is subject to (worships)
      something.  Be it God, self, or members of the opposite sex,
      or trees or whatever.  Thats just the way it is.
    
      There seems to be a subset of society that EMBRACES the notion
      of welcoming the open demonstration of what one worships...unless
      it is God of course.
    
      I find this to be utterly perverted and evil (imo of course).
    
    						Tony  

       Elementary school always began with the 23rd Psalm; the teacher
       led it and the kids mumbled their way through it.  If anyone
       objected, I didn't know about it. 
       
       In 5th grade, our teacher was Mrs [Fannie Mae] Siegler, who had
       just moved to the Boston area from Ft. Worth; her husband, a
       minister, was studying for a year at Boston College.  The 1st day
       began more or less as usual until we got to the prayer part: we
       all recited the 23rd Psalm, just as we always did, except that Mrs
       Siegler added some words to the end: "In Jesus' name we pray".  
       
       Now, the demographics of Beethoven School were almost certainly
       very different from the demographics of the schools in Texas where
       Mrs Seigler had taught.  About 40% of the kids at Beethoven were
       Jewish, and, even though most might not have been terribly
       sophisticated in matters spiritual, they were pretty certain that
       it was decidedly not in Jesus' name they were praying.  The
       Siegler codicil lasted for 2 or 3 more days and was never heard
       again; I never knew exactly what happened, but I imagine that
       several of the parents spoke to the principal, and Mr Zervas had a
       word with Mrs Siegler.
       
       Make no mistake: Nancy Morales and the Christian Coalition want to
       be able to pray exactly as Mrs Siegler wanted us to pray.  You
       will never, ever hear Nancy Morales voice a cogent plan that would
       recognize and protect the beliefs of all people in a multicultural
       society; instead, you will hear Nancy Morales provide proof-by-
       anecdote ("I know one kid tossed out of schjool for wearing a John
       3:16 shirt, and another kid was allowed to wear a Satan shirt!")
       and obfuscate her real agenda.
       
       It really isn't difficult to see through the Christian Coalition
       and Nancy Morales when they talk about "Religious Equality in
       Schools".  They want anything but.
       
       --Mr Topaz

    When I wuz 14 years old and going to school in Norway,I used to wear a
    Black Sabbath "Heaven and Hell" tour t-shirt. 
    
    Which just goes to show how cool I was. 
    
    

| Satanic symbols, carry guns and knives, and use foul language that suggests 
| of sexual acts.

	Nancy, where do they wear satanic symbols in school? I haven't seen or
heard about that out this way.

	As far as carrying guns and knives goes, they would be arrested if they
we caught with them. To use this in the analogy like it's an accepted thing is
really pushing it, don't you think? (ie  can't have bible, but carry guns &
knives)

	And with foul language, if it's done in front of a teacher, the kid is
reprimanded. If a kid wants to pray, just do it quietly. 

	Now with the shirts, would you be upset if a kid came into school with
a, "Satan Rules Me" t-shirt? If you would, then I can't for the life of me see
how you could be upset that someone couldn't wear a John 3:16 t-shirt cuz in
both cases, someone is taking offense. NOW, if you feel it would be ok to allow
the t-shirt, then yeah, I see your point. 


Glen

ZZ    Nancy, where do they wear satanic symbols in school? I haven't
ZZ    seen or heard about that out this way.
    
    Glen, I have seen kids wearing a Pentagram symbol on a teashirt before.
    It was a Motley Crue teashirt and the Pentagram is an emblem on the
    inside of their album jacket.  
    
    There are alot of occult symbols used on albums to which children
    become accustomed to.  Now they may not display all of these on
    teashirts but occult symbols have definitely become a fad of the world
    of music.  Our adult segment of society is either uninformed or callous
    about the whole thing.  
    
    I had suggested in another conference the idea of offering religious
    courses in the public schools under the following rules and tests.
    
    1. Get a tally of which religions are represented, i.e. percentages of
       Catholic, Jewish, Protestant, Evangelical, etc.
    
    2. Determine if their is a personal demand for this on the part of the 
       parents and students.
    
    3. If there is, get a signed permission slip from parents allowing
       student to attend.
    
    4. Hold class twice a week.
    
    5. Must be taught be a minister of that faith and must be
       voluntary...no pay.
    
    Now I posed this to Glen in another conference and the message I got
    from Glen was something to the effect of....No, we cannot allow
    ministers to prosthlytize their beliefs in the schools.  So I submit to
    you Glen...WHY NOT?  It's my child, I gave permission, it costs you
    nothing, what business is it of yours?
    
    -Jack

      Hi Glen,
    
        I think your sensitivity as to what constitutes victimization 
        and (on that basis) what that means about the disallowing of
        some free speech is a little excessive.
    
        To put it another way, if someone is 'hurt' by someone else
        wearing a t-shirt that says "John 3:16" then thats just too
        bad.  Here is a case of conflicting rights.  Free speech verses
        hurting someone.  Even if acknowledging that there may indeed
        be some level of 'hurt', I would favor this type of free speech 
        in a nanosecond.
    
    Mr. Topaz,
    
        You may be right and you may be wrong about Nancy.  I really
        don't know.  One thing I do believe though is that human beings
        are not capable of knowing other's hearts.  I suppose you may have
        some capabilities that the rest of us lack however and thus
        you are 'in the right' in clueing us all in as to who Nancy
        Morales is and what her actual desires really are.
    
        As a Christian, I'll leave that entirely up to God and (by his
        grace) refrain from judging.  I don't know anyone's heart all 
        that well...not even mine.
    
    						Tony
                        

Do you realize there are 50 pentagrams on the American flag?  And there
are 666 pentagrams on 13.32 American flags?

    I notice a common thread in complaints about anything dealing with
    religion.  It starts with the feel-good point of, gee, how do we
    accomdate every and all possible views.  Well, we can't so let's not
    let any of this in.
    
    It then progresses to the abject fear that someone might tell you what
    is wrong and what is right.  Because you are unable to justify your
    actions, other than, as was stated in a prior note, "it just feels
    good", people are terrified that they maight have to change their
    lives.
    
    A lot laws have been passed that restrict personal freedom in every
    aspect of life, but these are good.  Because an increasing number of
    people have come to the realization that outlawing God has been
    detrimental and want to see a change, they are called all sorts of
    things, but never based on fact - just liberal hysteria.
    

    False.  A Pentagram is an upside down star encircled.  A Pentagram is
    not merely a star.
    
    Likewise a hexagram is considered one of the most evil symbols of the
    occult.  A hexagram is an encircled upside down star of David.  It
    makes a real point of mocking God and being blasphemous.
    
    -Jack

Um, a Star of David is symmetrical about the x-axis.  If you turn it upside-down
you get... the same thing.

    Ok,  a *Pentagram* is, as Jack said, an upside down star in a 
    circle.  A *Pentacle* is a rightside up star (feet on the earth
    head towards the stars) surrounded by a circle.  A pentacle was 
    considered to be a powerful protection symbol in ancient times to 
    ward off evil.  It has only been awarded this "evil" connotation 
    in modern times, usually by the uninformed.
    
    That said, I agree with Nancy that children wearing t-shirts 
    supporting God, Jesus or whatever should be allowed in school,
    unless the school has a dress code that prohibits t-shirts altogether.
    But with that comes the responsibililty to allow Beavis and Butthead
    t-shirts, Pentacle and Pentagram t-shirts, Buddhist t-shirts, etc.
    This is not a vaccuum, nor can it be.
    
    Mary-Michael

 ain't geometry great?

    .3
    
    > it's about time we had some serious efforts put forth to allow for
    > prayer in schools
    
    Read my lips:  PRAYER IS NOT AT PRESENT, AND NEVER HAS BEEN, PROHIBITED
    OR EVEN DISCOURAGED IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS.  What *IS* prohibited by law is
    the setting up of a state religion, which enforced prayer, or even a
    school-sanctioned prayer time with "voluntary" participation, would be.
    Students are free to pray all they want, to whatever deity or deities
    they want, so long as their prayers do not infringe on other students'
    right NOT to pray and NOT to be subjected to prayer that might
    compromise their own beliefs.
    
    I'm a Christian, but I hope and pray that our government will not cave
    in to the self-righteous Christian Coalition, whose real agenda is to
    impose their narrow beliefs on everyone else in direct contravention of
    both divine command and secular law.

    .14
    
    > False.  A Pentagram is an upside down star encircled.  A Pentagram is
    > not merely a star.
    
    You lie.  Why do you lie?  A pentagram is a figure of a five-pointed
    star, USUALLY [but not always] circumscribed and used as a magic
    symbol.
    
    > A hexagram is an encircled upside down star of David.
    
    Again you lie.  As Gerald points out, the Star of David, when drawn
    upside down, is identical to the Star of David when drawn right side
    up.
    
    Lies.  Agendas.  Hatred.  Deception.  Calumny.  The thumper agenda must
    be pushed forward.

| <<< Note 430.10 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


| Now I posed this to Glen in another conference and the message I got from Glen
| was something to the effect of...No, we cannot allow ministers to prosthlytize
| their beliefs in the schools. So I submit to you Glen...WHY NOT? It's my child
| I gave permission, it costs you nothing, what business is it of yours?

	Jack, why do you do this to yourself???? I explained the why in CP.
Gee, did it have to do with churches are the place to learn about the details
of one's faith while schools are not? And I hope you do remember that I did say
if people came in to talk about the history of one's religion, where it
started, how far it's come, what has happened inbetween, that I thought it
would be good for kids to hear about stuff like that. History in schools is
fine, learning about the details of ones faith (like who is the real God) is
better left for the churches.


Glen

| <<< Note 430.11 by LUDWIG::BARBIERI >>>


| To put it another way, if someone is 'hurt' by someone else wearing a t-shirt 
| that says "John 3:16" then thats just too bad.  

	Tony, I agree with that. I think what you missed is where I asked if a
t-shirt that says, "Satan Rules Me" would be ok to wear. If it is, then I could
see her point. If it is not, then I can't. So we really are saying the same
thing, but what I wanted to find out was if the other t-shirt would also be
allowed to be worn.


Glen

| <<< Note 430.12 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>

| Do you realize there are 50 pentagrams on the American flag?  

	It'd be 49 if they were pentiums... :-)

    
    Why don't these coalitions concentrate on getting the kids educated so
    they can be productive in society, teach them the basics of how to read
    and write? Religion is fine, but it doesn't belong in schools, and it
    isn't going to get you a job.
    
    Mary

I find the entire concept of associating "evil" (or anything else for
that matter) with geometric shapes to be somewhat laughable, to say
the least. When you'd like to again be taken seriously, please make
it a point to tell us.

>I find the entire concept of associating "evil" (or anything else for
>that matter) with geometric shapes to be somewhat laughable, to say
>the least. When you'd like to again be taken seriously, please make
>it a point to tell us.

Better yet, make five points.

A rather pointed retort.

         <<< Note 430.10 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

>    Now I posed this to Glen in another conference and the message I got
>    from Glen was something to the effect of....No, we cannot allow
>    ministers to prosthlytize their beliefs in the schools.  So I submit to
>    you Glen...WHY NOT?  It's my child, I gave permission, it costs you
>    nothing, what business is it of yours?
 
	Sounds like Sunday School to me. Just send your kids there. No reason
	to involve the government.

Jim

    
    re: .26
    
    A pentagram is a term from geometry. It has nothing to do with
    what direction it points in.
    
    The proper name for the upside-down pentagram used by the Satanists
    is the Goetia, so-called by Eliphas Levy since it resembles the
    head and horns of a male goat.
    
    -b

Eliphas Levy?  Who was he?  I ask because it's a rather strange name.

>    Why don't these coalitions concentrate on getting the kids educated so
>    they can be productive in society, teach them the basics of how to read
>    and write?

Much too practical, much too sane.

Besides, as the educational level goes up, the superstition 
level goes down. Better to keep them uneducated.  Indoctrination 
is easier that way.

    Eliphas Levy was a 19th century French occultist, whose Grimoires
    are considered the seminal works of modern Satanism. A. Crowley
    used to say he was was Levy reincarnated. Mostly for effect,
    I would suspect.

    -b

I knew a Bambi Swartz.

>I find the entire concept of associating "evil" (or anything else for
>that matter) with geometric shapes to be somewhat laughable, to say
>the least. When you'd like to again be taken seriously, please make
>it a point to tell us.

Well, there is a certain geometric shape which is very much associated
with evil, and displaying it on clothing can get you thrown in jail in
Germany.

I'm sure you know what it is.

/john

    Glen, I agree the church is a better place!  This was a compromise idea
    for people who think otherwise.  Give the parents the choice.  If there
    is really an outcry to this idea, then it will fall on its own lack of
    merit.  Mind you, this is a suggested compromise in order to keep the
    children who don't want the MOS from having their rights infringed
    upon.  
    
    Amazing the bitching I here on abortion and this, yet nobody on the
    left wants to compromise!  
    
    -Jack

Eliphas was Esau's son.  Levy is a Jewish name, usually borne by descendents
of the tribe of Levi.  Hence the weirdness of the combination.

ZZ    I find the entire concept of associating "evil" (or anything else for
ZZ    that matter) with geometric shapes to be somewhat laughable, to say
ZZ    the least. When you'd like to again be taken seriously, please make
ZZ    it a point to tell us.
    
    Jack, I agree with you.  Tell that to the occultists...it's their 
    symbols!
    
    -Jack

ZZ    Sounds like Sunday School to me. Just send your kids there. No
ZZ    reason to involve the government.
    
    Correct...which is why I said it is voluntary for both the parents, the
    students, and the voluntary teachers who would not be paid.  
    
    I remember study hall in high school.  Totally fruitless and
    unproductive.  If that's government at work, you can have it!
    
    -Jack

    .35
    
    > Well, there is a certain geometric shape which is very much associated
    > with evil, and displaying it on clothing can get you thrown in jail in
    > Germany.
    
    Which is all really too bad, since that particular shape appears in the
    art of many "primitive" cultures, including several of the Amerind
    nations.  But then it's like the battle flag of the Army of Northern
    Virginia, which has been perverted into a symbol of white supremacy or
    redneckism, depending on whether it's carried by a sheet-draped idjit
    or stuck on a truck driven by a different kind of idjit.

| <<< Note 430.36 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

| Glen, I agree the church is a better place!  This was a compromise idea
| for people who think otherwise.  

	And like always Jack, you leave out the details. Reread my last note
and you will see that from an historical viewpoint, I think it would be good to
have. From a religious standpoint, go to church.

| Amazing the bitching I here on abortion and this, yet nobody on the left wants
| to compromise!

	Jack, you're looking through your own eyes. Now put on the reality ones
and you would see that I have compromised on this. And I even did it a while
ago in CP! 

    re: .38
    
    Pardon me, but the Crucifix, the fish, and the Star of David are also
    symbols.......I think everyone has the right to display the symbols
    that mean the most to them, regardless of whether they are
    geometric or not.
    
    Mary-Michael
    

    .42
    
    Agreed.  But the problem is that the xian would-be theocrats couldn't
    let well enough alone.  They want to be able to display their own
    symbols, in a state-sanctioned way, while banning the display of
    symbols they dislike.  Well, the squeaky wheel is getting the grease,
    in the form of well-greased skids.

    My family and I are Christians (in the "traditional" sense, for those
    who perceive that there are at least two "varieties"), go to church
    regularly, kids in Sunday School, and so on.  Having said that:
    
    I want the church, and "church people" (verbal shorthand) out of
    the schools.  On the flip side, I also want "sex-ed people",
    "alternate-lifestyle people", "history-rewriting people",
    "PC-disease-of-the-week people", "kid-encounter-group people",
    "special-guest-lecturers-with-sociopolitical-agendas people",
    "magazine-and-Tupperware people", and a whole laundry list of
    other people out of the schools as well.
    
    I'm thoroughly fed up with every special interest group in sight
    slithering into school buildings to feast upon the captive audience
    of children who are presumably there to obtain an education in the
    subjects that are needed to make them, and our nation, competitive.
    
    Schools should teach the children the basics in the traditional fields
    that are necessary (without going into a lot of detail enumerating them
    here), without the B.S. and social baggage.  Parents should take care
    of everything else, including religion, sexual education, providing
    their perspective on all of the various aspects of life, and so on.
    If some parents don't do those things for their kids, that's too bad;
    this does not give the schools and government carte blanche to grab
    those parental functions away from me.
    
    Chris

      Hi Glen,
    
        I am not sure I believe its right for a person to wear a
        "Satan rules me" t-shirt and the reason is because Satan
        connotates evil and evil deeds; deeds that are construed 
        to be evil even by civil standards.
    
        Would it be ok to wear a t-shirt that said, "I love Adolf
        Hitler and he was RIGHT ON"???
    
        I don't think so.  And not as a religious issue, but because 
        it is connotative of things that even the civil portion of
        society would find reprehensible.
    
    	     						Tony

    
    Tony;
    
    As hard as it would be for me to do so, considering as I
    feel that Hitler was beneath humanity, I think I'll make
    myself a T-shirt that says what you suggest and walk around
    in it. People will not like me for it, but most of them,
    unlike you, will realize it's a free country.
    
    -b

      -b,
    
        Yeah, maybe you're right.  I support the Nazi march in
        Skokie, but I am unsure of those same rights being extended
        in govt. owned buildings.
    
        I'm really not sure.
    
    						Tony

    Thumper Index 5/17/95 ----> 3.5
    
    Thumper Index 5/18/95 ----> 3.7
    
    FWIW
    
    ...Tom

    jack,
    
    many of us here wear pentagrams and are most emphatically not
    worshippers of the dark half of your diety.  it is difficult for us to
    believe in it, any more than the patriarchal trio, that you espouse
    belief in.  Would you have your child sent home for wearing a small
    gold cross, as long as mine is sent home for her silver pentagram, or
    her sigil or a labrys?  I haven't see you or anyone else who wants
    religion in the schools supporting the Sikh children whose wearing a 
    small knife is not an optional part of their religion, and who are
    tossed out of schools for carrying same.  
    
    I don't understand the double standard some of you are pushing for. 
    There is also a school district in this town that tolerates t-shirts
    with xian saying and pro-life slogans, but has sent kids home for
    wearing a Motley Crue, type of t-shirt.  Isn't this also a bad thing?
    
    meg  

      -b,
    
      I just thought of a hypothetical which I think at least suggests that
      your position is not a certain one.
    
      I'll make a couple assumptions.  Video is communication, nothing
      more and nothing less.  Another word for this is, video is speech.
    
      Lets say a school offers video as a recreational option during
      recess.  Kids sign up for the option to select their own favorite
      videos on a first come, first serve basis.
    
      So some kids turn comes up and he slips in Robert Guccione's
      Caligula.
    
      Why not?  Its just free speech.  Its just a medium of communication.
    
      I'm a believer that if ideals are not universally ok, there is a
      window of subjectivity.
    
      I think we are in that window and thus I reject the idea that you
      are necessarily correct concerning the Hitler shirt.
    
      (Of course, I partially base this on having the audacity to believe
      that kids ought not have the right to watch pornography in public
      schools.)
    
    							Tony
                                                 

    
    Tony,
    
    No, pornography is not free speech... none other than the
    SCotUS has ruled on that. The guidelines for establishing
    pornography include sexual acts of the type depicted in
    Caligula.
    
    -b

      Ok, I hear ya -b.  My idealistic thinking though is such that
      I disagree with SCoTUS.  Speech is communication.  So one thing
      is called 'free' and another is not and the realm of what is
      free is probably subjective.
    
      I'll just stand on record as believing that some forms of communi-
      cation are unacceptable and I'll be the 1st to acknowledge that
      what I might call free and what SCoTUS might call free may not be
      exactly the same.
    
      But, going by the law of the land, you are absolutely right and I
      am absolutely wrong!
    
    							Tony

    
    Tony, I'm sure if you were Jewish and lived in Skokie, IL you wouldn't
    be so quick to approve of the Nazi's marching there. Skokie, is VERY
    populated with people of the Jewish faith, as well as quite a few of
    the Holocaust survivors. 
    
    It would be similar, to lets see, the KKK marching through Harlem, or
    Watts.

    
    Not the point Mark. The point is that it's _legal_ to do so,
    not ethical. Of course, it's not legal, but probably ethical,
    for people to shoot at them while they're marching...
    
    -b

>                     <<< Note 430.45 by LUDWIG::BARBIERI >>>
 
 >     Hi Glen,
 >   
 >       I am not sure I believe its right for a person to wear a
 >       "Satan rules me" t-shirt and the reason is because Satan
 >       connotates evil and evil deeds; deeds that are construed 
 >       to be evil even by civil standards.

For a large percentage of the world satan is a mythical being who has no power
for good/bad/evil/indifference in their lives. Because you say he exists does 
not make it so.

    
 >       Would it be ok to wear a t-shirt that said, "I love Adolf
 >       Hitler and he was RIGHT ON"???

Adolf was real. and under the first Amendment, Yes people have a right to say 
this. I think they are wrong and stupid but they have a right to say it.

Amos
    

| <<< Note 430.45 by LUDWIG::BARBIERI >>>

| -< Glen: Beg to Disagree >-

	Tony, don't beg. :-)

| I am not sure I believe its right for a person to wear a "Satan rules me" 
| t-shirt and the reason is because Satan connotates evil and evil deeds; deeds 
| that are construed to be evil even by civil standards.

	Then Tony, the other t-shirt should not be worn either. Many people can
have problems with Christians (say other religions) and may not want to see
that on someone's t-shirt. It all comes down to one group liking, one not.

| Would it be ok to wear a t-shirt that said, "I love Adolf Hitler and he was 
| RIGHT ON"???

	The school would not allow it. The school would not allow the John 3:16
t-shirt. The school would not allow a Satin Rules Me t-shirt. A school that
would not allow any is being pretty consistant. How many public schools that you
can think of would allow the Satan & Hitler t-shirts? How about the John 3:16?



Glen

re: .49, Meg

>    Would you have your child sent home for wearing a small
>    gold cross, as long as mine is sent home for her silver pentagram, or
>    her sigil or a labrys?

See, now I prolly wouldn't even recognize a sigil or a labrys.

Labrys are where they keep books.  A sigil is what they used to cut hay with.

    
    
    And here I thought all this time that a sigil was 
    a light that told you to stop, go, or proceed with
    caution.....
    
    
    Terrie
    :*)
    

    As someone who had to sit through a christianian prayer and "bible"
    reading every morning even though it is illegal, I find their attempt
    to shove their religion back into the schools offensive to say the
    least.  I am quite sure that the same self rightous persons would not
    be thrilled if one morning some kid were to scream "hail satan" and say
    that they were just worshiping in their own way.  The hipocracy of
    these people never ceases to amaze me.
     
    Just one man's opinion!

    
    
    
    			sigil
    
    			| |
    			 O
    			| |
    
    	(aprroximation on this keyboard.  It is to staffes woven through a
    wreath, symbol of the american reformed druids, and other sects within
    the neopagan metaphysics
    
    			Labrys
    
    			(|)
    			 :
    
    

Hey, I saw one of those labrys crawling on my roses.

	Did anyone read Nancy's first paragraph ?

	She wasn't calling for a rally to force religion on anyone.

	She was talking about a double standard that already exists -
	namely, Christian teens *not* being allowed to wear Christian
	T-shirts, *not* being allowed to carry a bible.

	Equity.  It's right there in the title. 

	Please do read for comprehension.

	Karen

    
    <---------
    
    Give the lady a gold star!!!!!
    
    the rest of you....
    
    
    all you did was add to the supposed "thumper index"... good or bad...
    
    Nice going...
    
    

	{beam}

OK, Nancy, tell us about "Christian teenagers being sent home from
school for wearing a John 3:16 T-shirt to school, carrying their Bible,
and praying before eating their lunches."  Give names, dates, and places.
Was a protest made to the authorities?  What was the outcome?

       <<< Note 430.18 by SMURF::BINDER "Father, Son, and Holy Spigot" >>>

>    Read my lips:  PRAYER IS NOT AT PRESENT, AND NEVER HAS BEEN, PROHIBITED
>    OR EVEN DISCOURAGED IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS.  
    
    
   <<< Note 430.66 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>

>OK, Nancy, tell us about "Christian teenagers being sent home from
>school for wearing a John 3:16 T-shirt to school, carrying their Bible,
>and praying before eating their lunches."  Give names, dates, and places.
>Was a protest made to the authorities?  What was the outcome?
    
    	I don't have the details, because I don't have the article
    	with me, but I read about a student in St. Louis who was
    	denied the right to fold his hands and silently say grace
    	before lunch on several occasions.  On some of the occasions
    	he was forced to go to the principal's office, and I believe
    	he even faced suspension though I don't recall now.  A lawsiut
    	is pending.

    

    	re .19
    
    	Why are differences of semantics or outright mistakes so quickly 
    	and emotionally labeled lies?

    	Eliphas Levy
    
    	Anagram:  Shape evilly.

    <<< Note 430.49 by CSC32::M_EVANS "proud counter-culture McGovernik" >>>

>    There is also a school district in this town that tolerates t-shirts
>    with xian saying and pro-life slogans, but has sent kids home for
>    wearing a Motley Crue, type of t-shirt.  Isn't this also a bad thing?
    
    	I don't see the problem.  I know that you, Meg, see bad influences
    	on kids from Christianity, but do you only see bad influences?
    	Kind of sad if that's the case.  In fact, I think it's sad if you
    	simply see more bad than good.  I'm not afraid to say that I, like
    	most of our society, see more bad influence than good on kids from
    	musical groups like Motley Cr�e and things like drugs, cigarettes, 
    	gangs, and other types of things that are banned in school-wear.
    	I'm not afraid to say that I see little benefit to kids at all
    	from such things, and welcome arguments to the contrary.
    
    	The point here is that our society is trying to define what it
    	will accept or reject, and the whims of a few should not supercede
    	the sensibilities and morals of the many.  Spare me the tyranny
    	of the majority crap.  When we're talking about a handful offending
    	everyone else, who is really trying to be tyrannical?

    <<< Note 430.55 by TIS::HAMBURGER "REMEMBER NOVEMBER: FREEDOM COUNTS" >>>

>For a large percentage of the world satan is a mythical being who has no power
>for good/bad/evil/indifference in their lives. Because you say he exists does 
>not make it so.
    
    	Ah, but in those cultures there is still a good and an evil, and
    	there is some entity that represents the evil, and wearing a
    	t-shirt that celebrates that evil entity would be received with
    	the same uproar as a satan t-shirt would be here.  Yes, they
    	don't know about our satan and would not blink an eye at it,
    	just as we do not know what represents evil to them, so therefore
    	probably would not take offense with them wearing a t-shirt
    	celebrating it.  That does not mean that in practically any
    	society there will be people and concepts and items that are
    	seen as socially unacceptable to celebrate.

    Joe,
    
    If one t-shirt with printing on it isn't allowed, none should be. 
    Allowing a t-shirt with a graphic portrait of an aborted fetus on it,
    and not allowing a t-shirt about a local rock band in town, is
    inconsistant at best, and hypocritical IMHO.
    
    Last year's Independent had quite a bit about this particular district
    and the particular high school in that district.  
    
    meg

    
    xian sayings? those would be in mandarin i presume.

    No Joe,
    
    In many cultures there is no demon entity, it is uneeded, or doesnt fit
    in to the metaphysics of those cultures.  We don't all have to have a
    good-god/bad-god complex, you know.  Try a real course in comparative
    religions some time.
    
    meg

         <<< Note 430.70 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>


>>    There is also a school district in this town that tolerates t-shirts
>>    with xian saying and pro-life slogans, but has sent kids home for
>>    wearing a Motley Crue, type of t-shirt.  Isn't this also a bad thing?
    
>    	I don't see the problem.

	Well LOOK at MY suprise. It's called freedom of expression Joe.
	Whether you like the expression, or not.

Jim

    
    Which brings us back to Nancy's problem in .0, doesn't it Jim??
    

    Re: .61
    
    >			Labrys
    >
    >			(|)
    >			 :
    >
    
    How come Labrys remind me of Labia?  Do the words share the same
    derivative?
    
    -- Jim

  <<< Note 430.76 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy caweful of yapping zebwas" >>>

>    Which brings us back to Nancy's problem in .0, doesn't it Jim??
 
	In general. But then again, some kid wearing a tshirt deppicting
	a pentagram because is is on a rock band's logo is hardly a
	religious symbol.

	But, I do agree that a tshirt depicting a religious message
	should be allowed. So should silent prayer and the like.

Jim
   

>What you need to do is to use the word that expresses what the Christian
>Coalition wants.  "Required".  If you must hide your intent in misleading 
>words and phrases there is probably something wrong with your intent.  
>State what you want:  A Mandatory Moment for Prayer.
    
    Incorrect.  I listened last night to this same argument on 95.7 and it
    was easily dispelled by the verbage of the amendment.

    .8
    
    A good portion of music today is advertised through satantic chants and
    symbolism.  You'll find this on many of the t-shirts and clothing in
    schools.
    
    I realize of course that weapons are not allowed in schools per se, but
    you tell that to the parents of the dead 15 year old boy who's "best"
    friend shot him in the face last year in Palo Alto [he went to our
    church through the bus ministry].
    
    

    Mr. Topaz,
    
    You don't know your chicken from a turkey.  You can spout all you want
    on Nancy Morales but you're only showing your own lack of character.
    
    Nancy

    > I'm a Christian, but I hope and pray that our government will not cave
    >    impose their narrow beliefs on everyone else in direct
    
    
    Binder, I'm surprised at you.  Have you even seen the amendment?  I
    haven't seen it in its entirety, but I heard it debated last evening,
    by one of its authors.
    
    You are wrong... about the amendment, perhaps not about the Christian
    Coalition, I don't know... I don't know much about them.
    

>    Why don't these coalitions concentrate on getting the kids educated so
>    they can be productive in society, teach them the basics of how to read
>    and write? Religion is fine, but it doesn't belong in schools, and it
>    isn't going to get you a job.
 
    Mary, 
    
    Currently our public school systems suffers from a lack of orderly an
    decency on campus.  If we could get THIS back in the school then we
    could teach our children.  As it stands, kids who are well behaved are
    penalized for the rest.
    
    This hasn't got a thing to do with whether or not this amendment
    passes.  But I do believe that in some ways the influence of kids
    wanting to do right and being able to be themselves without oppression
    could help.
    
    Nancy

    .46
    
    And you could end up dead.

    .66
    
    The Christian Law Association (CLA) represents 100s of these cases per
    month across the country.  They are based out of Indiana.  We support
    their efforts.
    
    Nancy

If CLA is defending so many of these cases, what are the outcomes?
What are the judgements?

Also, as I still haven't managed to get the book, John 3:16 would
be what subject matter?

re .86

John 3:16 is

	For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son
	that all who believe in him should not perish but have
	everlasting life.

| <<< Note 430.65 by CNTROL::JENNISON "Revive us, Oh Lord" >>>


| {beam}

	I SEE THE LIGHT!

| <<< Note 430.80 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>



| A good portion of music today is advertised through satantic chants and
| symbolism.  You'll find this on many of the t-shirts and clothing in schools.

	Nancy, � of what you see out there has a different intent than you're
giving it. As Meg has said, you look at it from a good-god, bad-god view. You
don't look at it from the intent, or the views of others. Without knowing the
intent, you or I could not possibly know the meaning behind it.

| I realize of course that weapons are not allowed in schools per se, but
| you tell that to the parents of the dead 15 year old boy who's "best"
| friend shot him in the face last year in Palo Alto [he went to our
| church through the bus ministry].

	Nancy, while the above is truly sad, I can't quite figure out what it
has to do with wearing t-shirts.


Glen

RE: 430.79 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze"

>> What you need to do is to use the word that expresses what the Christian
>> Coalition wants.  "Required".  If you must hide your intent in misleading
>> words and phrases there is probably something wrong with your intent.
>> State what you want:  A Mandatory Moment for Prayer.

> Incorrect.  

Oh?  The moment is mandatory,  isn't it?  The intent is that the time is
for prayer,  right?  Dispell my bad feelings,  


Phil

    Nancy,
    
    Please define what you mean by satanic.  Large gold crosses? 
    Pentagrams, as has been pointed out to you by more than one person in
    this file are used by religions which have no basis in your
    good-god/bad-god brand of metaphysics.
    
    

>    	I don't have the details, because I don't have the article
>    	with me, but I read about a student in St. Louis who was
>    	denied the right to fold his hands and silently say grace
>    	before lunch on several occasions.  On some of the occasions
>    	he was forced to go to the principal's office, and I believe
>    	he even faced suspension though I don't recall now.  A lawsiut
>    	is pending.

If the story is true, the school officials are clearly wrong, and the
courts will say so.  Is there anyone here in the 'box who thinks that
a student shouldn't be allowed to quietly say grace?

    Read the lyrics to the more hard-core metal, Meg.  It isn't just a
    matter of using a pentagram on the cover (and no, I don't think Motley
    Crew is a Satanic group).
    
    FWIW, I like a lot of heavy metal, but certainly don't care to see some
    of the messages therein become reality for our youth.  The same can be
    said for some of the gangster rap out there.
    
    
    -steve

>    The Christian Law Association (CLA) represents 100s of these cases per
>    month across the country.  They are based out of Indiana.  We support
>    their efforts.

Then you certainly should be able to post the details of one or two cases.
Has any court ruled against a student who was harrassed by school officials
for wearing a religious symbol or quietly praying?

    <<< Note 430.74 by CSC32::M_EVANS "proud counter-culture McGovernik" >>>

>    No Joe,
>    
>    In many cultures there is no demon entity, it is uneeded, or doesnt fit
>    in to the metaphysics of those cultures.  
    
    	Name some.  Preferrably ones that most of us have heard of.

    <<< Note 430.75 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	Well LOOK at MY suprise. It's called freedom of expression Joe.
>	Whether you like the expression, or not.

	No, Jim, I don't expect you to be surprised at my position, nor
    	do I express surprise at yours.
    
    	With FREEDOM comes responsibility -- and one responsibility
    	is to refrain from offending the rest of society.  It is 
    	society's job to let the individual know what is offensive,
    	and that is usually pretty clear.  Many of the specific items
    	discussed here recently fall into that category.  (Including
    	the aborted fetus.)  When someone can't exercise the responsibility
    	that goes with the freedom of expression, society has to step
    	in to set down guidelines.

    Re: .96
    
    >one responsibility is to refrain from offending the rest of society
    
    In that case, the anti-abortion folks would have to stop displaying
    pictures of aborted fetuses, for starters.
    
    >It is society's job to let the individual know what is offensive,
    
    You assume society enjoys a single opinion on the matter.  We don't all
    share the same sensibilities.

>         <<< Note 430.96 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>

>    	With FREEDOM comes responsibility -- and one responsibility
>    	is to refrain from offending the rest of society.  It is 

Coming from Joe this needs to ba saved and prolly will need to be reposted 
often in reply to his notes.

Amos

RE:.96
	With FREEDOM comes responsibility -- and one responsibility
    	is to refrain from offending the rest of society.  It is 
    	society's job to let the individual know what is offensive,
    	and that is usually pretty clear.  Many of the specific items
    	discussed here recently fall into that category.  (Including
    	the aborted fetus.)  When someone can't exercise the responsibility
    	that goes with the freedom of expression, society has to step
    	in to set down guidelines.

Whoa!!!  I have a real problem with this idea. "Being offensive", is not 
clearly defined, and consistant from one case to another.   One only need look
at the PC movement, or the Christian Coalition to determine that what you may
find offensive does not cause me to bat an eyelash.

Some questions to help me further understand what you are getting at here.

-What entity is  'society', and what type of person(politician, appointee,
civilian, military,  preacher, priest, rabbi) is on the board to set standards
of non offensiveness? 
-How do you set consistant standards as to what is offensive to the citizens of
Smalltown Alabama, and and expect those same standards to work in Bigcity Mass? 
-Are some things considered offensive today going to go off the list in the
future. 

You are saying then "You can have freedom of speech as long as you don't pi$$
someone else off."  Sounds pretty good on the surface in a feel good let's all
get along sort of way, but it's not freedom of speech!  
   

Mikey

    Mikey:
    
    You're the nads man!! :-)  You use the $$ signs at the end of the word
    Pi$$ lest you offend the Soapbox community!!!!  You're great! :-)
    
    -Jack

    Delayed Christian educational snarf!

   <<< Note 430.92 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>

>If the story is true, the school officials are clearly wrong, and the
>courts will say so.  Is there anyone here in the 'box who thinks that
>a student shouldn't be allowed to quietly say grace?
    
    	The problem is that eventhough the officials are wrong, people
    	have to spend money to defend themselves.  As you quoted in .94,
    	there are many such cases, all requiring unnecessary court costs
    	(on both sides).  
    
    	A clear legal guideline can eliminate much of it.

            <<< Note 430.97 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>

>    In that case, the anti-abortion folks would have to stop displaying
>    pictures of aborted fetuses, for starters.
    
    	Since you were referencing .96, I guess you just didn't read
    	very well, because I said the same thing...
    
>    You assume society enjoys a single opinion on the matter.  We don't all
>    share the same sensibilities.

    	But most do.  And in issues like this, the majority should not
    	have to be subjected to the tyranny of the minority.

             <<< Note 430.99 by DECLNE::SHEPARD "Wesley's Daddy" >>>

>-How do you set consistant standards as to what is offensive to the citizens of
>Smalltown Alabama, and and expect those same standards to work in Bigcity Mass? 
>-Are some things considered offensive today going to go off the list in the
>future. 
    
    	You can't set a sinsistant standard.  That's why you have to
    	allow it on a community-by-community basis.  Current SCOTUS
    	guidelines and ACLU initiatives prevent this.

>    	A clear legal guideline can eliminate much of it.

The CC wants a constitutional amendment.  Why isn't a federal court ruling
sufficient?

    Re: .103
    
    >And in issues like this, the majority should not have to be subjected 
    >to the tyranny of the minority.
    
    The minority should not be subjected to the tyranny of the majority. 
    The Constitution provides freedom of expression, even of (perhaps
    especially of) offensive ideas.  "We guarantee the right to say
    anything you want, as long as it doesn't offend the majority."  Big
    whoop-de-doo.  You don't need a Constitution for that.

         <<< Note 430.96 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>

>    	With FREEDOM comes responsibility -- and one responsibility
>    	is to refrain from offending the rest of society.

	Well to no one's suprise I do not agree. I do not recognize
	that there is a "responsibility" to not "offend" society.
	Mainly because it is nearly impossible for "society" to
	agree on just what is considered offensive. Now certainly
	there is aggreement on some offensive "expression", but
	these are well beyond the scope of wearing a tshirt with
	a pentagram. 

>  It is 
>    	society's job to let the individual know what is offensive,
>    	and that is usually pretty clear.

	YOU may think it's pretty clear, but a lot of us recognize that
	it is not. What you may find "offensive" I may find amusing. And
	even if you don't like to admit it, I'm as much a part of this
	society as you.

>When someone can't exercise the responsibility
>    	that goes with the freedom of expression, society has to step
>    	in to set down guidelines.

	The question is just where it is appropriate for "society" (in
	this case the government) to establish such guidlines (laws).

Jim

Joe, I find street-corner preachers and door-to-door evangelists offensive.
According to you, they should be banned, right?

    Perhaps panning them would be better?

    Gerald:
    
    That's a coincidence.  Amos, Isaiah, Jeremiah, et al were found to be
    offensive in their time also.  Yet had they been banned before they had
    their say, the Hebrew scriptures would not be as they are today.
    
    Thank goodness for street corner preachers eh??!
    
    -Jack

>    Thank goodness for street corner preachers eh??!

Great idea!  Let's send them all to Canada!

    I don't know, some people still find Amos to be offensive. 8^)

    
    .111, Gerald:
    
    No thanks-a, we already gots one!
    

 ZZZ   [,yfi].
    
    Oh...is that so!  Well so are you and besides that you're a flaming
    bleeding heart!
    
    -Jack

Determining what is offensive for anyone other than yourself is impossible.  The
principle of community standards more or less reverts back to majority rule. 
Certain distasteful publications(pornography in particular) are banned in 
communities, because of "community standards".  

Does this mean then, that it is ok to ban Ebony, and Jet, in a town in Idaho,
because the majority of citizens in that community are white supremacists? 
After all I feel certain thes two Black oriented publications offend many in
this hypothetical town?  

Does this give Cobb County Ga the right to ban Gay oriented publications?  they
have after all passed an anti-gay ordinance recently.  The "Gay Lifestyle" as
they call it is offensive to them.  Would it not follow that publications
"promoting" same would be offensive, by community standards?

My consciense(sm)* does not permit me to say things I know to be offensive to
other people.  However, I know from past experience how easy it is to 
inadvertantly offend someone.

Oppelt, I think understand where you are coming from, and from a moral viewpoint
agree.  My moral standards are my business, yours are not!  I have no legal
right to make you not offend me.  Nor do I want one!  If I get that right then
I, individually. or as a society, can make a criminal of you by being offended. 
You want to keep from legally having to toe the thumper line forget about
"Society" telling you when you are being offensive from a legal/constitutional
standpoint.  Sue the bahstahds if they offend thee.  

Remember the stealth candidates, and that you cannot appeal to a higher
authority in a Theocracy.  Give government the right to shut you up when they
feel you are being offensive, and a Theocracy is a very real possibility.

:-| 

Mikey

* sm = spelling murdered

>        <<< Note 430.110 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

>    That's a coincidence.  Amos, Isaiah, Jeremiah, et al were found to be
>    offensive in their time also.  Yet had they been banned before they had

Glad to see I live up to my name. 

Amos

    8^)

    Joe,
    
    For one you could try most of the neo-pagan faiths in the US, today. 
    Want me to point you over to Earth Sprit Pagans?  
    
    The Navajo have some evil teachings, but mostly around people wanting to
    gather wealth, something like love of money being the root of all evil.  
    
    Bhudda doesn't have a corresponding anti-bhudda in the writings I have
    run into. 
    
    

Buddha.  NNTTM.

      Hi Meg,
    
        Yeah, who needs a corresponding anti-good being around when
        there is always you and me for people to look at!!!
    
        Actually, I believe in the existence of Satan, but love of self
        is a commodity that he does not have a monopoly on.
    
    						Tony

    .68
    
    Because this is SOAPBOX.  Cope.

| <<< Note 430.98 by TIS::HAMBURGER "REMEMBER NOVEMBER: FREEDOM COUNTS" >>>

| -< saved for future use by me, Glen, Meg, etc :-} :-} >-



	Got it in the Joe file Amos!!!  Good catch! 

    >Oh?  The moment is mandatory,  isn't it?  The intent is that the time
    >is for prayer,  right?  Dispell my bad feelings, 
    
    Wrong... that is why its not a judiciary issue but an amendment to the
    constitution.  
    
    Moments of silence, are not a part of the amendment as it was discussed
    the other evening.

    Meg,
    
    I am curious why do pagan's use satanic symbols and then say they don't
    believe in *our* darker deity?
    
    What do these symbols represent to *you*?
    
    Nancy 

    .82
    
    So be surprised.  I live one town away from Merrimack, New Hampshite,
    where candidates for the school board vigorously denied any
    fundamentalist Christian leanings or intent to bring Christian
    teachings into the public schools.  When they were elected, they
    changed their tune bigtime, and it is now known that they are longtime
    fundamentalists.  They lied.  They're not the only ones to do that.  I
    cannot stomach dishonesty from anyone, but from self-proclaimed
    Christians it makes me want to puke.  THAT is why I'm so vehemently
    opposed to the CC and its theocratic aims.
    
    > but I heard it debated last evening,
    > by one of its authors.
    
    If that person runs true to the CC form I've seen and heard, he lied. 
    Flat out lied.

    I suppose I could write the CLA and ask for a list of their cases and
    outcomes, but I'm not sure if I'd get an answer very quickly.  There
    are only 3 attorneys working the entire U.S.  
    
    We hear about these cases when the CLA comes.. wait a minute, one of
    the attorneys, David Gibbs will be at my church for our July 4th picnic
    patriots celebration... I'll see what I can do.
    
    Nancy

If there are only three lawyers handling hundreds of cases, how can one of
them afford to take time off for a picnic?

Are you saying that Cobb County banned gay oriented publications?

I thought that they just decided that county funds would not be used
to subsidize gay oriented theatre.

/john

  ZZ     Because this is SOAPBOX.  Cope.
    
This is true Joe.  I got a real laugh when Dick accused me of lying
    yesterday!  That was too funny!
    
    -Jack

           <<< Note 430.106 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>

>    The minority should not be subjected to the tyranny of the majority. 
    
    	When that minority is forcing offense on a majority, you tell
    	me who is really the tyrant.  You are free to ignore the common
    	sense of this point, of course.
    
>    The Constitution provides freedom of expression, even of (perhaps
>    especially of) offensive ideas.  "We guarantee the right to say
>    anything you want, as long as it doesn't offend the majority."  Big
>    whoop-de-doo.  You don't need a Constitution for that.
    
    	Nope.  You're right.  You only need common sense.  So tell me,
    	why did the courts have to speak about yelling fire in a theater?

    <<< Note 430.107 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	Well to no one's suprise I do not agree. I do not recognize
>	that there is a "responsibility" to not "offend" society.
    
    	Fair enough.  We both know we'll never see eye-to-eye on
    	this point.  However, I believe that there are more and more
    	people like me who are getting fed up with the lack of
    	responsibility -- whether it should exist or not -- and 
    	I believe that your point of view is destined to be smothered
    	by a flood of frustrated voters.
    
>	Mainly because it is nearly impossible for "society" to
>	agree on just what is considered offensive. Now certainly
>	there is aggreement on some offensive "expression", but
>	these are well beyond the scope of wearing a tshirt with
>	a pentagram. 
    
    	It wasn't difficult for society to agree 40 years ago.

  <<< Note 430.108 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>

>Joe, I find street-corner preachers and door-to-door evangelists offensive.
>According to you, they should be banned, right?

    	Well, the issue at hand was around having these things in
    	schools.  Your concern above has already been banned there.
    	Nobody is saying that t-shirts of any sort are being banned
    	on street corners or people visiting your front door.

            <<< Note 430.116 by DECLNE::SHEPARD "Wesley's Daddy" >>>

> Determining what is offensive for anyone other than yourself is impossible.
    
    	Society is an entity unto itself.  *I* am not trying to
    	determine what society wants.  I am only one cog voicing
    	my opinion, and that collective opinion is what should
    	prevail.  As you pointed out, it comes down to a majority
    	rule in these cases, and I support that.  But society
    	should certainly be entitled to determine what is offensive
    	to itself.
    
>Does this mean then, that it is ok to ban Ebony, and Jet, in a town in Idaho,
>because the majority of citizens in that community are white supremacists? 
>After all I feel certain thes two Black oriented publications offend many in
>this hypothetical town?  
    
    	Again, we are talking about a school situation where the 
    	presence of certain articles can be disruptive to the
    	educational environment.  That is specifically why the
    	poster of the 10 Commandments was ruled inappropriate
    	in the 1980 SCOTUS case, Stone vs Graham.
    
>Does this give Cobb County Ga the right to ban Gay oriented publications?  they
>have after all passed an anti-gay ordinance recently.  The "Gay Lifestyle" as
>they call it is offensive to them.  Would it not follow that publications
>"promoting" same would be offensive, by community standards?
    
    	As for banning items for retail consumption, that's a different
    	issue.  My personal take is that individual communities SHOULD
    	be allowed to set its own standards.  I'll stay away from
    	communities that ban what I want to buy, or that encourage what
    	I don't want my kids to buy.  That sounds much more fair to me.
    
>My moral standards are my business, yours are not!  I have no legal
>right to make you not offend me.  
    
    	I disagree.  I doubt that I'd have to fight very hard to get
    	a neighbor to remove a mural on his fence that depicts children
    	performing oral sex on adults, to demonstrate an extreme example.

        <<< Note 430.132 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>

>However, I believe that there are more and more
>    	people like me who are getting fed up with the lack of
>    	responsibility -- whether it should exist or not -- and 
>    	I believe that your point of view is destined to be smothered
>    	by a flood of frustrated voters.
 
	And we can thank what ever deity that you choose that the FFs
	were wise enough to protect freedom of expression so EXPLICITLY
	so that no matter how many of you frustrated voters there happen
	to be, we will always be able to express unpopular opinions or
	views.

	Be VERY careful Joe. The same Amendment that guaruntees YOUR
	right to freedom of religion, guaruntees MY right to be offensive.
	If you want to start mucking about with the First, you do so at
	your OWN peril as well as mine.

>    	It wasn't difficult for society to agree 40 years ago.

	Ah, the "good ole days" argument. Jim Crow, lynchings, barefoot
	and pregnant womenfolk, rampant racial and ethnic discrimination.
	Yep, you've certainly convinced me that we should return to that
	idylic bygone era.

Jim

    <<< Note 430.119 by CSC32::M_EVANS "proud counter-culture McGovernik" >>>

    	(re, what religions do not have good/evil entities)
    
>    For one you could try most of the neo-pagan faiths in the US, today. 
>    Want me to point you over to Earth Sprit Pagans?  
    
    	The original statement with which I took issue (see .71) said
    	something to the effect that a large percentage of the world
    	does not believe in Satan.  I knew that I would be countered
    	with obscure ones, as I hinted in .95.  Perhaps you would be
    	more convincing if you were to address something that constitutes
    	a "larger percentage"...
    
>    The Navajo have some evil teachings, but mostly around people wanting to
>    gather wealth, something like love of money being the root of all evil.  
    
    	You support my point as I made it in .71.  "People and concepts
    	and items" are seen as evil by the Navajo too (as I would suspect
    	even the pagan faiths would.)  How would the Navajo elders react
    	to a youth wearing a "Donald Trump" t-shirt?  For that matter,
    	how would a pagan gathering react to someone showing up in a
    	t-shirt celebrating the Salem witch hunts, or one celebrating
    	strip-mining or some other rape of mother earth?
    
>    Bhudda doesn't have a corresponding anti-bhudda in the writings I have
>    run into. 
    
    	Perhaps, and perhaps not.  I truly doubt that there is no anti-
    	Buddhist concept or item though that would be taken as seriously
    	offensive in a Buddhist society.

      <<< Note 430.126 by SMURF::BINDER "Father, Son, and Holy Spigot" >>>

>    I cannot stomach dishonesty from anyone, 
    
    	Such as calling a mistake or a difference of opinion a lie?

    <<< Note 430.135 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	Be VERY careful Joe. The same Amendment that guaruntees YOUR
>	right to freedom of religion, guaruntees MY right to be offensive.
>	If you want to start mucking about with the First, you do so at
>	your OWN peril as well as mine.
    
    	Again, a difference of opinion.  I believe that it is the likes
    	of you through the recent decades that have already done the
    	mucking.  There is not much more we can do here to satisfy that
    	difference of opinion.
    
>	Ah, the "good ole days" argument. Jim Crow, lynchings, barefoot
>	and pregnant womenfolk, rampant racial and ethnic discrimination.

    	Ah, the good ole strawmen.  Who is asking for the return of
    	these?  Is it necessary that we recreate 100% of the past in
    	trying to capture specific things from back then?

    .137
    
    You get the CC in here and let them spout their stuff the way the rest
    of us do, and I'll cope.  They're not in the box, so your so-clever
    attempt to hoist me with my own petard has quite neatly backfired.

    	re .139
    
    	I disagree. 

        <<< Note 430.138 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>

>    	Again, a difference of opinion.  I believe that it is the likes
>    	of you through the recent decades that have already done the
>    	mucking.  

	Seeking the protections guarunteed in the Constitution doesn't
	seem to me to be all that outrageous.

>    	Ah, the good ole strawmen.  Who is asking for the return of
>    	these? 

	When you use arguments like "society knew" what was "acceptable"
	back then, you should expect to see a listing of ALL the things
	that "society" accepted. To do less would be to don the rose
	colored glasses that are obviously obscuring your vision. I,
	for one, am certainly not ready to do that.

Jim

Re: .134	

	While I would join you in attempting to have a mural such as you used in
your last example removed, I seriously doubt we would have an easy time of it. 
What crime has this fictional neighbor committed?  If our community considered
that type of behavior normal, then would not the mural meet the community
standards, and therefore not be offensive?  Again, an extreme example, but, we
are talking about the standards of individual communities aren't we? 
Photographs of same would be a different story as we have laws against such
acts.  

	Having The 10 commandments on a public school wall is too close to
guvmint delving into religion.  It is not a freedom of expression issue. 
Banning printed material definitly is  

	You said that with freedom comes responsibility, and that we are obliged
not to offend others.  Therefore, banning publications such as Ebony, in a town
where the majority of residents are offended white supremacists would be okay?  

	Cobb County voted to deny funding for any arts, and soon thereafter
passed there "family values" statute or something like that. It got the Gay
community in metro Atlanta in a real tiff, and caused Cobb to lose their Olympic 
venue.  They did not cut funding to any one play.  However, there is a decidedly
anti-gay attitude on the County commission.  It follows that they are offended
by gay oriented expression.  Using Mr Oppelt's logic Cobb would be in it's
rights to ban any and all publications, that dealt with the subject of
homosexuality.  After all they(The elected representatives of the community) are
offended!

	Having spent my childhood going to a church that promoted making America
Christian, I fear anything or anyone that would give them the opening to start
setting up their rule!!!!   If we permit practices of religion to be school
supported then we are leaving the door open for our kids to be exposed to
religious teaching that is immoral to us by our own personal standards.  Many
"fundamentalist Christians are promoting state sanctioned religion.  Wouldn't it
be incredible if they got their wish, only to find out the religion promoted by
their public schools was Judaism?  

	People are different.  Opinions as the cliche goes are like anatomical
parts, everybody has one or two.  If we allow the state to control our words,
then do they not also control our thoughts.  Regulating "offensive" speech is
just that.  Allowing kids to come to school with any attire except that
promoting Christianity is also censorship of the same kind.

	Your freedoms are being eroded!  It is being done sometimes
unconciously, and always with our "best interest in mind".  

Mikey

    <<< Note 430.141 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	Seeking the protections guarunteed in the Constitution doesn't
>	seem to me to be all that outrageous.
    
    	But making up new ones should.

>	When you use arguments like "society knew" what was "acceptable"
>	back then, you should expect to see a listing of ALL the things
>	that "society" accepted. To do less would be to don the rose
>	colored glasses that are obviously obscuring your vision. I,
>	for one, am certainly not ready to do that.

	Like I said, Jim, it's a matter of differences in opinion.  I
    	refuse to accept your arguments as anything more than your
    	opinion, and I expect nothing less from you in return.
    
    	Given today's hindsight about yesteryear's society, I see nothing
    	wrong with selectively choosing parts of yesterday and rejecting
    	others.  You may use the term rose colored glasses derogatorily,
    	but I see those rose colored glasses as an excellent filter that
    	give us 20/20 hindsight.

            <<< Note 430.142 by DECLNE::SHEPARD "Wesley's Daddy" >>>

>	While I would join you in attempting to have a mural such as you used in
>your last example removed, I seriously doubt we would have an easy time of it. 
    
    	I think you are wrong, but I'd rather not be involved in the
    	experiment to find out.
    
    > What crime has this fictional neighbor committed?  
    
    	Child pornography, for starters. 
    	
    > If our community considered
>that type of behavior normal, then would not the mural meet the community
>standards, and therefore not be offensive?  Again, an extreme example, but, we
>are talking about the standards of individual communities aren't we? 
    
    	That is precisely my argument.
    
>	Having The 10 commandments on a public school wall is too close to
>guvmint delving into religion.  It is not a freedom of expression issue. 
>Banning printed material definitly is  
    
    	Uh, the poster *IS* printed material.  I disagree that simply
    	displaying something of religious significance to someone means
    	that the government is sponsoring that religion.  Current legal
    	consensus does not support my opinion.

>	You said that with freedom comes responsibility, and that we are obliged
>not to offend others.  Therefore, banning publications such as Ebony, in a town
>where the majority of residents are offended white supremacists would be okay?  
    
    	Again, the topic at hand is the school system.  This is not
    	what I am addressing at all.  You'll have to discuss that
    	with someone else, I guess.
    
    	But let me ask you this.  Who is forcing the white supremacists
    	to be exposed to these publications?  Who is forcing the
    	supremacists to sell the magazine in their stores?
    
    	Still, the marketplace and the public school environment are
    	two separate issues.

>Allowing kids to come to school with any attire except that
>promoting Christianity is also censorship of the same kind.
    
    	Great.  Now go back to .0 that started this string.  That is
    	precisely what's happening.

    Re: .131
    
    >When that minority is forcing offense on a majority, you tell me who
    >is really the tyrant.
    
    Obviously the majority can't be the tyrant, because for the situation
    to exist, they cannot have abrogated the minority's right to freedom of
    expression.  Offending people is not an act of tyranny, so it can't be
    the minority, either.
    
    >why did the courts have to speak about yelling fire in a theater?
    
    Matters of public safety are quite different from matters of
    sensibilities.  Surely you could figure that out by yourself.

    Re: .136
    
    >something to the effect that a large percentage of the world does not 
    >believe in Satan.
    
    Well, that would be true.  Jews, Christians and Muslims would believe
    in Satan.  Pretty much everyone else would not.  That's a significant
    portion of the world population.

    In general, while a responsibility not to offend society might exist,
    it is by no means a requirement.

    	re .146
    
    	Right Chelsea, now go back to sleep.  Meg is taking issue
    	with my response to that particular statement, and that 
    	response did not disagree with the specific statement.

    Re: .148
    
    >now go back to sleep
    
    Your usual deluge of replies is having its usual soporific effect.
    
    Buddhism has been mentioned, and is certainly not obscure.

           <<< Note 430.149 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>

 >    Your usual deluge of replies is having its usual soporific effect.
    
    	And you wonder why people say your are bitter and bitchy in
    	soapbox...  Sheesh.  So someone points out that you are 
    	arguing with points that only you are making up, and your
    	response is yet more snobbery.  Of course, if my replies 
    	were so sleep inducing as you pretend to state as you look
    	down your electronic nose, you wouldn't have bothered to
    	(or been able to) reply to them in the first place.  
    
>    Buddhism has been mentioned, and is certainly not obscure.
    
    	So tell us, what specifically was said about Buddhism?  Were
    	you reading?  So far my position has not been disproven by
    	bringing up Buddhism.  That it was mentioned means nothing.
    	Go back to sleep.

    1.  What are you all so very much afraid of for letting a Christian be
    a Christian in their educational system?
    
    2.  Why can't Christians use the same logic as homosexuals?  After all
    we are now an OPPRESSED group of people by our government.
    
    

    Meg did you miss my question in this string?

    <<< Note 430.151 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

>    1.  What are you all so very much afraid of for letting a Christian be
>    a Christian in their educational system?
 
	OK Nancy, it's time to ante up. A great deal of my personal problem
	with this proposal for a "religious equality amendment" stems from
	my personal perceptions concerning the "religious right" (that and
	of course the fact that Joe supports it so it is, de facto, a bad
	idea).

	Your turn now. Enter the actual text of the proposed amendment so
	that we can better decide what we think about it.

Jim

    I wish I knew where I could get a copy.  If anybody would know DougO
    might.  So DougO... can you help?
    
    Nancy

    <<< Note 430.153 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	OK Nancy, it's time to ante up. A great deal of my personal problem
>	with this proposal for a "religious equality amendment" stems from
>	my personal perceptions concerning the "religious right" (that and
>	of course the fact that Joe supports it so it is, de facto, a bad
>	idea).
    
    	I'm assuming that you forgot your smiley there.  Otherwise you
    	are admitting that you are not willing to think for yourself.

>	Your turn now. Enter the actual text of the proposed amendment so
>	that we can better decide what we think about it.

	see 425.116
    

>    1.  What are you all so very much afraid of for letting a Christian be
>    a Christian in their educational system?

I don't think it's at all the case that that fear is being expressed here. The
"oppression" you mention in the basenote appears to be pretty much universally
agreed to be improper by most respondents. The fact that the CLA is defending
these cases successfully without any amendment seems to indicate that no
amendment is needed in order to ensure the rights of those affected, hence
having such an amendement won't really help in that respect. And I seriously
doubt that having an amendment will magically make the oppression stop, anyway,
as we've had several amendments which have been scoffed at. If any fear is
being expressed, it has to do with the concern that such an amendment could
(Can't say "will" without understanding the amendment) feasibly turn into
something even more oppressive for "other" groups, especially if the
amendment were to be worded in such a way as to favor christianity (your
words above, not mine.)

>	see 425.116
    
425.116 is the reprint of the Contract With the American Family. Are we
to understand that that is one and the same with the Amendement being brought
before the public in California to which Nancy referred in the basenote?
I thought not, but could be mistaken. It was my understanding that the
CWtAF was more far reaching than simply equity in education, however
I must admit that I haven't yet read it in its entirety.

| <<< Note 430.137 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>


| >    I cannot stomach dishonesty from anyone,

| Such as calling a mistake or a difference of opinion a lie?



	Joe... I am surprised that you would refer to your tactics like this.
I'm glad that you're at least acknowledging one of your faults though.


Glen

| <<< Note 430.140 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>


| I disagree.


	Such depth.....

| <<< Note 430.150 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>


| >    Your usual deluge of replies is having its usual soporific effect.

| And you wonder why people say your are bitter and bitchy in soapbox...  

	Too funny Joe. You tell her to go back to sleep and when she responds
to it, you come up with this crap???

| <<< Note 430.151 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

| 1.  What are you all so very much afraid of for letting a Christian be
| a Christian in their educational system?

	I have no problems with Christians being Christians in their
educational system. Sunday schools, Catholic schools, etc, are built on that
foundation. Just keep it out of public schools when we are dealing with far
more religions than just Christianity, or to take it a step further, your
version of Christianity. Too many versions, too many religions to bring it into
public schools.

| 2.  Why can't Christians use the same logic as homosexuals?  After all
| we are now an OPPRESSED group of people by our government.

	Gee, for the most part I don't see the government oppressing us. I see
people do that, and they may form groups that lobby the government, but I see
more and more that government is actuall doing things rather nicely. Maybe not
perfect, but I don't think anyone in governemnt can do everything perfect. Too
many people to please to have it right. 

	But I would chalk more of it up to the people NOT in office for the
most part, than people in office.

	Also, how many times have you heard of homosexuals oppressing others?
How many times have you heard of Christians doing that? <and I am not saying
all Christians oppress>
Glen

| <<< Note 430.155 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>


| see 425.116

	I read that. Very interesting. Thanks for the pointer Joe. 

	When I read that I thought of one thing. They want the world to revolve
around them. This is fine, I guess, but it has to be in their little world, not
the earths. They totally forget that there are people from other religions,
people that don't identify with any religions, who send their kids to school.
To have these people be subjected to this in public school is not a good idea.
There are churches for that. There are religion based schools for that. There
is home schooling for that. 

	Another thing about the poll which struck me was it never went into
detail about anything. It just stated that 78% of the people.... where were the
people located that they polled? What Religion were the people polled?? How many
athiests were polled?? In other words, what was the breakdown for every religion
and athiests? I could easily do a poll asking if people think gays should be in
the military. But if I ask mostly gay people, the numbers will come out to
favor that. Statistics can give you any type of numbers you want if you
manipulate the data, or choose carefully where you will get the data from. The
data that was listed is really bogus until we have the parameters that were
used.


Glen

        <<< Note 430.156 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>The fact that the CLA is defending
>these cases successfully without any amendment seems to indicate that no
>amendment is needed in order to ensure the rights of those affected
    
    	They shouldn't even have to be defending these cases.  People
    	and organizations should not have to be paying to successfully
    	defent these cases.
    
    	I agree with you that amendments and legislations will not
    	make the oppression stop.  (And I'm glad to see that you
    	consider it oppression.)  But legislation can allow these
    	cases to be thrown out long before the defense of them cause
    	unnecessary legal cost burdens, if nothing else.

    	re .157
    
    	My mistake.  I was not paying attention and assumed that .0
    	and CWtAF were one and the same.
    
    	I'll go back to sleep now.

    re .158-.160
    
    	Be gone, stalker-demon.

        <<< Note 430.155 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>

>    	I'm assuming that you forgot your smiley there.  Otherwise you
>    	are admitting that you are not willing to think for yourself.

	Well, maybe half in jest. As for the other half, "The enemy of
	my enemy is my friend".

Jim

        <<< Note 430.155 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>

>>	Your turn now. Enter the actual text of the proposed amendment so
>>	that we can better decide what we think about it.

>	see 425.116
 
	THere is a fair amount of rhetoric there, but I'm looking for
	the ACTUAL text of the proposed amendment, not the sales pitch.

Jim   

        <<< Note 430.163 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>

>    	They shouldn't even have to be defending these cases.  People
>    	and organizations should not have to be paying to successfully
>    	defent these cases.
 
	THe very same could be said about other groups or individuals
	that must pay to defnd their Constitutional rights. But that's 
	the system we are stuck with. If you or I believe a law or policy
	infringes on our rights, the we go to court and ask the judge
	for an opinion. If we don't like his opinion we appeal. The
	Supreme Court's sole purpose in government is to be the final
	arbiter of such disputes.

Jim

    Re: .150
    
    >So someone points out that you are arguing with points that only you 
    >are making up
    
    No, I'm _quite_ sure that is not what you said.
    
    >what specifically was said about Buddhism?
    
    This is what you've said:
    
    |Perhaps, and perhaps not.  I truly doubt that there is no
    |anti-Buddhist concept or item though that would be taken as seriously
    |offensive in a Buddhist society.
    
    >So far my position has not been disproven by bringing up Buddhism.
    
    Only because you have chosen to believe that it cannot be.

           <<< Note 430.169 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>

>    >So far my position has not been disproven by bringing up Buddhism.
>    
>    Only because you have chosen to believe that it cannot be.
    
    	Not true.  I believe that it *can* be disproven.  I know that
    	so far it has not.

    	re .166
    
    	You should ditch your anger.  It clouds your thinking.  I find
    	it sad that you have to see me as your enemy for my opinions.

    <<< Note 430.168 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	THe very same could be said about other groups or individuals
>	that must pay to defnd their Constitutional rights. But that's 
>	the system we are stuck with. 
    
    	A clearly-stated law or amendment  reduces the need for the
    	need for that defense.  We shouldn't have to settle for being
    	"stuck with" something as important as our justice system.
    	But, alas, we are.
    
>	If you or I believe a law or policy
>	infringes on our rights, the we go to court and ask the judge
>	for an opinion. 
    
    	The problem here is that there isn't a clear law, but getting
    	one could greatly reduce the need for having to repeatedly
    	go to the courts for opinions.
    
    	And you know as well as I that relying on "judicial opinion"
    	is wishy-washy at best, for one judge will render one opinion
    	and another is apt to give the opposite.  We shouldn't have
    	to be taking all these things to the supreme court all the 
    	time.  A clear law will help avoid that.

        <<< Note 430.172 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>

>    	A clearly-stated law or amendment  reduces the need for the
>    	need for that defense.

	Not in all cases, in fact not in very many. I refer you to Colorado's
	A2 as a perfect example.

>  We shouldn't have to settle for being
>    	"stuck with" something as important as our justice system.

	I can't think of a workable alternative. Can you?

>    	The problem here is that there isn't a clear law, but getting
>    	one could greatly reduce the need for having to repeatedly
>    	go to the courts for opinions.
 
	AS I've noted, let's see the actual text of this proposal
	so we can make an informed choice.

>    	And you know as well as I that relying on "judicial opinion"
>    	is wishy-washy at best, for one judge will render one opinion
>    	and another is apt to give the opposite.  We shouldn't have
>    	to be taking all these things to the supreme court all the 
>    	time.  A clear law will help avoid that.

	Yes, as I noted you can appeal a decision you don't like.
	Ultimately the case can be reviewed by the Supreme Court.
	Once they decide you have your answer.

Jim

  The most recent "Focus on the Family" Newsletter, which I received
  this week contains the text of the proposed Constitutional Amendment.
  I don't have the time to enter the full text, and James Dobson states
  that it is still being "tweaked", but there is no mention of the
  Christian God, nor is there mention that the prayer must be generic
  to Christians, and as I read the newsletter, it is intended to be 
  inclusive of all religions, and favors a moment of silence.

  The letter also goes into the issue of the student barred from praying
  before lunch (identifies the student and school district by name) as
  well as other instances of banning Christians from Bible reading
  during free periods, a first grade boy who on the teacher's assignment
  to bring in their favorite book, brought the Bible and began to read
  aloud from Genesis (and was barred from doing so) as well as other 
  incidents.

  Interestingly, Dobson goes to great lenghts to recognize that the 
  times today, being diverse,  would prevent any attempts to focus
  any activity strictly around Christianity.  Perhaps if I have
  time later during the weekend I'll enter the text of the amendment.


  Jim

| <<< Note 430.165 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>

| re .158-.160

| Be gone, stalker-demon.


	Ok... I'm off to Deb's party then.... :-)

    
    	The Religious Equality Amendment (as proposed in the May 1995
    	Focus On The Family newsletter):

    	"Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the
    	United States of America in Congress assembled (two thirds of
    	the house concurring therein), that the following article is
    	proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United
    	States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as
    	part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of
    	three-fourths of the several States within seven years after
    	the date of its submission for ratification.

    	"In order to secure the unalienable right of the people to
    	acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience;

    	"SECTION I.  Neither the United States nor any State shall
    	abridge the freedom of any person or group, including students
    	in public schools, to engage in prayer or other religious
    	expression in circumstances in which expression of a non-
    	religious character would be permitted, nor deny benefits to
    	or otherwise discriminate against any person or group on
    	account of the religious character of their speech, ideas,
    	motivations, or identity.

    	"SECTION II.  Nothing in the Constitution shall be construed
    	to forbid the United States or any State to give public or
    	ceremonial acknowledgment to the religious heritage, beliefs,
    	or traditions of its people.

    	"SECTION III.  The exercise, by the people, of any freedoms
    	under the First Amendment shall not constitute an establishment
    	of religion."

    <<< Note 430.173 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>>    	A clearly-stated law or amendment  reduces the need for the
>>    	need for that defense.
>
>	Not in all cases, in fact not in very many. I refer you to Colorado's
>	A2 as a perfect example.

    
    	Less than perfect.  I don't consider A2 to be clearly-stated
    	at all, which is most of its problem.

>    	"In order to secure the unalienable right of the people to
>    	acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience;

Yuck!  That could include sacrifice if one wanted to interpet that way.
Definitely unsatisfactory.

>    	"SECTION I.  Neither the United States nor any State shall
>    	abridge the freedom of any person or group, including students
>    	in public schools, to engage in prayer or other religious
>    	expression in circumstances in which expression of a non-
>    	religious character would be permitted, nor deny benefits to
>    	or otherwise discriminate against any person or group on
>    	account of the religious character of their speech, ideas,
>    	motivations, or identity.

Drop "Neither"; "nor" to or"; "shall abridge .. any person" to
"shall not deny any person"; "other religious express" is way too
flexible -- it needs to be change.

My rewording:

The United States or any State shall not deny the right of any person
to engage in *individual* religious expression, such as prayer,
in circumstances in which expression of a non-religious character would
be permitted.

It explicitly does not acknowledge groups.  The constitution enumerates
individual rights; that should not be changed.

>    	"SECTION II.  Nothing in the Constitution shall be construed
>    	to forbid the United States or any State to give public or
>    	ceremonial acknowledgment to the religious heritage, beliefs,
>    	or traditions of its people.

Unacceptable.  The constitution serves to limit power by the state;
this section does just the opposite.  

| <<< Note 430.177 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>



| Less than perfect.  I don't consider A2 to be clearly-stated
| at all, which is most of its problem.


	Oh I think it was stated real clear Joe, which was why it was knocked
down. 

    	re .-1
    
    	I disagree.  As Jim said, it can (and will) get taken all the
    	way to the Supreme Court.  Until then it is not "knocked down".

	Would you be happier if I say it is knocked down..... AT LEAST for now,
if not forever?

    >| >    I cannot stomach dishonesty from anyone,
    
    >| Such as calling a mistake or a difference of opinion a lie?
    
    I could place this in "Pot and Kettle, Joe. But I'll restrain myself.
    
    RE: .176
    
    I find that it should be unnecessary to have an ammendment for this
    purpose. A student should be able to pray if he wants, have bible study
    during free time, bring his Bible to school and even use it as show and
    tell of his favorite book. But though I find the pursuit of an
    ammendent wasteful of time, money and effort, I have no problem with the 
    verbage.
    
    FWIW, IMO
    ...Tom
    .

    verbIage
    
    8^)

    Technically, there should be NO NEED for this amendment.  The first
    amendment already gives the freedoms mentioned in this amendment.  Of
    course, looking at what SCOTUS has done over the last 30 years or so,
    perhaps they should be reminded of this fact.
    
    It's a shame that we need a new amendment to allow religious freedoms
    that we are already guaranteed.  Shows something is very wrong with
    modern interpretation of the First.
    
    
    -steve

    
    After reading .116 and thinking a bit about it, I've come to the
    conclusion that this is, in fact, a very modest set of proposals
    considering the group promulgating it.  I think these people like
    Reid are compromising from the start, in an effort to garner votes.
    
    What that means is, they are not just posturing.  They think they
    can get some of this.
    
      bb

        <<< Note 430.176 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>

	Thanks Joe.
    
>    	"In order to secure the unalienable right of the people to
>    	acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience;

	Unneccessary. Covered quite well in the 1st.	

>    	"SECTION I.  Neither the United States nor any State shall
>    	abridge the freedom of any person or group, including students
>    	in public schools, to engage in prayer or other religious
>    	expression in circumstances in which expression of a non-
>   	religious character would be permitted,

	No real problem with this. Of course I could forsee a problem
	should a preacher want to give a sermon in the classroom.
	Can't happen you say? 30 kids listening to a lecture on
	math are being subjected to an "expression of a non-religious
	character" which is specifically "permitted" by the school
	administration.

> nor deny benefits to
>    	or otherwise discriminate against any person or group on
>   	account of the religious character of their speech, ideas,
>    	motivations, or identity.

	Use the school for a board meeting and you have to let
	others use it for a church. Not a good idea.

>    	"SECTION II.  Nothing in the Constitution shall be construed
>    	to forbid the United States or any State to give public or
>    	ceremonial acknowledgment to the religious heritage, beliefs,
>    	or traditions of its people.

	I guess this is the "Nativity Scene" clause. Sorry, I don't 
	think that the government has any business promoting any
	religious artifact.

>    	"SECTION III.  The exercise, by the people, of any freedoms
>    	under the First Amendment shall not constitute an establishment
>    	of religion."

	And if the people vote to establish Roman Catholicism as the
	official religion of the United States? Nope, this section
	id FAR too broad.

Jim

>                       a first grade boy who on the teacher's assignment
>  to bring in their favorite book, brought the Bible and began to read
>  aloud from Genesis (and was barred from doing so) as well as other 
>  incidents.

How would you feel about a student who brought in and read from a Satanic or
pornographic book?

>    	"SECTION II.  Nothing in the Constitution shall be construed
>    	to forbid the United States or any State to give public or
>    	ceremonial acknowledgment to the religious heritage, beliefs,
>    	or traditions of its people.

My major problems lie around this section. If we take it at face value,
it says that nobody ought to be taking issue with the nativity scene.
This is NOT all well and good on a number of points. Giving "public
or cermeonial acknowledgement" can easily mean programs which cost tax
dollars, and thus it grants favoritism regardless of words to the
contrary elsewhere. Additionally, unless the Fed and the States are
ready to take on an "equal opportunity" program to provide similar
public or ceremonial acknowledgement for all groups, they're in
for a world of trouble, even if people were foolish enough to pass
this.

    If the Christian Coalition wants a contract with America, then I want
    their tax dollars.  If they want to move into the steamy waters of
    political life then they will have to pay for the privilage just the
    same as everyone else.
    
    The Contract with America is nothing more than fascism and tyranny
    in a thin disguise, skulking behind the coat tails of God. 
    

    Hey, I kinda like this.  Sections I and III could both protect peyote
    ingestion and marijuana too, even in public, if it were part of one's
    religious tradition.
    
    DougO

    Re: 189
    
    I was wondering how long it would take for someone to enter the type of
    inaccuracy contained in this response.  the same people who are so up
    in arms about the possibility of God being discussed or supported in
    public are the first to throw their support behind all sorts of other
    activities that are "generally" denounced by the "majority" of people.
    
    Each and every radical fringe group that comes up with their own agenda
    gets support from the same type of people as 189, but boy, let the
    subject be God, religion or morals and watch the screaming.
    
    What I find most interesting is so many people like 189 demand that any
    references to God or Faith be kept out of school and be left up to the
    parents to teach this at home.  If parents don't teach it at home, then
    that is just fine.  When the topic turns to sex education; however,
    then it is the school's resposibility to teach this.  something as
    important as sex can't be left up to the parents to teach their
    children.  this is hypocracy at it's highest.
    
    Why is it OK to say teach morals, faith, religion, God at home, but
    truly personal behavior issues like sex must be taught in school as
    parents might not do it right, or at all.
    
    This is more pandering to the left-leaning, politically correct crowd. 
    If values, morals and God don't belong in a learning environment,
    neither does sex.
    

                      <<< Note 430.191 by POBOX::ROCUSH >>>

>    I was wondering how long it would take for someone to enter the type of
>    inaccuracy contained in this response.  the same people who are so up
>    in arms about the possibility of God being discussed or supported in
>    public are the first to throw their support behind all sorts of other
>    activities that are "generally" denounced by the "majority" of people.
 
	Aside from the slam contained in the second paragrapgh, there
	WAS a serious suggestion that if the Coalition wnats to Lobby
	they should give up their tax exempt status. You did not address
	this issue.

	I did not see anything that stated that discussion or support of God
	in public was a bad thing. 
   
>    What I find most interesting is so many people like 189 demand that any
>    references to God or Faith be kept out of school and be left up to the
>    parents to teach this at home. 

	More precisely, out of PUBLIC schools. Paraochial schools are
	able to discuss these subjects at will.

> If parents don't teach it at home, then
>    that is just fine.

	I would expect that most parents do as least make the attempt
	to teach morality at home.

>  When the topic turns to sex education; however,
>    then it is the school's resposibility to teach this.  something as
>    important as sex can't be left up to the parents to teach their
>    children.  this is hypocracy at it's highest.
 
	Sex education in the schools can come in many forms. Some I 
	agree with, some I don't. But I believe that a basic biology
	course will discuss sex in some form. And that any good Health
	class will discuss the public health aspects of sex as well.

Jim

    Everyone seems to be afraid of "exposing" their children
    to ideas and beliefs which are not taught in the home.
    Problem is, life is like that.  You cannot possible create
    a homogeneous public environment that reinforces every
    belief you hold.  If that were true, none of us would have
    ever heard our mothers say, "I don't care WHAT so-and-so's
    mother lets them do, your MY child and while you're in THIS 
    house...." :-).  All you can do is raise your child the best
    you are able, give them the beliefs you have, turn 'em loose
    and hope for the best.
    
    In all the years that the school day started with a paslm or
    a prayer, did you every think that Jewish children, Muslim
    children, Buddhist children, Catholic children (after all,
    many of those were Protestant prayers), went home and asked,
    "Why can't we pray as we like?  Are we less important because
    we have to say their prayers?"  Perhaps now, as you feel pressure
    from those who feel they have the right to insist on their
    prayers or to insist on no prayers in fairness to all, you 
    may understand how some people felt who said your prayers in
    that "idyllic" time, even though they weren't given the 
    opportunity to speak their mind.  Religions isn't "right"
    and "wrong".  It comes in as many varieties as it's believer's
    do, who came and still come to this country in search of
    a better life.  
    
    Mary-Michael
    
    

    Re: 192
    
    Unless I have  strange concept of what a Church's responsibility is, I
    can not see any reason to look to strip the tax exempt status of a
    chuch because it is using current technology and tactics.  The purpose
    of a chuch and most tax-exempt religions is to spread the word as best
    they can.  this obviously includes influcing opinions.  You seem to
    think that because they are actually trying to influence opinions that
    this is bad, and if you threaten to tax them for doing what they were tax 
    exempt for in the first place, you can shut them up.  I also didn't
    address this point initially since it has been addressed before.  Also
    it only gets raised as a straw man.
    
    Also, there is a significant difference between health education and
    teaching the dangers of STDs and sex education as it is taught in many
    schools.
    
    Re: 193
    
    I agree that some students in a school might be uncomfortable with a
    prayer not of their belief, I doubt that it would be many, if at all. 
    As an example, I have been at many events where an invocation was given
    by a priest, minister or rabbi.  Being Catholic didn't really make me
    feel that "I was not as good as anyone else."  this I believe is a
    false attept to raise an issue where none exists, but merely sounds
    good.
    
    If this is really a concern to you, then you would have no problem
    running a test for an extended period to find out if there is any
    validity to your argument.  why not implement the program and see how
    many children complain that their self-worth is being negatively
    impacted.  I doubt you would get a recordable percentage in an honest
    evaluation.
    

>    If values, morals and God don't belong in a learning environment,
>    neither does sex.


Of course, there is the point that a couple of kids totally ignorant of
anything having to do with sex are capable of doing a lot more "harm"
than a couple of kids who never heard of god and morals, but I suppose we
should ignore that.

The "facts" about sex are just that, facts.  They should be taught in
school because many parents either don't teach them or lie about them.
This leads to things like girls giving birth on their bathroom floor,
saying, "I didn't know I wuz pregnant!" and "but Jonie said it wuz
ok if I douched with coca-cola!"  Sex is biology.

The "facts" about religion are just the opposite.  They are 100%
unprovable opinion.  Individual religons may impose proscriptions on
sex.  That's fine.  They are private, spiritual beliefs.  They are your
own, not "everybodys."  Religion is individual.

That's why sex should be taught and religion not.

NNTTM.  Next?
\john

	I agree that Christians should stay out of the public schools.

	That's why we educate ours at home.

        We pay our taxes to the public-school leviathon.  If it continues
        along its current path, it will probably self-destruct anyway. We
        desire only to be left alone by it, and consider the exorbitant
        cost thereof as extortion well spent, as long as it continues to
        "allow" us to home school our children as the free exercise of our
        religion guaranteed by the 1st amendment.  

        Tony
	

    Re: .194
    
    > I agree that some students in a school might be uncomfortable with a
    > prayer not of their belief, I doubt that it would be many, if at all. 
    
    Amazing that you would contradict yourself, all within one sentence. 
    So what's your belief?  Some would, or none at all?  It looks as though
    you started writing one thought, and then convinced yourself of
    something else.
    
    -- Jim

    .191
    
    Hall of Fame note if I ever saw one!!! Yes!!! 
    
    Hypocrisy at its highest...

    Halelujah, Praise God!  Amen! Shout it out Hosannah!
    
    I praise God today for life, liberty and love.  And I'm most thankful
    for a group that has taken action to restore our freedom to express our
    faith in the public school system for my children.
    
    

    .197
    
    Tony,
    
    I hate to draw to your attention that your note is rather self
    centered, but it is...  what about me?  I don't have the ability to
    teach my children at home.
    
    Nancy

    
    Talk to Meowski....

    .191           
    
    Hog wash.  Total hog wash, every word.
    
    
    Discuss God all you want, but do it on your own time and at your
    own expense, not mine.  I am sick and tired of having Christian supremacy 
    shoved in my face.  "Blessed are the meek for they will inherit the 
    earth."  However, behind that meek facade are a lot of very controlling 
    and arrogant people who have the nerve to tell me how to live my life.
    They want to regulate the kind of health care available to me, dictate 
    how my children are educated, regardless of MY religion or beliefs, and 
    I am expected to pay their share of the tax load while they disenfranchise 
    my children and me.  
    
    The churces have escaped being taxed by hiding behind "Separation of 
    church and state" for decades, but this time they are crossing the line 
    themselves and must be prepared for traffic coming the other way. 
    
    And if you want to hear from a REAL majority, then listen to me.  I am
    one of the SILENT majority who is sick and tired of being beaten over
    the head with Christianity, and it's about time people like me stood
    up and shouted out against what the Christian Coalition is doing to
    America.  LEAVE OUR SCHOOLS ALONE.  Left to this new coalition, before 
    long Americans will be escaping to RUSSIA for the right to speak, read 
    and live their lives in freedom. 

                      <<< Note 430.194 by POBOX::ROCUSH >>>

>    Unless I have  strange concept of what a Church's responsibility is, I
>    can not see any reason to look to strip the tax exempt status of a
>    chuch because it is using current technology and tactics.  The purpose
>    of a chuch and most tax-exempt religions is to spread the word as best
>    they can.  this obviously includes influcing opinions.  You seem to
>    think that because they are actually trying to influence opinions that
>    this is bad, and if you threaten to tax them for doing what they were tax 
>    exempt for in the first place, you can shut them up.  I also didn't
>    address this point initially since it has been addressed before.  Also
>    it only gets raised as a straw man.
 
	Non-profit organizations that participate in political lobbying
	activities routinely lose their tax exempt status. On the advice 
	of our accountant, the gun club that I belong to is VERY careful
	about articles in our newsletter. Advocating a particular position
	on legislation would endanger our exempt status. The NRA has a
	seperate lobbying group, and donations to the ILA are NOT
	deductable.

	Why should a religious group be any different regarding the tax code?

>    Also, there is a significant difference between health education and
>    teaching the dangers of STDs and sex education as it is taught in many
>    schools.
 
	As I noted, there are sex education programs out there that I would
	not approve of. If my District were to implement such a course, I 
	would work to change it.

Jim

RE: <<< Note 430.202 by CALLME::MR_TOPAZ >>>

        I accept the hit for the misspelling of leviathan, the bogus
        antecedents and the run-on sentence.  Consider .197 as an example
        of the quality of the government education I got.  Maybe I'm just a
        victim of a school district that couldn't afford the best teachers. 
        I'm sure that Mr. Topaz never makes mistakes.  His school district
        must've had more money.  Perhaps he attended a private school.  

        In a recent study conducted by the Home School Legal Defense
        Association, home-schoolers consistently performed above the 80th
        percentile in reading comprehension, composition, mathematics, and
        history. This in spite of the following facts (forgive the sentence
        fregment).   Most of the parents of the home educated children in
        the study were products of the government schools.  Most of the
        mothers doing the teaching had little or no college education.
        Almost none of the teaching was done by certified teachers.

        The study found that the amount of money spent on an education is
        basically decoupled from its results.  The results were found to
        correspond more closely to the involvement of both parents in the
        education.

	Tony

    <<< Note 430.200 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>
                         -< Glory Halelujah Snarf!!! >-

>    I praise God today for life, liberty and love.  And I'm most thankful
>    for a group that has taken action to restore our freedom to express our
>    faith in the public school system for my children.

I'm glad *you* have faith in the public school system. Talk to the Doctah 
and Al, and tell them there's hope yet. :')    
    

re: .195


>Of course, there is the point that a couple of kids totally ignorant of
>anything having to do with sex are capable of doing a lot more "harm"
>than a couple of kids who never heard of god and morals, but I suppose we
>should ignore that.

    I disagree.  A lack of morals can lead not only to early pregnancy, but to
    all manner of "harm"- both for the child and others.  Why do you think
    the inner cities are so bad, why the crime rate of our youth is growing
    at 4x the rate of any other group (I think the age group is from 14-19,
    or thereabouts)?
    
    
    -steve 
                  

re: .196
    
>The "facts" about sex are just that, facts.  They should be taught in
>school because many parents either don't teach them or lie about them.
    
    You usurp parental authority of many due to an unprovable assumption.
    You teach your kids, and let others teach theirs.  It is not the
    state's job.
    
>This leads to things like girls giving birth on their bathroom floor,
>saying, "I didn't know I wuz pregnant!" and "but Jonie said it wuz
>ok if I douched with coca-cola!"  Sex is biology.

    This bit of emotionalism also doesn't wash.  It is the parent's job-
    pure and simple.  If they wish to have the schools teach their kids,
    then they should have that option, but make it a voluntary course.
    
>The "facts" about religion are just the opposite.  They are 100%
>unprovable opinion.  Individual religons may impose proscriptions on
>sex.  That's fine.  They are private, spiritual beliefs.  They are your
>own, not "everybodys."  Religion is individual.

    Yes, but moral behavior benefits all of society.  Kindness, love,
    generosity, self-restraint, responsibility- they all help in producing
    a good citizen.  You conveniently ignore this.
    
    And before you jump on me, I'm not suggesting that we put religious
    classes in any curriculum.  If a community wishes to do so, then let
    them have one, but make it elective.
    
>That's why sex should be taught and religion not.
    
    Not a very convincing argument, IMO.
    
    
    -steve

    re: .204
    
    Feel better now? 

    
    Being a fact is not a sufficient cause for inclusion in any
    curriculum.  Takes more than that.
    
      bb

    re: .194
    
    I don't equate prayers used at an "event" (which may or may not
    include members of an individual faith) to prayers said every school day.
    The consistency is what may reinforce the opinion over time. Children
    are in school for 12 very formative years.
    
    Mary-Michael

    >You usurp parental authority of many due to an unprovable assumption.
    
     The "parental authority" of which you speak is a primary cause of
    young girls getting pregnant. Obviously, they are not getting pregnant
    by themselves; many are being taken advantage of by older, less
    scrupulous boys. Lacking the knowledge about their biology, they end up
    with a little problem while the boy gets bragging rights.
    
     It is unquestionable that some parents are not teaching their children
    about their reproductive biology. This lack of responsibility poses a
    health and welfare issue, and as such creates a situation where the
    government exercises its authority in such matters by allowing for the
    facts to be presented in public schools.
    
    >It is not the state's job.
    
     It shouldn't have to be, but since a large number of parents have
    abdicated their responsibility the state has decided it's in the best
    interest of the general welfare of the people for it to step in.
    
    >>Sex is biology.
    
    >This bit of emotionalism also doesn't wash.
    
     Hmmm. You seem to be the one that's arguing based on emotion, as much
    as anyone else.
    
    >If they wish to have the schools teach their kids,
    >then they should have that option, but make it a voluntary course.
    
     That doesn't address the health and welfare issues. Nope. It's got to
    be de rigueur, thought I might be persuaded to offer the possibility of
    granting religious exemptions, provided the student can pass a
    rudimentary test of their biological knowledge.
    
     If you are so worked up about the school teaching about such things as
    contraception and abortion, then exercise your right as a parent to
    teach the moral component of sexuality and those things. Nobody can usurp
    your ability to teach your morals to your kids without your consent.
    
     I am unmoved by your argument that teaching reproductive biology is a
    parent's sole prevenance, particularly in light of the evidence that
    many parents are abdicating their responsibility in this regard.
    
     Emotionally: give me a friggin' break. They even taught this stuff in
    my catholic high school.

er: .209 (Steve)

>>The "facts" about sex are just that, facts.  They should be taught in
>>school because many parents either don't teach them or lie about them.
>    You usurp parental authority of many due to an unprovable assumption.
>    You teach your kids, and let others teach theirs.  It is not the
>    state's job.
So what are schools for?  Or are we usurping parental authority only
when sex is taught?  We teach about oxygen, Battle of Bull Run, and
cosines.  We also teach that when a male ejaculates into a female's
vagina, conception becomes possible.  How on EARTH can this usurp
anything?  Like I said, teaching your MORALS behind why sex is or isn't
allowed in your religion is fine.  On your own time.

Should we not teach nutrition, for fear of usurping Orthodox Jews?
Should we not teach about leather, for fear of usurping Hindus?

No.  We teach the facts.  Let the parents get involved and build the
framework.  "Sex is a biological function that God says you should
stay away from until you're married."  See how easy that was?  Fact
and religion, together.  No problem.  "There are things called condoms
that men can wear on their penis.  The Pope says you're not allowed to
wear one."  See?  It's simple.
    
Oh, and re: "unprovable assumption": You're in left field, Steve.  You
may believe that it's RIGHT not to teach anything, but at least call it
a spade, will ya?  

>>This leads to things like girls giving birth on their bathroom floor,
>>saying, "I didn't know I wuz pregnant!" and "but Jonie said it wuz
>>ok if I douched with coca-cola!"  Sex is biology.
>    This bit of emotionalism also doesn't wash.  It is the parent's job-
>    pure and simple.  If they wish to have the schools teach their kids,
>    then they should have that option, but make it a voluntary course.
I see.  This doesn't happen?  Or it's not important that it does?  Well,
you're wrong on both counts.  It DOES happen.  I've seen a whole family
in denial about the "condition" of a daughter.  First hand.  It's not
emotionalism, it's what happens when we leave the "teaching" of human
biology up to many parents who don't know better.  Is the goal to allow
as much breeding as possible among the non-believers, so they can be used
as a bad example?  That's sure what it seems like.
    
>>The "facts" about religion are just the opposite.  They are 100%
>>unprovable opinion.  Individual religons may impose proscriptions on
>>sex.  That's fine.  They are private, spiritual beliefs.  They are your
>>own, not "everybodys."  Religion is individual.
>    Yes, but moral behavior benefits all of society.  Kindness, love,
>    generosity, self-restraint, responsibility- they all help in producing
>    a good citizen.  You conveniently ignore this.
So the moral Mormons and their polygamy benefits all of society.  Good
example!!  All of your examples can be taught without religion.  If you
want to give them a religious underpinning, teach your child that at home
or church.  And frankly, your insinuation that only religion will give us
these good citizens is a LARGE bit of emotionalism, and it's been refuted
several times.  That you don't care to listen doesn't make it any less
the case.
    
>    And before you jump on me, I'm not suggesting that we put religious
>    classes in any curriculum.  If a community wishes to do so, then let
>    them have one, but make it elective.
I fully agree.  If they decide to have an extra course after the normal
schoolday, paid for by the participants, I have no problem.    

>>That's why sex should be taught and religion not.
>    Not a very convincing argument, IMO.
That's because you don't agree.  Your arguments don't convince me, either.

\john

    Re: 213 & 214
    
    Thank you for your notes.  I don't hink I could have expressed it any
    better.
    
    The only point is, please change your claims of the state's
    responsiblity in sex education to values, morals, standards, etc and
    you have very effectively made my argument for me.
    
    The exact same things that you claim make teaching sex so important are
    the exact same arguments for teaching morals, values, standards, etc. 
    If you can accomplish this clearly without any reference to a Faith
    life, then great.  Let's get to it.  So far I have not seen nor heard
    of one such required course in any school.
    
    Your fear and denial of religion show through too clearly.  Substitute
    morals, values in your arguments and see what you find.
    

re: .208, Steve

>    I disagree.  A lack of morals can lead not only to early pregnancy, but to
>    all manner of "harm"- both for the child and others.

And a lack of knowledge about sex is even more "harmful", Steve, because that's
almost guaranteed to lead to pregnancy,  etc. At least with some basic
knowledge, one's in a position to make some independent decisions. Without
that knowledge there's no frame of reference in which to decide. Like I said,
rent a copy of "The Blue Lagoon". Two kids grow up without knowledge of
god, morals or sex, and guess what happens. Add education about sex and
you prevent some of the difficulties. Replace it with only education
about god and morals (with no mention of sex) and you accomplish nothing.
It's not all that difficult to comprehend. You want to claim that a discussion
of areas related to sex is part of the morality discussion, fine, but Al's
claim that you can just ignore it is, well, kinda ignorant.

     >I am sick and tired of having Christian
     >supremacy   shoved in my face.
    
    I've said for more than a year in this conference and others that this
    is the real reason for opposition... a person's own self image is
    affected by a Christian who stands for morality.
    
    I'm not saying this well... I only have 5 minutes before I must leave
    for a funeral.. so I'll try to do better.
    
    I believe that people who are non-Christian really believe that
    Christians think themselves BETTER than they are.  This is the
    fartherest thing from the truth for most Christians.  Most Christians
    struggle through their own human failings [as most of you have seen
    right here in this conference]... yet for some reason feelings like the
    above are brought forth when one is around a Christian.
    
    The Bible says that Christians should be the "light" of the world. 
    When one walks into a room that is dark, you cannot see the dust and
    dirt that has accumulated.  But when the light is turned on one can see
    the dust and the dirt.  Using this same analogy, I believe that a
    Christian who has recognized their own dirt and dust but have been
    washed clean by Christ, somehow create a light that shows deep into
    another person's soul.  This causes reactions of anger, rejection,
    bitterness, hypocrisy, self esteem issues "they think they're better
    than" comments... but it also can create reactions of curiousity,
    intrigue, and maybe even acknowledgement of God.
    
    We, Christians own the issue of being humble and exalting Christ not
    self.  But non-Christians own their issues around self esteem.
    
    Gotta run,
    Nancy

>rent a copy of "The Blue Lagoon". Two kids grow up without knowledge of
>god, morals or sex, and guess what happens.

The girl ends up looking like Brooke Shields.  Not a bad outcome.

    
    Considering all the bad press the Catholic churches have been getting
    these days with their hidden cases of abuse, would you want them in
    your kids school teaching?
    
    Talk about being hypocrites.  Someone ought to go in and teach them a
    few things.
    
    Mary
    

    	re .212
    
    	Mary-Michael -- the amendment that has been proposed is not
    	about PRAYER IN SCHOOL at all.  In fact, the people proposing
    	the amendment do not want organized, state-sponsored prayer
    	at all:
    
    	"How can we prescribe prayers for such a diverse population as will
    	be represented in our public schools?"

    Re:  213, 214 & 204
    
    Gaskell, Levesque & Harney; thank you!!  I couldn't have put it better
    so I won't try.  Hopefully, there are enough of us out here who are
    are in agreement and will work diligently to see that one group's 
    idea of what is "right" for everyone will not again be foisted on 
    our public schools.
    
    

    re: .213
    
>     The "parental authority" of which you speak is a primary cause of
>    young girls getting pregnant. Obviously, they are not getting pregnant
>    by themselves; many are being taken advantage of by older, less
>    scrupulous boys. 
    
    Of course, it could never be that they actually *were* taught the
    basics and then decided to have sex anyway (same for the boys).  
    
    You also ignore the reprehensible record of current status-quo sex
    education.  Teen sex/pregnancies keep going up, despite government
    intervention.
    
>    Lacking the knowledge about their biology, they end up
>    with a little problem while the boy gets bragging rights.
 
    You assume that only those who are ignorant are the ones who get
    pregnant.  I disagree wholeheartedly.  In fact, I'd be willing to bet
    that the few who were never taught (which means they had to somehow
    avoid sex ed in school curriculum, too) are a very small portion of the
    teens who become pregnant.
       
>     It is unquestionable that some parents are not teaching their children
>    about their reproductive biology. 
    
    I have no argument with this.
    
>    This lack of responsibility poses a
>    health and welfare issue, and as such creates a situation where the
>    government exercises its authority in such matters by allowing for the
>    facts to be presented in public schools.
 
    "Allowing" is okay.  I've never said don't allow it.  Forcing it into
    the curriculum is what I object to.  Many parents are quite responsible
    in this, and do not need the state contradicting or confusing their
    message.
         
|    >>Sex is biology.
|    
|    >This bit of emotionalism also doesn't wash.
|    
|     Hmmm. You seem to be the one that's arguing based on emotion, as much
|    as anyone else.
 
    This is an utter misrepresentation of what I posted.  I'm surprised
    that you would resort to this.
       
>    >If they wish to have the schools teach their kids,
>    >then they should have that option, but make it a voluntary course.
    
>     That doesn't address the health and welfare issues. Nope. It's got to
>    be de rigueur, thought I might be persuaded to offer the possibility of
>    granting religious exemptions, provided the student can pass a
>    rudimentary test of their biological knowledge.
 
    Why should you need a religious exemption?  What about atheists who see
    what a miserable failure these government run programs are?  What about
    their rights to teach their kids about sex in the way they deem fit?
    
    No, on this particular, I adamantly disagree with you.  Sex education
    should be an elective.  Most parents who do not wish to teach their
    kids (or abdicate this responsibility) will not mind if the government
    then steps in and gives a helping hand.
    
    Please note that I am not talking about basic biology here.  I'm more
    concerned with the promotion of the condom message, and the like.
       
>     If you are so worked up about the school teaching about such things as
>    contraception and abortion, then exercise your right as a parent to
>    teach the moral component of sexuality and those things. Nobody can usurp
>    your ability to teach your morals to your kids without your consent.
 
    That's easily said, but it's not reality.  Kids are geared towards
    experimentation, towards following their desires.  Contradictory
    messages from an authority figure can very well damage the morality of
    what you wish to instill in your kids.  The amoral message may very
    well be a hinderance to your child, more than a help in abstaining from
    such behavior. 
    
    Look at the statistics.  Sex education (as currently defined) simply 
    isn't the cure you are looking for.
       
>     I am unmoved by your argument that teaching reproductive biology is a
>    parent's sole prevenance, particularly in light of the evidence that
>    many parents are abdicating their responsibility in this regard.
 
    That's because you assumed it was the basic biology that I was talking
    about.  It was not.
       
    
    -steve                

    re: usurping parental authority and parental functions
    
    See the last couple of paragraphs of my reply in .44, and let me add:
    
    In one town with which I'm familiar, the school system apparently
    decided that the parents of fourth-grade girls had not exercised
    the proper parental responsibilities, because the parents had not
    yet exposed their daughters to photographs of male genitalia.
    
    Of course, since this could lead to social problems, the school felt
    not only justified but obligated to take control in this important
    area, and showed the girls a "nature film" depicting several
    full-frontal male nudes.  One is left to wonder what some 9-year-old
    girls thought of this, not to mention their parents.
    
    Let's take back control here.  These are *our* kids, not the
    government's.  If *some* parents are neglecting their responsibilities
    in some areas, that does NOT give the schools and government the
    right to take MY parental functions away from me.  This is not
    even a debatable issue, as far as I'm concerned.  I did not hand
    my kids over to the government to serve as a captive audience for
    any garbage they want to force-feed into the kids, whether it's
    religious, anti-religious, sexual, or you name it.  The government
    is hiding behind this nonsensical argument "their parents don't do
    their jobs, so we have to" as a catch-all excuse to dump all of
    their B.S. onto our kids.
    
    Chris

    re: .214
    
    You know very well that it is not the basic biology lesson that I am
    going on about.  Basic biology can be taught in biology class.
    
    What I object to is the "solution" message that conflicts with many
    parents' message.  
    
    -steve

    re: .223
    
    {applause}
    
    Good note.  I was going to hit on this aspect in more depth, but you
    did a much better job of it than I would have.  Thanks for saving me
    the keystrokes.  8^)
    
    -steve

 re .223



 standing ovation!

re: .224 (Steve)

I know no such thing.  You're rather famous for your broad-brush
statements and redefinition of words.

We already see you have one thing in mind when you hear "sex
education," and that's "everything about sex that goes against
what I believe."

Not too impressive a standard, I must say.

\joh

    Some personal opinions -- 
    
    On the base note:  schools do not have the right to send their students
    home or punish them in any other way for the wearing of religiously
    oriented clothing, reading of the bible, etc.  This is strictly
    discriminatory, if you ask me.  Shall they send my little boy home for
    wearing his "Oy to the World" button in December?  Shall I risk
    explusion if I buy him a mezzuzah or Star of David necklace?  I do
    think that our school authorities are on something of a power trip or
    are totally sunk into fear-of-gang or something.  Last Wednesday, a young
    lady (13 yrs., I think) was sent home from an Irvine CA middle school
    for the horrifying offense of dying her naturally-blond hair a rather
    bright shade of reddish-pink.  The principal told her to either get
    the color out by Monday or find herself a new school.  The Irvine
    Unified School District dress code states that students must dress to
    attend school or school functions in a neat, clean manner that is
    neither physically unsafe nor dangerously distracting.  I don't find
    religious quotation T-shirts or this young lady's magenta hair to 
    be any more distracting than the Skinheads with their tattoos, or 
    the young people whose clothing is so baggy as to reveal the brand 
    name of their underpants.  If Ms. Magenta-Hair and Mr.
    Religious-Beliefs are expelled, suspended or otherwise punished, then so,
    too, should be those who freely their Fruit of the Looms or wear 
    their opinions on their scalp in place of hair.
    
    On the rat-hole about sex ed in schools:  as a parent, I believe in the
    teaching of the biology of sex, the reproductive system, etc., and in
    the teaching of the possible *physical* results of indiscriminate
    and/or unprotected sex (pregnancy, AIDS, etc.) in the schools, along
    with the methods of preventing such problems (abstinence, condom use,
    etc.).  Our children often look upon us as hopelessly out-of-touch,
    incredibly un-cool beings.  Sex ed coming from a parent can be (a)
    uncomfortable for both parties to discuss and (b) ignored as easily as
    a parent's feelings about curfew, music, clothings styles, etc.  As a
    scientific subject taught in school, it *may* hold a little more weight
    and it will probably be less embarassing.  I see my job, as a parent,
    to be that of taking the factual information supplied by the schools
    and showing them to provide the child with a foundational morality. 
    Doing this with the sexual education info from school is no different
    to me than talking to my child about the historical information he
    learns at school and finding the foundational morality within it.
    
    On the rat-hole about religion in schools:  I do *not* support school
    prayer or any other form of religion-based teachings in public school. 
    A big part of this may result from my Judaism, of course.  Since my
    beliefs are rather radically different than the "majority" (Christian
    religions), I would not be pleased to have Christianity taught in my
    son's school.  Morality, yes; religion, no!  However, at least in the
    primary level where my son currently sits (1st/2nd grade), they *do*
    teach morality.  They teach it in the guises of social responsibility
    to one's family, friends, and peers, and as part of the whole Social
    Studies unit.  But my son's school bases all of its teaching methods
    around the beliefs of an author whose name I can't recall; he wrote a
    book about education called "Building Capable People".  His methods are
    designed to foster independence and confidence in children, while
    supporting basic morality (right/wrong, etc.).
    
    All IMHO, of course...
    
    M.

	FWIW, I don't believe we need to legislate prayer in the
	public schools.  I believe all students should be free to
	pray whenever and wherever they like, but I do not wish to
	force it upon anyone.  

	There will always be prayer in schools anyway.  Usually,
	the level increases just before midterms!

	Karen

Whenever and wherever they like?  "Johnny, come to the front of the room
and read your report to the class."  "I can't teacher, I'm praying."

    <<< Note 430.217 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

>    I've said for more than a year in this conference and others that this
>    is the real reason for opposition... a person's own self image is
>    affected by a Christian who stands for morality.
 
	I think this is a bit simplistic. More properly, the problem
	(speaking for myself) is when Christians (rarely, if ever,
	other religious persons) make the assumption that religion
	and morality are inseperable. I am completely areligious, but
	it does not follow that I am amoral. Others may feel the same
	way, but personally I find it very offensive that because my
	moral code does not agree that of the Christian community
	I am labeled (not self described as you allude) as inferior.
	And when that accusation is made, you WILL have a fight on 
	your hands. Not becuase of any lack of self worth on my part
	but in simple reaction to your air of superiority.

Jim

    
    Could someone explain to me how societal standards are degraded if a
    9-year-old girl knows what an adult male human looks like with no
    clothes on?  Why is this more disturbing than exposing a 9-year-old to
    an adult male literally nailed to a piece of wood, with a grimace on his 
    face and blood flowing freely from his wounds?
    
    Lisa

    
    .232:
    
    That's easy...the less knowledgeable she is, the more easily she will
    be swayed by specious argument.
    

    nancy,
    
    A better question would be to ask why satanists find it necessary to
    use pagan symbols?  You could ask one or better, yet ask one of yours. 
    After all it is your dieties the satanists use, not mine.
    
    the  pentagram symbolizes earth, air, fire, water and heart, or soul. 
    enclosed in the circle that never ends for oneness.  
    
    The sigil is symbolic of both the vulva and of the fact that the world
    never ends, but renews herself again and again.  
    
    So do you have an answer for me?
    
    Joe,
    
    The navajo don't have evil people, only the evil of materialism, which
    can pull some people out of harmony with the world.  They have
    ceremonies to reinstate a person into harmony when they fall out, as
    disharmony also causes disease, not hell.  Hell is a foreign concept.  
    
    You find buddism obscure?  it is only in the top 5 religions in the
    world.  How about shintoism, daoism, for a few more?  On top of it some
    here claim humanism is a religion.  Most humanist I know don't believe
    in a demon-being either.  
    
    meg

Isn't the Christmas tree a pagan symbol?

    RE. .217
    
    <<The Bible says that Christians should be the "light" of the world.
    When one walks into a room that is dark, you cannot see the dust
    and dirt that has accumulated.  But when the light is turned on one can
    see the dust and the dirt. >>
    
    
    So that's how Jimmy Baker and a third of the Catholic Clergy were able
    to get away with all the sleezy things they have done over the years.
    I guess they must have been a power cut or two.
    
    Your words are a far better example of the pretentiousness of Christians
    than any I could give. Nevertheless, be my guest, shine on sister, but
    do your shining in your own back yard, and don't expect me to pay your
    utility bill. 
    
    I was lucky, my child was educated in England.  When we came to
    this country, she was reading three years ahead and had math skills two
    years ahead of her American peers.   She gained all that in a two roomed 
    Welsh school house with two classes in each room and lessons were taught 
    in two languages simultaneously.  Not one of those lessons was
    Religion.  Today, she is clean, sober and never been pregnant, has a
    Masters Degree, and works 18 hours a day in her own business.  She is
    neither Christain or any other religion, just a very good person. 
    (Oops, sorry folks I guess my ego is showing.)
    
    We only have so much money we can afford to spend on education,
    and there are only so many rest room attendents and supermarket baggers 
    this country can support.  I want my tax money spent on the best 
    quality education it can buy.  We can't afford to get side tracked
    on things like classes to teach Christianity.  After all, wasn't that 
    what Sunday School was all about?
    
                                                   

    re: .227
    
    Then you weren't paying attention the last time this subject was
    rehashed in the box.  
    
    Since you have resorted to ad-hominem attacks, I guess you are out of
    pertinent argument.  It's just as well, we didn't see eye to eye last
    time this subject came up, either. 
    
    
    -steve     

>    So that's how Jimmy Baker and a third of the Catholic Clergy were able
>    to get away with all the sleezy things they have done over the years.
>    I guess they must have been a power cut or two.

Jim Bakker.  NNTTM.

And what's this about a third of the Catholic clergy?    

And BTW, you misspelled "sleazy."

    re: .237
    
    How nice.
    
    So...
    
    Who is proposing religious classes be included into school curriculum?
    (hint: nobody)
    
    Guess your whole tirade kind of goes astray of the issue, eh?  
    Glad to hear your daughter is doing well, though.
    
    Now, if your intent was to insult Nancy, then you did okay (I rate it
    only FAIR, since it was unimaginative and too obvious).  If you were
    attempting also to domonize Christianity, then your grade falls to POOR
    (overused tactic of guilt by association, broad brushing, etc.).
     
    Keep trying, though, and you may well improve your grade.  I have a 
    feeling that this will be a popular sport (demonizing Christians, i.e.) 
    over the next few years.  
    
    
    -steve               

	Gerald,

	Feel free to read a "within reason" at the end of that
	sentence.  You have my permission.

	;-)

	Karen

    >Today, she is clean, sober and never been pregnant, has a Masters Degree, 
    >and works 18 hours a day in her own business.  She is
    >neither Christain or any other religion, just a very good person.
    
    Come on now, fess up. She must have been a closet christian as we all
    know that that is the only way she would turn out in such a state. :-)
    
    ...Tom

	I'm not a Christain, either.

Spray'N'Wash gets out those nasty Christains.

    
    "Christ meets 16 top US distributors"
    
    
    Front page of May 15 Digital Today.
    
    Is this a buy recommendation?

| <<< Note 430.217 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>


| I've said for more than a year in this conference and others that this
| is the real reason for opposition... a person's own self image is
| affected by a Christian who stands for morality.

	Nancy, your version of what morality MAY not equal reality, never mind
every other person who is Christian.

| I believe that people who are non-Christian really believe that Christians 
| think themselves BETTER than they are.  

	Many do think this, and I have heard it from many Christians. But like
you said, most do NOT believe this way. 

| yet for some reason feelings like the above are brought forth when one is 
| around a Christian.

	Nancy, I really think it's because your view of Christianity does not
match everyone elses. Yet you seem to put across a view like you have the
definitive way of morality. The only one who really could would be Him.

| The Bible says that Christians should be the "light" of the world.
| When one walks into a room that is dark, you cannot see the dust and
| dirt that has accumulated.  But when the light is turned on one can see
| the dust and the dirt.  Using this same analogy, I believe that a
| Christian who has recognized their own dirt and dust but have been
| washed clean by Christ, somehow create a light that shows deep into
| another person's soul.  This causes reactions of anger, rejection,
| bitterness, hypocrisy, self esteem issues "they think they're better
| than" comments... but it also can create reactions of curiousity,
| intrigue, and maybe even acknowledgement of God.

	Gee Nancy, you put a Christian as light, and anyone who you feel isn't
a Christian as dust and dirt. Why do you think people would think you view
yourself as being better than they are?

| We, Christians own the issue of being humble and exalting Christ not
| self.  But non-Christians own their issues around self esteem.

	This is actually funny. You go toating around you're light, the rest
dirt and dust, and say you're humble??? I don't think so..... of course you
have just put all of the other religions, and athiests, oh yeah, and those who
are Christians, but you don't perceive them to be, into the dirt catagory. How
nice.

| Gotta run,

	I'm sure you do.


Glen

ZZ    Yet you seem to put across a view like you have the
ZZ    definitive way of morality. The only one who really could would be Him.
    
    Lie.
    
    

>    Lie.

Godammit, Jack - if you christians can't even come to any total agreement
on what morality is or isn't how the hell do you tell Glen he's lying
when he says only Christ can define it?

    Glen knows what I'm talking about Jack.  Glen and I agree that God and
    God alone determines what is Godly and what is Holy.  The lie I mention
    to Glen isn't a lie from him, but that he's been lied to.
    
    Glen has had this preconceived idea from the start that God can only
    know what is moral.  But then he makes the premise that we as mortals
    can not know what this is.  I submit to you that this is a lie straight
    from the pit of hell itself.  We can know for sure what is moral and
    what isn't.  Yes, only God can determine what is moral.  I believe it
    can be revealed to us and Glen can approach me if there is a weak area
    in my life and tell me I shouldn't do whatever it is I do.  Likewise I
    can know what is right and wrong and remind him of the same.
    
    It's called moral relativism Jack.  It is a philosophy that is quickly
    bringing our country into the quagmire of perdition.  
    
    -Jack

    <<< Note 430.234 by CSC32::M_EVANS "proud counter-culture McGovernik" >>>

>    The navajo don't have evil people, only the evil of materialism, which
>    can pull some people out of harmony with the world.  
    
    	You missed what I said.  I have not limited my argument solely
    	to an evil being, but have included right from the start (see .71)
    	evil people, concepts, and items.
    
    	But your statement here is curious in its timing.  Yesterday I was 
    	at the Denver Museum, and in the gift shop was a whole wall of 
    	books on various cultures, current and historic.  One caught my 
    	eye -- the title was simply NAVAJO.  I took a peek under the chapter 
    	on spirituality.  I found that they also considered witches and
    	ghosts evil too.
    
    	You failed to answer the questions I posed to you in .136 about
    	the t-shirts.
    
>    You find buddism obscure?  
    
    	It is absurd that you should even say that.  Where did you
    	get that idea?

re: .249, Our Jack Martin

Oh, geeziz, Jack - perdition indeed.

    .248
    
    RECOGNIZABLE OBSCENITY ALERT!!! RECOGNIZABLE OBSCENITY ALERT!!!
    
    

    Glen,
    
    I normally ignore your notes because they are usually repetitive. 
    However, I must comment that you have taken a new course on reading
    comprehension have failed it miserably.
    
    Gee, how about you read the note in the context in which it was written
    and see if you can come to grips with its real intent.
    
    Thanks for reading my notes though!
    
    Nancy

    .237
    
    Tom,
    
    The dust and dirt in the room is equivalent to the sin in our lives. 
    There is nothing pretentious about admitting that I'm a sinner or that
    "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God."
    
    Amazing grace, how sweet the sound that saved a wretch like me.
    I once was lost but now am found, was blind but now I see.
    
    That is the only difference between those with faith and those without.  
    
    Somebody [maybe you] mentioned Bakker.  I have to be honest I don't
    watch Christian TV.  As a matter of fact, I'll go even further, I don't
    believe in Christian TV as a form of worship.  I think if a person is
    able we need to not neglect the gathering of believers in a local
    church.
    
    As far as I know, Swaggert and Bakker have paid for their sins in the
    view of millions of Americans...and will answer to God for the
    misleading of people.  The Bible says that to whom much is given, much
    is required and I believe they fall into this category.
    
    Nancy

    I changed the topic of the note, as I've discovered that CC are not the
    authors of this amendment.
    
    Nancy

| <<< Note 430.247 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

| ZZ    Yet you seem to put across a view like you have the
| ZZ    definitive way of morality. The only one who really could would be Him.

| Lie.


	said in my best ricky ricardo voice..... "SPLAIN!"

| <<< Note 430.249 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>



| The lie I mention to Glen isn't a lie from him, but that he's been lied to.

	This is a lie.

| Glen has had this preconceived idea from the start that God can only know what
| is moral.  

	Add on, "when dealing with absolutes" and you will be right. Say it as
you put it, you are wrong.

| But then he makes the premise that we as mortals can not know what this is.  

	Again, add, "when dealing with absolutes" and you have it right.
Otherwise you are wrong...again. 

	In other words, only God knows everything. The best we can do is
believe we are being like and following God. But with so many versions of
everything, it's understandable to say we can't be absolutely sure. Add in the
human factor, and it confirms it. Only God can see through all this without any
human interpretation. 

| I submit to you that this is a lie straight from the pit of hell itself.  

	Not true.

| We can know for sure what is moral and what isn't.  

	Then why can't Christians figure out one mode of morals, with
absolutely no differences? Reread what I wrote above.

| can be revealed to us and Glen can approach me if there is a weak area
| in my life and tell me I shouldn't do whatever it is I do.  Likewise I
| can know what is right and wrong and remind him of the same.

	You have read that to have a drink is ok, but to get drunk is wrong. So
you have a drink. Another Christian sees you having a drink, and perceives you
are sinning. It is just one drink, and it should be ok, but this Christian
believes you have sinned. This Christian tells you this. Do you agree with her
or do you inform her that the Bible says this about drinking. If she doesn't
change her views, do you live with the fact you have 2 versions of the same
pasage? Which one has the absolute version? I know both believe they have it,
but only one can be right, or both could be wrong. So by your own example, you
have been proven wrong.

| It's called moral relativism Jack.  It is a philosophy that is quickly
| bringing our country into the quagmire of perdition.

	And what do you call the non-absoluteness of the version listed above?
You know it happens.



Glen

| <<< Note 430.253 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>


| I normally ignore your notes because they are usually repetitive.

	Well, you people who perceive yourselves to be Christians are always
quoting the same stuff from the Bible..... what do you expect?

| However, I must comment that you have taken a new course on reading
| comprehension have failed it miserably.

	Well lets see, you view yourself as light, cuz you're a Christian, and
all non-Christians as dirt and dust. In other words, you're better than we are.
The ONLY light is with Him, not from a Christian, or any other human being.

| Gee, how about you read the note in the context in which it was written
| and see if you can come to grips with its real intent.

	I think I got the real intent Nancy.

| <<< Note 430.254 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>


| The dust and dirt in the room is equivalent to the sin in our lives.
| There is nothing pretentious about admitting that I'm a sinner or that
| "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God."

	Gee... you say this, but compared Christians to light, while all
non-Christians are dirt and dust. Does this mean anyone you perceive is not a
"real" Christian are the sinners?



Glen

                  <<< Note 430.258 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	Well lets see, you view yourself as light, cuz you're a Christian, and
>ll non-Christians as dirt and dust. In other words, you're better than we are.
    
    	First, she did not say that all non-Christians are the dirt and
    	dust.  She said that sins -- of Christians and non-Christians
    	alike -- are the dirt and dust.  You are getting angry over
    	something that isn't even there.
    
    	Secondly, I find your last line to be rather curious.  You seem
    	to be saying here that you (as part of 'we') are a non-Christian.

    What Joe said... sheesh!  Boy when you latch on even if you're wrong
    you'll hang on forever!!
    
    And secondly, don't you know you're scripture?  I NEVER referred to
    Christians as light, the Bible does.  And I was quoting that.  I'm
    surprised Glen, you tout yourself as a Christian who though doesn't
    believe in inerrancy values the Bible.  
    
    Check out the Gospels.. you'll find where Christ calls the believers
    the light of the world.
    
    Nancy

    so! who are the heavies???    8^)

    re. 240
    
    <<And BTW, you misspelled "sleazy>>
    
        How nice of you to notice.  How observent of you to pick out
        one word.  If you read my other notes I am sure you will find
        many more mistakes--some of them genuineeee and some of them
        because some Engilsh words are speeeltt diffrent.
    
        I am willing to stand corrected on the Catholic clergy, I thought
        it was only a third of them who were breaking their vows of
        celibacy by molesting children, but it could be half for all I know.  
        And before you ask, I got my figures from an article in one of the 
        news magazines.
    
        There is enough dirt amoung all those gleaming candles to make the
        rest of the unchristian world look really good.  And no, I don't expect
        christians to be perfect, I would settle for half as good as they
        think they are.  I only want them to stay out of my life and go 
        practice their religion in peace in their own place, not mine.
    
             

>        I am willing to stand corrected on the Catholic clergy, I thought
>        it was only a third of them who were breaking their vows of
>        celibacy by molesting children, but it could be half for all I know.  
>        And before you ask, I got my figures from an article in one of the 
>        news magazines.

What news magazine -- title, date, and page, please.

I believe that you are making this up.  The figures I have heard put the
numbers much lower -- at most 2-3%, and lower than in the general population.
It makes big news because it's much more shocking for someone in the clergy.

A child is much more likely to be molested by his or her own parents than by
a member of the Catholic clergy.

/john

Buddism -- isn't that the worship of nascent flowers?

| <<< Note 430.260 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>

| >	Well lets see, you view yourself as light, cuz you're a Christian, and
| >ll non-Christians as dirt and dust. In other words, you're better than we are.

| First, she did not say that all non-Christians are the dirt and
| dust.  She said that sins -- of Christians and non-Christians
| alike -- are the dirt and dust.  You are getting angry over
| something that isn't even there.

	No, cuz later she used that as a reason why people get sick of hearing
Christians talk. And she did refer to Christians as being light.

| Secondly, I find your last line to be rather curious.  You seem
| to be saying here that you (as part of 'we') are a non-Christian.

	I am not viewed as a Christian in Nancy's eyes. The note was to her, so
that's why I wrote what I did.


Glen

| <<< Note 430.261 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>


| And secondly, don't you know you're scripture?  I NEVER referred to
| Christians as light, the Bible does.  

	Hide behind a mere book. How nice. How can Christians AND God be the
light? Only one is perfect. Only one can be the light.

| I'm surprised Glen, you tout yourself as a Christian who though doesn't
| believe in inerrancy values the Bible.

	And this has to do with this..... how

| Check out the Gospels.. you'll find where Christ calls the believers
| the light of the world.

	Believers.... that would include all who believed, or all who you feel
believe Nancy?


Glen

Buddism...worship of that Melville character, Billy.

    No.  But the T does - except that they tow then with F7s.

Only if they're canned.

    
    re. 265   Yeah, the 2-3% are those cases reported. How many go
    	      unreported?
    
    

    It's probably impossible to get reliable data on rates of pedophilic
    behavior among Catholic clergy, for the simple reason that the
    bureaucracy of the Church has been highly effective at hiding and
    covering this sort of behavior.  
    
    
    

    easy target

    Going from 2-3% of reported cases to labelling half, or even a third,
    as child molesters, is quite a numerical leap of logic.    
    
    Why do folks feel the need for such a generic defamation of character
    on the clergy, in light of only a very small % of bad apples?
    
    
    -steve

      Hi,
    
        I'm gonna side with Glen on one thing and I think it is very
        important.
    
        Anything a Christian does that is of benefit to another has to
        have been borne from the grace of God working through a person.
        We can't do anything of ourselves.
    
        Sure we're called the light of the world, but we are really
        channels whose faith permits God to pore His light through us.
    
        To suggest that we have light of our own is to imply that we
        inherently have righteousness.
    
        Its all from God - from first to last.
    
    							Tony

    re: .275
    
    To the tune of 30-48%?  I don't think so.

                    <<< Note 430.278 by LUDWIG::BARBIERI >>>
    
>        Sure we're called the light of the world, but we are really
>        channels whose faith permits God to pour His light through us.
    
    	I'm not sure that anyone has tried to claim anything but this.
    	At least as far as my understanding of the discussion, this
    	was the meaning.

    Re .265:
    
    > A child is much more likely to be molested by his or her own parents
    > than by a member of the Catholic clergy.
    
    That's more because there are far more parents than clergy than because
    the clergy are less dangerous than parents.  It's an improper
    comparison because it does not portray the relative dangers of parents
    versus clergy, like the statistic that most accidents happen near home. 
    You won't decrease your accident rate by leaving home, and you won't
    decrease molestations much (if any) by trusting children to clergy.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

      <<< Note 430.281 by RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." >>>

>    That's more because there are far more parents than clergy than because
>    the clergy are less dangerous than parents.  It's an improper
>    comparison because it does not portray the relative dangers of parents
>    versus clergy, like the statistic that most accidents happen near home. 
>    You won't decrease your accident rate by leaving home, and you won't
>    decrease molestations much (if any) by trusting children to clergy.

Wrong.

If the statistic quoted were: n% of children are molested by their parents, 
versus (n-x)% by clergy, of course you'd be right. But that's not what John 
said - or implied (if I understood him). His statistical comparison was:
n% of parents are guilty of molesting their children, versus (n-x)% of 
clergy.

re: .278, Tony

>        Anything a Christian does that is of benefit to another has to
>        have been borne from the grace of God working through a person.
>        We can't do anything of ourselves.

Then how do you explain things done to benefit another by those who haven't
any god? Surely you're not going to force redemption on me again. Not
twice within but a week, pullleeeease.

    Re .282:
    
    .282> His statistical comparison was: n% of parents are guilty of
    .282> molesting their children, versus (n-x)% of  clergy.
    
    .265> A child is much more likely to be molested by his or her own
    .265> parents than by a member of the Catholic clergy.
    
    Example for the logic-challenged:
    
    	2% of parents molest their children.
    	3% of clergy molest children.
    	There are 1000 parents.
    	There are 100 clergy.
    	Each parent has one child.
    
    	2% of 1000 parents is 20.
    	20 of 1000 children are molested by their parents.
    	A child's chance of being molested by their parents is 2%.
    
    	3% of 100 clergy is 3.
    	3 of 1000 children are molested by clergy.
    	A child's chance of being molested by clergy is .3%.
    
    This hypothetical example is consistent with John's statement:  "A
    child is much more likely to be molested by his or her own parents than
    by a member of the Catholic clergy."  The former chance is 2%; the
    latter chance is .3%.  The former is much more likely than the latter.
    
    This hypothetical example does not meet your representation of John's
    comparison:  "His statistical comparison was:  n% of parents are guilty
    of molesting their children, versus (n-x)% of clergy."  There is no
    positive number x for which n% is the 2% of parents and (n-x)% is the
    3% of clergy.
    
    Therefore your representation of John's comparison is incorrect.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
                      

>                                                   But that's not what John 
>said - or implied (if I understood him). His statistical comparison was:
>n% of parents are guilty of molesting their children, versus (n-x)% of 
>clergy.

Here's what he said:

>                                        The figures I have heard put the
>numbers much lower -- at most 2-3%, and lower than in the general population.
>It makes big news because it's much more shocking for someone in the clergy.
>
>A child is much more likely to be molested by his or her own parents than by
>a member of the Catholic clergy.

The first sentence compares clergy to the general population, not to parents.
The last sentence can be countered by edp's argument that a child has more
contact with his parents than with clergy.

        <<< Note 430.283 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>>        Anything a Christian does that is of benefit to another ...
>
>Then how do you explain things done to benefit another by those who haven't
>any god? 

	He wasn't trying to explain things done by those without a
    	god.  He was speaking specifically of Christians.

    Re .285:
    
    > The last sentence can be countered by edp's argument that a child has
    > more contact with his parents than with clergy.
    
    I wrote nothing regarding amount of contact.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    	But it's a worthy argument, so you may as well accept credit!

OK, so it wasn't edp's argument.  I claim it as my original copyrighted
argument.  Infringers will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

re: .286, Joe

>	He wasn't trying to explain things done by those without a
>    	god.  He was speaking specifically of Christians.

So, any good done by a christian is done by god through them but any good
done by those without a god is differently motivated? Is it not possible
that some of the good done by christians is also differently motivated,
just like other human beings?

    	If your questions indicate conclusions you've drawn, they
    	are of your own making.
    
    	Personally I can only say, "Who knows how God works?"  I'd 
    	like to believe that good done by those who don't believe
    	in God is still done by God working through them.  I guess
    	that makes us all either pawns or instruments depending on how 
    	we individually choose to see it.  I prefer considering myself 
    	an instrument, not a pawn.
    
    	You are free to draw your own conclusions.

>is porking your neighbor's wife borne from God working
       through a person?

I think you're forgetting the guy with the horns...
(not to be confused with the horney guy)

      <<< Note 430.284 by RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." >>>


>    Example for the logic-challenged:

Coming from the reading-comprehension challenged.

    
>    This hypothetical example is consistent with John's statement:  "A
>    child is much more likely to be molested by his or her own parents than
>    by a member of the Catholic clergy."  The former chance is 2%; the
>    latter chance is .3%.  The former is much more likely than the latter.
>    
>    This hypothetical example does not meet your representation of John's
>    comparison:  "His statistical comparison was:  n% of parents are guilty
>    of molesting their children, versus (n-x)% of clergy."  There is no
>    positive number x for which n% is the 2% of parents and (n-x)% is the
>    3% of clergy.
>
>    Therefore your representation of John's comparison is incorrect.

Wrong again.

You've gone to great lengths to explain why a statistic based on percentage 
of children molested by either parents or clergy would be prejudicial and 
innaccurate as to the relative evils of parents and clergy. Only in 
reverse. And just like the first time, you miss the point.
    
John said: "The figures I have heard put the numbers much lower -- at most
2-3%, and lower than in the general population." - referring to another
noter's statement that 30% of clergy have molested children. 

CLearly, John is saying that 2-3% of clergy is lower than the percentage of 
the general population (4-5%?) - and by inference, parents within that
population. So your example is meaningless. 

If his figures are accurate, then in any case, a child would be more likely 
to be molested by its parents, as your own example illustrates, just by 
plugging the different numbers in. 

But I don't think that your example was what he had in mind, regardless, 
because he was arguing against the portrayel of clergy as being 
particularly perverse. In which case, "A child is much more likely to be 
molested by his or her own parents than by a member of the Catholic clergy" 
is more likely meant to say "A child is much more likely to be molested by
his or her own parents than by a member of the Catholic clergy, given equal
exposure to both." 
    
...geez, you'd think we were debating interpretation of a phrase from 
"Finnigan's Wake." Besides, I'm not sure how I got sucked into defending 
/John's entry. He'd be far better at that than I...                      

| <<< Note 430.291 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>


| Personally I can only say, "Who knows how God works?"  I'd like to believe 
| that good done by those who don't believe in God is still done by God working 
| through them.  

	I agree with Joe on this. 



Glen

    >We can't do anything of ourselves.
    
    I guess that we will never be able to fix the schools then.
    
    Let us pray  :-)
    
    ...Tom

    This note is too much to keep up on... if anyone is looking for a
    comment from me you'll have to send me mail with the note pointer.
    
    Nancy

    Also who was the fellow who brought up the superiority comment?  Was it
    Gaskell?

    Another Praising God SNARF!!!
    
    I really pray this amendment passes!!!!!!

    Re .295:
    
    > Coming from the reading-comprehension challenged.
    
    > John said: "The figures I have heard put the numbers much lower -- at
    > most 2-3%, and lower than in the general population." - referring to
    > another noter's statement that 30% of clergy have molested children. 
    
    Speaking of reading-comprehension-challenged, can you show where I
    wrote that the quoted statement of John above was in error?
    
    In .281, I quoted a _different_ statement of John and used the
    demonstrative pronoun to refer to it, stating that the cause of _that_
    statement was not illuminative of the relative dangers.
    
    Now you've claimed that was wrong and defended that claim by saying
    John's OTHER statement was right.  Can you explain what John's OTHER
    statement being purportedly right has to do with my criticism of his
    statement I addressed?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

Holy Smoke.

    Holy Mackerel

    Holy Cow.

Holy Underwear.

    
    The Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch.

    Holy Shi--------------------------------- Nevermind :(

Holy Cow Doots.

This holy stuff is too much to keep up on...if anyone is
looking for a comment from me you'll have to send me a 
male with a pointer.

    <-------------{gasp}

    
    So, what happens if a teacher refuses to hold a public prayer before
    each of his or her class because it is against their beliefs?
    
    I hope this amendmant doesn't pass, we don't need it. There are enough
    problems in public schools without cramming one more thing into the
    system that doesn't belong there.  
    
    Mary
    

This amendment doesn't have a snowball's chance
in hell of passing.

    
    
    Come this way, Tine.....

                       <<< Note 430.311 by TLE::PERARO >>>
    
>    So, what happens if a teacher refuses to hold a public prayer before
>    each of his or her class because it is against their beliefs?
    
    	Probably nothing, since this isn't calling for a public prayer
    	before each class -- nor any public prayer for that matter.

      <<< Note 430.301 by RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." >>>

Oh, I see. You were just nit picking; you weren't trying to contribute 
anything germane to the subject being discussed.

Never mind...

    The decision on this amendment will be yet another telling sign of
    what's in store.
    
II Chronicles 7:14
If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray,
and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from
heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

 . . . . and if not, let it be on their heads.

              <<< EISNER::$2$DIA7:[NOTES$HIVOL]WHO_AM_I.NOTE;1 >>>
================================================================================
Note 297.832                    J.M. Ivler (JMI)                      832 of 862
EISNER::ROBERTS_D "Slimy Lawyer Wannabe"             38 lines  22-MAY-1995 12:17
                             -< Prayer in schools >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Last year, in a public school in St. Louis, MO, a 10 year old boy sat
    down to eat his lunch.  As he was taught by his parents, he prayed over
    his meal.  A teacher noted this, pointed it out to the principal, who
    then, in front of his classmates, told the boy it was against the law
    to pray in school.  When the boy persisted (on other days), we was
    progressively subjected to harrassment from teachers and principal,
    publicly, and even made to eat his lunch in private.  This boy was not
    disruptive, only quietly praying over his meal.
    
    This was alleged in a lawsuit filed against the school district and
    principal two months ago.
    
    There are many more incidents like this occurring across the country,
    all as a result of aggressive anti-religious litigation, propagated
    mostly by the ACLU and people for the seperation of church and state. 
    Three years ago, the Supreme court decided a case that said a public
    school that makes it's facilities available for secular organizations
    after hours, may not discriminate against religious organizations. 
    This became a problem because of the anti-religious litigation being
    initiated by the ACLU (and this particular case was one such) which is
    apparently attempting to make religious expression illegal outside the
    home or actual place of worship.
    
    Does this mean it is illegal to pray in schools?  No, the Supreme court
    has been consistant about that.  But what it does mean is that
    anti-religious harrassment is going on because of fear.  A strong
    argument can be made that to deal with this we need a strong statement
    that free exercise of religion in public places is protected. 
    Apparently the first amendment has failed at that.  Althouhg I do not
    agree that it is the best course, this leads to the conclusion that a
    more strongly worded amendment to the Constitution is needed.
    
    Personally, I think a better solutio is to change the understanding of
    what "establishment" of religion means, and eliminate this false idea
    of "seperation of church and state" which was never intended by the
    first amendment.  But, with the anti-religious hostility that
    frequently manifests itself in this country, maybe an amendment is
    needed.

    Re: 318
    
    As can be noted by so many of the notes in this topic and numerous
    others, there are an awful lot of people who fear religion or anything
    religious.  I have seen note after note about how terrible Christians
    and religious are and any exposure to them in school or public settings
    is to be condemned and eliminated as quickly as possible.  Now of
    course those people are not referred to as "religiphobes" but when the
    topic changes to one of their pet issues anyone opposed is called a
    radical or -phobe of some sort.
    
    Seems interesting that these very, very liberal folks don't seem to
    have any acceptance for a concept that is different, not will they
    express any tolerance, yet they are first ones to demand tolerance and
    acceptance from anyone else.
    
    Seems highly hypocritical to me.
     

             <<< Note 430.318 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>

EISNER::ROBERTS_D "Slimy Lawyer Wannabe"             38 lines  22-MAY-1995 12:17
                             -< Prayer in schools >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>    Does this mean it is illegal to pray in schools?  No, the Supreme court
>    has been consistant about that.  But what it does mean is that
>    anti-religious harrassment is going on because of fear.  A strong

Nonsense. Given 1000 individuals, in any profession, you are bound to have 
at least 10 (maybe many more) bozos. Clowns will always be part of our 
circus.

This isn't part of a systematic purging of religion, but an example of the 
fact that you're going to get some number of pea-brains who don't 
understand the law at all. (I just don't understand most of it :'))

This school violated the boy's constitutional rights of free speach and 
privacy.

We seem to have gotten into a mood of tinkering with the constitution. And, 
ironically, it's coming  mostly from the right. 

    re: .320
    
    Bad apples?  Perhaps.  The real problem, as I see it, is ignorance. 
    The litigation atmosphere of today's society, coupled with modern
    court rulings, give the impression that all religious activity- even
    that done on a personal level- is illegal on government property.  The 
    teachers act on this false assumption.
    
    [This merely goes to show you that the dumbing down of America has 
    been very successful- at least in regards to the Constitution- since
    teachers and principals alike fail to understand the First Amendment
    with alarming consistency.]
    
    It is possible, I guess, that the teachers are anti-religious, but I
    really doubt that this is the case in instances of religious
    persecution of this color.
    
                                         
    -steve

    I'm not religiphobic, just fed up with the arrogance of the christian
    religion.
    
    Have you ever been in your yard on a Saturday, and a 
    couple of people walk up your path uninvited and said "We 
    are here to bring you the word of God", and are about as easy to get 
    rid of as mosquitoes on a hot evening.  How many Human Secularists do 
    you see doing the same thing.

    How many times have you seen cars parked outside of a 
    church, making an already narrow road more difficult to 
    negotiate.  And more likely than not, the parking lot
    of that church is only half full.  (I am specifically 
    thinking of two, Lunenburg and Hudson, Mass.) If either of
    those buildings were other than a church, those cars would 
    be towed.

    But most of all, I am fed up with the way that christians 
    assume they have the right to make decisions on how my children 
    should be taught, what books they will be taught from as if their 
    beliefs and standards are paramount.  I am fed up with the way they 
    pounce on anyone who is not either christian or believe what they 
    believe.  I am fed up with their trying to manipulate the legal system
    to FORCE me to live by their beliefs and standards.
    
    I have rights too and I intend to defend them all the way.  

I restate:  Be anything you want, christian, two headed, 
Martian, I don't care, just keep it to your self and don't 
intrude on my life.  If you don't like it that state run 
schools don't have prayer then start your own schools, pay 
for parochial school, teach them at home.  You aren't the only 
people on earth and my feelings and beliefs are just as important 
as yours.  I don't rob, murder, cheat or lie and I resent that I am 
likened to dust in the corner of a room just because I'm not 
christian.

Re: 322

Amen!

    
    
    RE: .322
    
    
    What a breath of fresh air it was to read your note.
    Thank you!
    
    
    
    
    
    Terrie
    

                      <<< Note 430.322 by TOOK::GASKELL >>>

If that's a breath of fresh air, gimme a smoke-filled room.

A rant, pure and simple. Even if the premise has some validity.

    >I'm not religiphobic,
    
     You just don't like Christians.
    
    >How many times have you seen cars parked outside of a
    >church, making an already narrow road more difficult to
    >negotiate.
    
     Oh my goodness! How horrible that they could insensitively impact your
    life so thoughlessly! Surely you deserve some sort of financial
    compensation for this harm you've suffered, though one would have
    expected that you'd purposely avoid streets that go by churches to
    avoid possible contamination...
    
    >But most of all, I am fed up with the way that christians
    >assume they have the right to make decisions on how my children
    >should be taught, what books they will be taught from as if their
    >beliefs and standards are paramount.
    
     Nonsense. You try to get your children to be taught the way you want,
    so do they. You don't want them to be instructed to read books that
    _you_ consider to be religious, they don't want children to be
    instructed to read books that _they_ consider to be immoral. Sounds
    pretty symmetrical to me. 
    
    >I am fed up with their trying to manipulate the legal system
    >to FORCE me to live by their beliefs and standards.
    
     Secular humanists have manipulated the legal system in precisely the
    same way, yet we hear no <complaining�> from you. Surprise, surprise.
    
    >I have rights too and I intend to defend them all the way.
    
     So do they.
    
    

>     Oh my goodness! How horrible that they could insensitively impact your
>    life so thoughlessly! Surely you deserve some sort of financial
>    compensation for this harm you've suffered, though one would have
>    expected that you'd purposely avoid streets that go by churches to
>    avoid possible contamination...

When you overexaggerate, you _really_ overexaggerate.  Thoughlessly, too.

Message to the author of .322:  Pay no attention to that 
man behind the curtain...

     But I can always count on you to be right on my heels to set me
    straight, eh, Bonnie?

You seem to excel at your attempts to set _other_ people straight, 
like the noter who wrote .322.

    Re: 322
    
    You must be kidding.  You are opposed to Christians because they park
    on a narrow road?  Give em a break!!  If the cops in your area aren't
    doing their job, then complain to them.  If you park illegally in my
    area you get ticketed or towed, period.  they really don't care where
    your at.
    
    All of the reasons that you use to complain about Christians are 100%
    applicable to any other group.  You can insert any group in your tirade
    and you will see exactly what I mean.  Insert the radical sex ed folks,
    like Joycelyn Elders for example, instead of Christians and you will
    find something rather amazing.
    
    No, what really comes through is that you, like many others, really
    object to the concept that there is a moral standard that exists,
    though on it's deathbed, and a lot of people see society going down the
    toilet.  You really don't want someone saying that certain behaviors
    are wrong and have a negative effect on all aspects of society and make
    other folks jobs more difficult.
    
    You really want to see your concept of right and wrong forced on
    everyone else, but don't let anyone else expound on their's.  It really
    doesn't matter that the Christians are working toward this.  You would
    have as much opposition and biased attitude if it was any group,
    Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc.  As long as it talks about a higher
    responsibility than doing whatever feels good at the moment, you don't
    want any part of it.
    
    As I said, your reply identifies the true religiphobe and the fact that
    you start off denying you are one, makes it even more humorous.
    

    	re .329
    
    	Which is exactly his point.  The saw cuts both ways.  Denying
    	a voice to Christians is unfair at the very least.

                      <<< Note 430.322 by TOOK::GASKELL >>>

>    I'm not religiphobic, just fed up with the arrogance of the christian
>    religion.
    
    	Quite often those who are labeled (whatever)-phobes are 
    	likewise fed up with the arrogance of the group they are
    	accused of "phobing".
    
>    Have you ever been in your yard on a Saturday, and a 
>    couple of people walk up your path uninvited ... 
    
    	Actually, no.
    
>    How many Human Secularists do 
>    you see doing the same thing.
    
    	For starters, I see it daily right in this conference.
    
>    How many times have you seen cars parked outside of a 
>    church, making an already narrow road more difficult to 
>    negotiate.  
    
    	Horrors!  Hey, when was the last time you drove past the Marlboro
    	Mass courthouse with all the cop cars parked in the no-parking
    	lanes?  (Do they still do this?  They used to do it all the time
    	when I worked in MRO 7 years ago...)  
    
>    But most of all, I am fed up with the way that christians 
>    assume they have the right to make decisions on how my children 
>    should be taught, what books they will be taught from as if their 
>    beliefs and standards are paramount.  
    
    	From my point of view, contemporary Christian activism in
    	schools is a direct result of their view that their beliefs
    	and standards are routinely DISMISSED by today's educational
    	system.  It becomes a chicken-and-egg situation.
    
>    I am fed up with the way they 
>    pounce on anyone who is not either christian or believe what they 
>    believe.  
    
    	Really?  What way is that?  I guess I haven't seen it.
    
>    I am fed up with their trying to manipulate the legal system
>    to FORCE me to live by their beliefs and standards.
    
    	Again, I see the Christian activism as a response to society's
    	dismissal of their beliefs and standards.
    
>and I resent that I am 
>likened to dust in the corner of a room just because I'm not 
>christian.
    
    	Your problem with reading comprehension is the only reason
    	that you think you are likened to dust.  This was clearly
    	explained, and it is only you who is doing the likening.
    	Your anger is misdirected by ignorance, and since it has
    	been clearly explained, your ignorance is your own fault.

  We keep expanding the parking lot in my church (though we're running out
 of room) and are looking at using some space in a large retail area nearby
 and shuttling folks to church in vans.

 The preacher spent about 5 minutes of a message one sunday hollering at us
 for honking horns in the parking lot and otherwise doing anything that might
 disturb the neighbors.  If it bothers you that much about people parking in 
 the street, then call the church and speak to the pastor.  Any church that 
 isn't concerned with their immediate neighbors has a problem that goes beyond
 the parishoners.



 Jim

 Also, I've found that if you don't wish to talk to folks who knock on your
 door or approach you in the neighborhood, a polite no thank you should
 suffice.  As one who does a lot of church visitation, I've encountered folks
 who don't wish to be visited. We ask if we can take a few minutes, if they
 reply "no thank you" we might ask if we can leave them some literature or
 perhaps return another time.  If its "no" we'll bid them good day and make
 a note not to visit again.


 If you keep getting visited, you might find out where they are from and call
 their church and request that they not visit you again.  Most churches keep
 records of who they visit and will make such notes in their records.




 Jim

>    You really want to see your concept of right and wrong forced on
>    everyone else, but don't let anyone else expound on their's.  It really
>    doesn't matter that the Christians are working toward this.  You would
>    have as much opposition and biased attitude if it was any group,
>    Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc.  As long as it talks about a higher
>    responsibility than doing whatever feels good at the moment, you don't
>    want any part of it.

This is hysterical.  Get out of the pulpit, will ya?

    What does it mean when a person comes out of the pulpit?

                      <<< Note 430.330 by POBOX::ROCUSH >>>

    
>    You really want to see your concept of right and wrong forced on
>    everyone else, but don't let anyone else expound on their's.

	You are confused about the difference between advocating that
	people be allowed to make up their OWN minds on this issue	
	and actually advocating ANY particular set of rights and wrongs.

	Many of us feel that the government should not be involved
	in advocating ANY particualr set of beliefs beyond those required
	tp pomote simple social respaonsibility (note that some of these
	may be the same as certain religious beliefs, but that is mere
	coincidence).

	It is YOU that is trying to force your belief systems on the
	rest of us. Not the other way around.

Jim

>What does it mean when a person comes out of the pulpit?

I asked Jack and he said it's a liberating experience.

        <<< Note 430.332 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>

>>    How many Human Secularists do 
>>    you see doing the same thing.
    
>    	For starters, I see it daily right in this conference.
 
	Interesting to admit that you think of Soapbox as your own
	personal property.

	Personally I view it more as a gathering place where people
	can exchange and discuss ideas.

>    	Again, I see the Christian activism as a response to society's
>    	dismissal of their beliefs and standards.
 
	This could explain it, but it certainly doesn't even begin to
	justify it.

Jim

>    	Again, I see the Christian activism as a response to society's
>    	dismissal of their beliefs and standards.
 
>	This could explain it, but it certainly doesn't even begin to
>	justify it.

They need no justification.  God is on their side.  
They answer to a higher power.  Blah blah blah blah.

    >This could explain it, but it doesn't even begin to justify it.
    
    So, Christians should just sit there and take it, right?  We have no
    right to petition for change because we are 'religious'?
    
    What sort of justification is needed in order for Christians to try and
    counter the secular dogma of anti-standards being inflicted upon their
    communities and their children (via schools)?
    
    
    -steve

    My .341 was deleted by myself to save Mz. Debra a headache.  8^)  
    It was in desparate need of grammatical corrections.  8^)

	desparate?

    >The saw cuts both ways.  Denying a voice to Christians is unfair at the 
    >very least.
    
    Absolutely 100% right. If ever the voice of *any* group, but especially
    of any individual, is denied America won't be America any more.
    
    ...Tom

Note 430.337 
    
>>    You really want to see your concept of right and wrong forced on
>>    everyone else, but don't let anyone else expound on their's.

>	You are confused about the difference between advocating that
>	people be allowed to make up their OWN minds on this issue	
>	and actually advocating ANY particular set of rights and wrongs.

    Banning one point of view is not exactly a fair way to level the
    playing field.
    
>	Many of us feel that the government should not be involved
>	in advocating ANY particualr set of beliefs  ...
    
    If you had stopped here, we would be in agreement.
    
>	beyond those required
>	tp pomote simple social respaonsibility (note that some of these
>	may be the same as certain religious beliefs, but that is mere
>	coincidence).

    Here's the rub.  You first say that NO particular set of beliefs should
    be advocated, but now you are qualifying that with the above.  Who
    decides?  What is "social responsibility"?  I do not find it
    coincidental that when you come upon a social responsibility issue that
    you start butting heads with religion.  You cannot separate social
    responsibility from morality of some form- therefore by advocating that
    certain moralities (qualified to "social responsibility") be taught,
    you are in fact promoting a morality of sorts.  Morality should be
    taught at home, right?  Or is this argument only good for morality
    within the context of religion?  Secular morality (an oxymoron, IMO) is
    okay to push in schools?
    
    
>	It is YOU that is trying to force your belief systems on the
>	rest of us. Not the other way around.

    From where I'm sitting, secularists are doing the thing which you
    accuse Christians of.  Secular humanism has been identified by SCOTUS
    as a religion.  So now, where does that leave us?  Secular humanistic
    religion is okay to teach, but not any other?  Seems to me the
    goobermint is creating an establishment of religion, making secular
    humanism the de-facto government approved religion. 
    
    How about we just keep social engineering out of the schools, eh?  It
    would be a lot simpler and then we could all spend more time in the
    abortion topic.  8^)
    
    Kidding aside, how about we have the schools do their job (teaching the
    three  r's and basics) and let parents do theirs?  The more social crap
    we put in the schools, the less time that is spent on real studies. 
    Perhaps our less than desireable national ranking would improve if we
    concentrated on schooling in schools, rather than parenting.
    
    -steve 

    >secular dogma of anti-standards
    
    Give me a break Steve. So, if someone doesn't subscribe to christian
    standards then they must subscribe to "anti-standards"? This is too
    much, even from you.
    
    ...Tom

                      <<< Note 430.342 by CSOA1::LEECH >>>
>                       -< Time to hound Jim again.  8^) >-

	And all this time I thought you were too busy Snarfing to
	participate in any real discussions. ;-)

>    So, Christians should just sit there and take it, right?  We have no
>    right to petition for change because we are 'religious'?
 
	"Take it"? No. If you don't wnat your kids subjected to it, choose
	the alternatives available. But choose the alternatives that affect
	only YOU and YOUR kids. Leave ME and MINE out of it. Because we do 
	NOT share your beliefs and are under no obligation to follow them.

>    What sort of justification is needed in order for Christians to try and
>    counter the secular dogma of anti-standards being inflicted upon their
>    communities and their children (via schools)?
 
	None whatsoever. As long as the path you choose does not infringe
	on MY beliefs, you are more than welcome to counteract all this
	eyvil with YOUR children as you see fit.

Jim

>>    You really want to see your concept of right and wrong forced on
>>    everyone else, but don't let anyone else expound on their's.

>	You are confused about the difference between advocating that
>	people be allowed to make up their OWN minds on this issue	
>	and actually advocating ANY particular set of rights and wrongs.

>    Banning one point of view is not exactly a fair way to level the
>    playing field.

And who advocated "banning one point of view"?  No one.

                      <<< Note 430.346 by CSOA1::LEECH >>>

>Note 430.337 
 
	You really aren't serious about this, I know that you're just trying 
	to run the topic up to .369. ;-)
   
>    Banning one point of view is not exactly a fair way to level the
>    playing field.
 
	Rules or individuals that have been described (not allowing silent
	prayer, etc.) are wrong. But not permitting government support of
	particular religious views does not fit the definition of "banning"
	a point of view. It simply tells the government HANDS OFF. Precisely
	the message that the 1st Amendment was intended to convey.

>    Here's the rub.  You first say that NO particular set of beliefs should
>    be advocated, but now you are qualifying that with the above.  Who
>    decides?  What is "social responsibility"?  I do not find it
>    coincidental that when you come upon a social responsibility issue that
>    you start butting heads with religion.

	Not unless the psuedo-zealots choose to butt heads over the issue.
	Now both Christian religion and secular law tell us that certain
	behaviors are "wrong" and are punishable by various penalties.
	Murder, robbery, assault, rape all fall into this category. 
	However, problems arise when religious laws are used to enact
	secular law. Lot's of free speech, free press and laws about
	sex fall inot this category. The first category is neccessary
	to the operation of any orderly society and would exist even
	if there we NO religion in the world. The second category, on
	the other hand is not neccessary for the same purpose and is
	merely a leftover of the times when the religious could not
	resist using the force of the government to make everyone else
	conform to their own beliefs.

>  You cannot separate social
>    responsibility from morality of some form- therefore by advocating that
>    certain moralities (qualified to "social responsibility") be taught,
>    you are in fact promoting a morality of sorts.  Morality should be
>    taught at home, right?  

	Sematical argument, at best. We ca argue over the meaning of words
	if you like, but that won't get us very far.

	My concept is that there are rules without which a society can not
	survive. THese rules have absolutely nothing to do with any religious
	beliefs and can exist totally absent of those beliefs. If you want 
	to call this secular morality, so be it.

>Or is this argument only good for morality
>    within the context of religion?  Secular morality (an oxymoron, IMO) is
>    okay to push in schools?
 
	This is the prblem I reffered to earlier in response to Nancy's post.
	Simply because YOU have certain religious beliefs does NOT mean that
	you have some sort of exclusive claim to morality. Many who do not
	share your beliefs, or even your belief in a god, are also very
	moral individuals.

>    From where I'm sitting, secularists are doing the thing which you
>    accuse Christians of.  Secular humanism has been identified by SCOTUS
>    as a religion.  So now, where does that leave us? 

	It seems to leave YOU in quite a quandry. On the one hand you hold
	this one ruling close to your heart and try to beat eveyone else
	over the head with it, but in the next posting I'm sure we'll see
	something about how the Supremes are overstapping their authority
	(and are probably damned to eternal perdition) because they won't
	let you town put up a nativity scene on the grass in front of city 
	hall. So are the Justices competent of incompetent?

>    How about we just keep social engineering out of the schools, eh? 

	So social studies should not teach about the laws and how they
	work? There should be no mention that there is a penalty for 
	murder, robbery, etc?

>    Kidding aside, how about we have the schools do their job (teaching the
>    three  r's and basics) and let parents do theirs?  The more social crap
>    we put in the schools, the less time that is spent on real studies. 
>    Perhaps our less than desireable national ranking would improve if we
>    concentrated on schooling in schools, rather than parenting.
 
	We could probably agree on this. Of course, I would suggest that
	this proposed "moment of silence" is a fantanstic waste of school
	time that should be spent on the teaching of those basics. After
	all the kids are there to learn, not just sit quietly staring at
	the floor, right?

Jim

    re: .347
    
    You misread my note.

    re: .350
    
    Aw, c'mon Jim.  I'm not talking social studies and you know it.
    
    Now, I may perhaps be guilty of prompting additional replies, though. 
    8^)
    
    FWIW, I think we are two different wavelengths in this discussion.  Let
    me clarify my position a bit.
    
    1) I'm not trying to force prayer or my morality into schools.  You
    seem to think this is what I'm promoting.
    
    2) By pushing social agendas into schools, *you* are pushing *your*
    morality into the classrooms.  I'm not saying that this is always a bad
    thing, but when your morality clashes with others', then perhaps you
    should step back and rethink your support of certain social programs
    inside the schools (like certain liberal sex-ed programs).  And
    remember, intent counts for little when two groups are butting heads
    over dogma.  Both have good intentions.
    
    3) The First does not ban Bibles from schools, nor does it ban personal
    prayer, religious jewelry, etc.  This is what I was talking about when
    I said one pov gets banned.  I realize that you know this form of 
    censorship is wrong (and the courts are finally backing this up), but
    in reality, this sort of persecution still happens.  It is directly due
    to the overreaction to SCOTUS rulings from the 1947 Everson v. Board of
    Education to the 1962-3 rulings regarding prayer in classrooms.
    
    The Christian backlash is a direct result from secular action.  Now, I
    can also see the backlash as going too far to the right- just as the
    pendulum had swung too far to the left previously.
    
    
    -steve 

                      <<< Note 430.352 by CSOA1::LEECH >>>

>    1) I'm not trying to force prayer or my morality into schools.  You
>    seem to think this is what I'm promoting.
 
	You talk a great deal about the messages that are wrong in
	the schools, I just assumed that you wanted something changed
	in the message. 

>    2) By pushing social agendas into schools, *you* are pushing *your*
>    morality into the classrooms.  I'm not saying that this is always a bad
>    thing, but when your morality clashes with others', then perhaps you
>    should step back and rethink your support of certain social programs
>    inside the schools (like certain liberal sex-ed programs).

	I've addressed the issue of sex-ed previously. Now some could very
	well be even too "liberal" for my tastes and at that point I would
	make my voice known. But there ARE certain facts of life that must
	be explained, not just to kids, but to a lot of adults as well.

	Other courses that teach tolerance for others are part of the
	social responsibility that I spoke of earlier.

>  And
>    remember, intent counts for little when two groups are butting heads
>    over dogma.  Both have good intentions.
 
	Well, your side has the distinct advantage of telling mine that
	we are going to go to hell because we are evil. All I can do is
	tell you that I beleive you are wrong. No comparision in 
	consequences. ;-)

>    3) The First does not ban Bibles from schools,

	Dam, you fixed it before I could poke you about bad Bibles. ;-)

> nor does it ban personal
>    prayer, religious jewelry, etc.  This is what I was talking about when
>    I said one pov gets banned.  I realize that you know this form of 
>    censorship is wrong (and the courts are finally backing this up), but
>    in reality, this sort of persecution still happens.

	And the case law will help to educate those practicing such censorship.
	It does take some time, but the wrong IS beign corrected.

>    The Christian backlash is a direct result from secular action. 

	As I told Joe, this explains, it does not justify.

Jim

RE: .351
    
    >You misread my note.
    
    OK. Perhaps you can help me and explain what "secular dogma of
    anti-standards" refers too. I just would like to understand.
    
    ...Tom

    	I'm confused.  You hear all the time, "If you don't like the
    	way the educational system is handled, GET ACTIVE.  Run for
    	school board.  Vote.  Make a difference."
    
    	And then when a Christian parent or group does this, people
    	complain.
    
    	Some days you just can't win, I guess...

    .322
    
    The real issue goes back to your statement about superiority.  Work on
    your own self image and you won't feel quite so "pounced upon" by those
    who espouse a morality by which you are intimidated.
    
    Nancy

    > Well, your side has the distinct advantage of telling mine that
    > we are going to go to hell because we are evil. All I can do is
    > tell you that I beleive you are wrong. No comparision in 
    > consequences. ;-)
    
    
    This is what *fries* my potatoes! :-)  A Christian's righteousness is
    as filthy rags.  There is nothing better about a Christian than one who
    is not.  The only difference is that the blood has been applied to
    cover sins.  And as a result of that acceptance of Christ one begins to
    live life as a new creature.
    
    A piece of bread isn't a sandwich until you put something inbetween two
    pieces.  But the bread is still bread.
    
    It's the same thing with Christians.  We are all pieces of bread, the
    difference is that we've become a sandwich through Christ.  And its not
    exclusive!!!  Another thing that really fries my potatoes is you all
    make it sound like an exclusive clique.  It is NOT!  It's available to
    all who choose.
    
    Nancy

    And I'll happily take this Snarf!

Please hold the mayo on that sandwich. And, none o' them fried potatoes,
either. I'm tryin' ta diet.

    
    re .357
    
    Imagine:
    
    Early one Saturday morning, you open your door and are greeted by
    two well-dressed young people carrying Bibles.  One extends his
    hand in greeting and says, "Hello.  Might I have a few minutes of 
    your time to explain how I became a sandwich through Christ?"
    
    Question:
    
    Would you be so curious that you had to listen to what he had to say, 
    or would you give him the old heave-ho for being a looney?
    
    Answer:
    
    Hmmmm.....still not sure meself.  Mebbe I'd have to take a few bites
    first to see whether he was a sandwich or not...
    
    (Sorry for the preceding rathole,)
    
    Rob
    

        <<< Note 430.355 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>

>    	I'm confused.  You hear all the time, "If you don't like the
>    	way the educational system is handled, GET ACTIVE.  Run for
>    	school board.  Vote.  Make a difference."
>    
>    	And then when a Christian parent or group does this, people
>    	complain.
 
	I don't know that anyone is complaining about folks becoming 
	"active". I do complain when that activity takes on a form that
	violates certain basic principles of the law.

Jim

    <<< Note 430.357 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

>    It's the same thing with Christians.  We are all pieces of bread, the
>    difference is that we've become a sandwich through Christ.  And its not
>    exclusive!!!  Another thing that really fries my potatoes is you all
>    make it sound like an exclusive clique.  It is NOT!  It's available to
>    all who choose.
 
	And those who choose not to choose?

Jim

    	re .361
    
    	You, Jim, are not "anyone".

    	re .362
    
    	That, in itself, is a choice.

      <<< Note 430.360 by MKOTS3::CASHMON "a kind of human gom jabbar" >>>

    
>    Question:
>    
>    Would you be so curious that you had to listen to what he had to say, 
>    or would you give him the old heave-ho for being a looney?
 
	Option 3, introduce them to Dude (165lb Great Dane). Keeps the
	conversation short. ;-)

Jim

        <<< Note 430.363 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>

    
>    	You, Jim, are not "anyone".

	huh?

Jim

        <<< Note 430.364 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>

    
>    	That, in itself, is a choice.

	Indeed it is. It just seems that many Christians have a very hard
	time understanding those folks who make this choice. 

Jim

| <<< Note 430.328 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice" >>>


| But I can always count on you to be right on my heels to set me straight, 

	Not sure Bonnie will be able to do that to ya Mark if yer wearing
heels.....

                  <<< Note 430.368 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

| <<< Note 430.328 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice" >>>


| But I can always count on you to be right on my heels to set me straight, 

	Not sure Bonnie will be able to do that to ya Mark if yer wearing
heels.....

| <<< Note 430.356 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

	Nancy, let's direct what you said back at you with one change:


| Work on your own self image and you won't feel quite so "pounced upon" by 
| those who espouse a immorality by which you are intimidated.



Glen

	I see Jim is back....

    .367
    
    
    Jim,
    
    FWIW, I agree with you.  But then again you have to ask yourself the
    question what is the motiviation behind those who persist?  Someone
    much wiser than me gave me the formula above for guaging my own
    reactions to other's behaviors.
    
    Nancy
    

    ::cashon [sp]
    
    :-)
    
    Actually I had quite a chuckle about that analogy myself. :-)
    
    Oh well...
    
    Nancy

    So Glen am I to take it that you are back on your warpath against Nancy
    again? and again? and again? and again? and again?
    
    Maybe I should ask if you're the one that extracted my notes?
    
    Nancy

    whoa, Nancy, how'd you get that impression of Glen from his one note?
    If you think he's responsible for your current problems, you really 
    ought to take it off line, it isn't fair to either of you to be
    slinging this stuff here.

    Awww Come on Christine...everybody knows Glen has a habit of being a
    hemerhoid.  He has taken the place of lord Haag!! :-)
    
    -Jack  

    hemorrhoid

There once was a bloke named Boyd,
With his bottom he often toyed,
When the doctor asked "Why?",
Boyd looked up to the sky,
And said "Doc, it's this damn hemorrhoid!" 

    Jack!  You DARE to take the name of our dearly departed Haag in
    vain?!?!  Off with you wee!

    Yes...I know that this has been on your agenda for quite some time!!!
    :-)))))

| <<< Note 430.374 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>



| So Glen am I to take it that you are back on your warpath against Nancy
| again? and again? and again? and again? and again?

	Please reread .370. 

| Maybe I should ask if you're the one that extracted my notes?

	You can ask, and when you do, the answer will be no. 


Glen

| <<< Note 430.375 by POWDML::CKELLY "Cute Li'l Rascal" >>>

| whoa, Nancy, how'd you get that impression of Glen from his one note?

	'tine, it might have something to do with her not grasping .370 as
being her note origionally, with one change of one word. 


Glen

| <<< Note 430.376 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


| everybody knows Glen has a habit of being a hemerhoid.  


	Jack dear...... just what is a hemerhoid?

>	Jack dear...... just what is a hemerhoid?

    		Probably something like an "origionally".

	ya think?

    re .356
    
    Nancy,
    
    I have neither a poor self image, nor do I feel Pounced Upon.  It seems
    to be impossible for you to realize that your religion is your
    religion, and mine is mine.   But, because you are a christian then your 
    religion makes you superior to me that gives you the obligation to point 
    out that not being a christain equals poor self image.  
    
    I am not a non christian because "I have lost my faith" I have not "lost 
    my trust in the church" nor am I "just waiting to be introduced to the 
    light".  I am what I am from choice, fully informed and aware.  I have no 
    interest in your religion and don't want to hear about it.  If what you 
    were pushing was the word of communisim, people would be outraged, but 
    because it's christianity people feel nervous about complaining.  
    
    I am (and I repeat once again) FED UP WITH BEING HIT OVER THE HEAD WITH
    CHRISTIANITY.  It follows me through the boob tube (at least on the
    boob tube I can change channels), to my front door, through my mail 
    box and in the High Street.  Christians feel they have the right to 
    stop me in the street and "Tell me about Christ" as if I had never 
    heard of or read the bible (because, of course, it stands to reason
    that if I had read the bible I would immediately have become a christian). 
    Christians put over the Feeling of Superiority themselves by pushing the 
    superiority of christianity.  Our's is the only true god -- and many
    times I have heard that said and read it in booklets shoved in my hand in 
    the street.
    
    And to make matters worse, of all the people I have met, on both sides
    of the pond, who call themselves christians, there have only been three 
    people worthy of the title christian.  Mrs Bessy Sobey and her two son's 
    Tom and Ken.  They showed what a christian should be and behave like.  
    They did works of kindness quietly, went to church quietly, didn't point 
    out that people who didn't go to church were living wrong, and never 
    failed to help anyone in trouble no matter how small or large that 
    trouble was, or their religion. 
    
    Through these three people I learnt what a true christian is, and they
    are rare, very rare.
                                   

RE: <<< Note 430.386 by TOOK::GASKELL >>>

        As a Christian, I must say, sadly, that I agree with much of what
        you said.  Your observations are a reflection of how the world sees
        much of Christianity and the sad state of our testimony. 

        However, I do believe that there are more Christians like your Mrs.
        Sobey than you know.  Those who practice her kind of quiet
        testimony are not likely to be noticed by many.  Even many of the
        Christians whom you disparage for their evangelistic zeal provide
        more assistance than you realize to humanitarian efforts.  

    >>Christians whom you disparage for their evangelistic zeal provide
            more assistance than you realize to humanitarian efforts.<<
    
    It's not their efforts that I doubt, it's their motivation.  If they
    can't do it without reminding the world that they are christians
    then their motivation is very suspect.  That kind of self seeking
    person is everywhere, but there is little support or opportunity for
    non-christians to do the same--not that I would want them to.
    Christians get away with things that other sections of society 
    would not be allowed to and that seems to reinforce their feelings 
    that they are above everyone else.
    
    Here's another pet peev, bumper stickers that say "God is my co-pilot"
    All I can say is "I hope he's a better driver than you Sunshine".  
                           

                      <<< Note 430.388 by TOOK::GASKELL >>>
    
>    Here's another pet peev, bumper stickers that say "God is my co-pilot"
>    All I can say is "I hope he's a better driver than you Sunshine".  
                           
	Being that He's God, one would expect that He is better!

    I agree.  "God Copilot" actually could mean that you are in control of
    your own life...which we all know is false.  (Not you as in first
    person but you all.)
    
 zz   If they
 zz   can't do it without reminding the world that they are christians
 zz   then their motivation is very suspect.  
    
    As somebody most likely lumped into this category, I can unequivocally
    tell you my intention isn't to put a blowhorn to your ear to let you
    know what my faith is. 
    
    In our public school today, I see alot of dedicated teachers given the
    onus of surrogate parent for alot of dysfunctional children.  I see
    disorder, danger, poor learning environments, and alot of beurocrats
    leaching off the system at the childrens expense.  I see secular
    humanism and moral relativity espoused to in public schools.  I see
    alot of sadness...and a 180 degree turn from where the school should
    be.
    
    In Christian schools (and yes other private schools), I see discipline,
    order, teachers who aren't under the thumb of evil unions, and the
    autonomy to teach from their hearts and pour their lives into the
    students.
    
    So basically,  we have students whose parents want them to be
    there...and we have teachers who want to be there.  They have the
    ability to act as they see fit.  Public schools are like a sinking
    ship.  However, there are still very bright students who succeed in
    public schools; however, they need to be overhauled.
    
    I believe the spiritual aspect of school is quite important.  What I
    would love is for you to stop forcing me to pay for a failed system and
    allow me to educate my children as I see fit.  You gripe and moan but
    at the same time your precious NEA et al seems to insist I fund this
    failing boondoggle!
    
    -Jack

     >"God Copilot" actually could mean that you are in control of
     >your own life...which we all know is false.
    
    You forgot the smilely face right?? Tell me you forgot the smilely!!
    
    ...Tom

    Jack,
    
    Your intention may not to place a blowhorn (did you perhaps mean a bull
    horn?) in our collective ears but this is essentially what happens over
    and over again in here.  Just an observation.  
    
    The controlling your life thing is true to some extent but I believe we
    have far greater control over our destinies than attributing whatever
    happens is God's will.  My mileage obviously varies.  Something bad
    happens, I most likely made a bad decision.  Something good happens, I
    got lucky :-).  
    
    Brian 
    
    

    .389
    
    
         >> Here's another pet peev, bumper stickers that say "God is my
         co-pilot".  All I can say is "I hope he's a better driver than 
         you Sunshine". <<
    
            >Being that He's God, one would expect that He is better!<
    
    
    Ah!  But did he pass Drivers Ed, and does he have a valid license?
    

ZZ    You forgot the smilely face right?? Tell me you forgot the
ZZ    smilely!!
    
    :-)   There you go!!
    
    But let me clarify.  First, we as humans do not have the power of life
    and death.  Yes, we can jump off a building or choose to go to war and
    die in the battlefield.  However, we don't have the power to choose to
    cure ourselves of a malignant tumor...or disappear when we are on the
    verge of death at the hand of another.  I am a believer that one day
    our sould will be required of us.  Call it Gods appointed time or call
    it our natural tendencies to croak.  Bottom line is we can't live
    forever therefore we do not have control over our own lives.
    
    If somebody has a bumpersticker that says, "God...CoPilot", then one
    must assume they believe in God.  I am of the belief that if one
    believes in God, then it is our responsibility to die to our old selves
    and give our lives to God, just as when we marry we are to bequeath all
    our worldly posessions and our very selves to our spouse.  Not always
    easy to do, it takes effort...but it's the right thing to do in my
    opinion!
    
    -Jack    
    

ZZ    Your intention may not to place a blowhorn (did you perhaps mean a bull
ZZ    horn?) in our collective ears but this is essentially what happens
ZZ    over and over again in here.  Just an observation.  
    
    Yes, bull horn.  Diane, please place blow horn in Box Word for the Day.
    :-)
    
    Brian, when a note is placed telling of the gospel of Jesus in this
    forum, it is usually just that...one note.  The next 800 replies are
    usually an attempt to defend ones self against the malignant whining
    and carryings on of the Soapbox synsytyvyty police and the defense that
    follows.  This is what you're really observing.
    
    -Jack

    Jack, we have control over most of the events in our lives and to some
    extent how long it will last.  In the case of suicide, we have ultimate
    control over how long it will last up to our "appointed" time.  I look
    at it as being on an amusement ride.  It can be a blast but it has to
    end sometime.    
    
    Brian

    >First, we as humans do not have the power of life and death.  
    
    We are getting there. Every year (in spite of interference by the FDA,
    but that's another topic) we cure more diseases and extend life. If one
    looks at medical science a thousand years ago and compares it to today,
    then plots the progress we will see how fast we are heading toward
    controlling life and death.
    
    ...Tom

    Tom, when you turn 200 years old, call me!!! :-)
    
    Technology cannot squelch the will of God...or nature if you will. 
    Death is assured, regardless.  Live 200 years or 10,000 years...you
    will eventually die!
    
    -Jack

	.398   thus sayeth the prophet Jack unto the Boxlandians.

    Boxlandia sounds like a pleasant planet to visit.

    >Technology cannot squelch the will of God
    
    Must be sumthin larned in that thar Bible book thang. I musta mizzed it
    durin my educashun  :(
    
    ...Tom

    Go ahead Di dear....make fun of me.  
    
    Tom, forget what I said.  You go ahead and put your trust in
    technology.  You'll live forever!
    
    -Jack

    >You go ahead and put your trust in technology.  You'll live forever!
    
    Maybe I won't Jack. But it is feasible for my grandchildren. Actually
    it really wouldn't take that much more knowledge for it to be feasible for
    all of us.
    
    ...Tom

    .390
    
    Jack
    
    >>In Christian schools (and yes other private schools), I see
    discipline, order, teachers who aren't under the thumb of evil unions, 
    and the autonomy to teach from their hearts and pour their lives into 
    the students.<<
    
    My daughter attended 2 Catholic schools (which is how she choose not to
    be a christian) and the above was not present in either of them.
    
    The teachers were mostly not able to get jobs in the public school
    system.  And all "teaching from the heart" got me for my money was 
    a French teacher who considered it a good teaching tool to break the
    students down to the point of tears with criticism and sarcasm--and a
    school structure that did nothing about it.  I didn't see discipline,
    what I did see was autocratic control and intimidation.  When students 
    failed their parents were urged to "ground" them.  No one suggested 
    extra work or help, only punish the student for doing poorly.  The 
    only sign that I saw of the students being respectful of the school 
    system was that they did their drug dealing undercover.  
    
    As for "pour their lives into the students", the only teacher I saw
    take any interest in the students was the sports coach and he
    demonstrated that he had more than a warm interest, but only in the 
    girls.
    
    The local high school had a better handle on teaching children than 
    either religious schools.  The academic standard was better and they
    encouraged extra help--the catholic school hit the roof when I sent my
    daugher to a French tutor for extra help.  Both parochial schools were 
    more interested in badgering the parents into doing Bingo duty than in 
    either the students, their education or interacting with the parents.  
    I have heard similar from parents with children in other parochial schools.
    
    There is a great deal more to teaching self discipline than merely
    punishing people when they do wrong--that way they only learn to deny,
    cover up and hide.
                                                                    

	Gee Jack, I guess if you don't give any credit to God for technologies,
then you have a valid point. But if that is the case, why when it comes to the
Bible you will say things like, "It has not yet been revealed", or "He has
revealed some things to us", but can't apply it to technologies. I would think
that technologies would be a way to give God even more praise. Could you clear
this up for me hon? :-)

>    ...  but because it's christianity people feel nervous about
>    complaining.
    
    You've got to be kidding.
    
    
    One comment, if you found that your TRUE Christian friend is a
    wonderful example of how to live, why do you reject Christianity?
    You don't have to answer, but I must admit to being curious about your
    position in light of your comments regarding this woman and her two
    sons.
    
    
    -steve

ZZ    "It has not yet been revealed", or "He has
ZZ    revealed some things to us", but can't apply it to technologies. I
ZZ    would think
ZZ    that technologies would be a way to give God even more praise. Could
ZZ    you clear this up for me hon? :-)
    
    Sure.  I thought about it last night in fact.  God can do
    anything...and he can indeed give Tom and all of us the technology to
    live forever in our current state of humanity.  Of course living by
    this plan would not count war, accidents, murder, etc.
    
    Glen, I firmly believe in what God said to Adam..."From dust you came
    and to dust you shall return."  It is not in his divine plan that we
    live forever in a condition of sin.  But of course I only got that from
    a book so what do I know?
    
    Tom, what amazes me quite a bit is this obvious desire to live forever
    on your part...or at least have the option to live forever...yet the
    plan for eternal life has been offered, and you seem to reject it.  
    
    -Jack

    
    
>    >>In Christian schools (and yes other private schools), I see
>    discipline, order, teachers who aren't under the thumb of evil unions, 
>    and the autonomy to teach from their hearts and pour their lives into 
>    the students.<<
    
>    My daughter attended 2 Catholic schools (which is how she choose not to
>    be a christian) and the above was not present in either of them.
 

     Christian schools and Catholic schools operate differently, I believe.
     Its a shame how many people have been turned off to Christianity based
     on experiences in Catholic schools.


   
>    The teachers were mostly not able to get jobs in the public school
>    system.  And all "teaching from the heart" got me for my money was 
>    a French teacher who considered it a good teaching tool to break the
>    students down to the point of tears with criticism and sarcasm--and a
>    school structure that did nothing about it.  I didn't see discipline,
>    what I did see was autocratic control and intimidation.  When students 
>    failed their parents were urged to "ground" them.  No one suggested 
>    extra work or help, only punish the student for doing poorly.  The 
>    only sign that I saw of the students being respectful of the school 
>    system was that they did their drug dealing undercover.  
    
 
     My church, a fundamental Baptist Church, operates a Christian School.  
     while there are rules, standards and discipline, they do not operate 
     in the above manner.  The communication between teachers/students and
     teachers/parents is excellent.



>   As for "pour their lives into the students", the only teacher I saw
>    take any interest in the students was the sports coach and he
>    demonstrated that he had more than a warm interest, but only in the 
>    girls.
 


     Every Christian school of which I'm aware would NOT have a male coach
     for a girls phys ed class, and when there are men involved in coaching
     girls they are NEVER in a position of being alone with the girls.  They
     would find themselves fired immediately after such an occurance, and if
     necessary, in the hands of the local police.



   
   Jim    
   

 Re:   Note 430.404         Religious Equality in Schools Amendment         
       404 of 407
       TOOK::GASKELL                                        40 lines  
       2-JUN-1995 09:43
    
    I'm sorry your experience wasn't a good one.  I was going by the
    overall statistics that private and Christian schools as a whole
    produce students with better test scores.  What I said doesn't mean
    that all schools are going to definitely produce better students.  In
    fact, I will admit up front I went to a parochial school up to the
    middle of third grade...and I too was not receiving the level of
    education needed to survive with my counterparts in public school. 
    When I went to public school half way through third grade, I had to
    play catch up and it took a good year to do that.  
    
    On the other hand, there are many parochial schools doing a
    tremendously better job than public schools.  But I DO NOT judge people
    for the type of school they choose.  I myself am a public school
    graduate...and it wasn't a bad experience.  Of course I also believe
    the public schools today are a different animal than they were in 1979!
    
    -Jack

    .408
    
    > Christian schools and Catholic schools operate differently, I believe.
    
    Point 1:  Catholics are Christians.
    
    Point 2:  Not all Catholic schools operate the same way.
    
    Point 3:  Not all nonCatholic Christian schools operate the same way.
    
    Point 4:  Not all self-professed Christians are bad teachers.
    
    Point 5.  Not all self-professed Christians are good teachers.
    
    Get the point?

>    Point 3:  Not all nonCatholic Christian schools operate the same way.

I find it interesting that Lexington Christian Academy is an underwriter
of WBUR (an NPR affiliate).  I'd guess it's not part of the "religious right."

 Yes, Dick.  Thank you so much for setting me straight.






Jim

Who the heck would want to live forever?
The thought of living forever is repulsive to me.

If the means were available to live forever, would you?

 I believe we're all going to live forever.  Its just a choice of locale.






Jim

Well, if I have to, I'll pick Hawaii.

    >Tom, what amazes me quite a bit is this obvious desire to live forever
    >on your part...or at least have the option to live forever...yet the
    
    I would like not to die. Do Christians want to die?
    
    >plan for eternal life has been offered, and you seem to reject it
    
    You call it a plan, I call it a fantasy that is harmful to human life
    because it convinces some human animals that they needn't waste there
    time on this life because a better life is to follow. What a waste, IMO
    
    ...Tom

    On the contrary, speaking on the ministry of Christ leaves a mark on
    the earth that lasts forever.  The reprocussions of the ministry of the
    apostles is the fantasy that annoys you today!
    
    -Jack

    >On the contrary, speaking on the ministry of Christ leaves a mark on
    >the earth that lasts forever.
    
    Yea, it makes people remember what a pain in the arse it was.
    
    In regards to .413, living forever in this life is the wish of those who 
    are happy. Those sad people who are not happy either commit suicide,
    wish they were dead or hope for a life after this one.
    
    ...Tom

>    In regards to .413, living forever in this life is the wish of those who 
>    are happy.

Oh, I don't think it has anything to do with happiness.
The prospect of living forever strikes me as grotesque.

It would go against the law of nature.  

| <<< Note 430.407 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


| Sure.  I thought about it last night in fact.  God can do
| anything...and he can indeed give Tom and all of us the technology to
| live forever in our current state of humanity.  Of course living by
| this plan would not count war, accidents, murder, etc.

	Jack, are you saying that unless someone dies of natural causes that it
wasn't God who took them??? Please clear this up????

| <<< Note 430.412 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Learning to lean" >>>




| Yes, Dick.  Thank you so much for setting me straight.


	I bet he couldn't set me straight!!! :-0

    Naw...you should know the answer to that one doll face!!!!
    
    -Jack

	If I did Jack, I wouldn't ask you what your opinion/belief is on it. So
could ya answer?

    >The prospect of living forever strikes me as grotesque.
    
    Actually I think that the opposite is true. The essence of a happy and
    exciting life is the creation of ever increasing values. Creating and
    discovering new value give human beings motivation to increase their
    life span and even not to die if possible. New value comes from
    expanding knowledge. Each new unit of knowledge generates several newer
    units of knowledge, making the ability to generate new knowledge
    infinite. Finite knowledge is an illusion from our present, limited
    knowledge perspective. This kind of illusion led to the suggestion in
    1899 by US Patent Office Director Charles Duall, that the US patent office 
    be closed because as Mr. Duall stated "Everything that can be invented has
    been invented". However, knowledge is not simply uncovered; it is
    generated from past knowledge. Each day new knowledge and discoveries
    generate ever broader bodies of newer knowledge. This infinite newness
    makes life forever exciting and compelling, thus happy.
    
    ...Tom

ZZ    Jack, are you saying that unless someone dies of natural causes
ZZ    that it wasn't God who took them??? Please clear this up????
    
    Glen, scripture validates the point that God is the only one who has
    the power of life and death.  If one jumps off the Sagamore bridge,
    then it was by Gods permissive will that it took place.  
    
    I must assume I miscommunicated for you to ask this.  Where'd dat be?!
    
    -Jack

    >If one jumps off the Sagamore bridge, then it was by Gods permissive 
    >will that it took place.
    
    And I thought that I had heard everything. Leave it to Jack to show me my
    error. :( geesh!!
    
    ...Tom

Jack, below is the part that made me think what I did. I capitalized the part
that puzzled me:


| Sure. I thought about it last night in fact. God can do anything...and he can 
| indeed give Tom and all of us the technology to live forever in our current 
| state of humanity.  Of Course Living By This Plan Would Not Count War, 
| Accidents, Murder, Etc.

	The above is what made me think you only thought natural causes were
the only way death could be from God.



Glen

| <<< Note 430.426 by DASHER::RALSTON "Anagram: Lost hat on Mars" >>>

| >If one jumps off the Sagamore bridge, then it was by Gods permissive
| >will that it took place.

| And I thought that I had heard everything. Leave it to Jack to show me my
| error. :( geesh!!

	I know.... everyone knows that the Charles Stewart Memorial Bridge is
in Boston! THAT's where one jumps. :-)

    >I know.... everyone knows that the Charles Stewart Memorial Bridge is
    >in Boston! THAT's where one jumps. :-)
    
    Yea, and now we know that god gave them permission. I learn something
    enlightening in the BOX every day.
    
    ...Tom

 ZZZ    Of Course Living By This Plan Would Not Count War, 
 ZZZ   | Accidents, Murder, Etc.
    
    Ahhh....sorry.  It sounded different from the way I intended.  What I
    meant was that God could indeed allow us to scientifically live
    continually...in other words, the body wouldn't degenerate.  But this
    doesn't mean we wouldn't die from the hands of another...be it murder,
    suicide, accident, whatever.  We would have to overcome those
    hinderances also in order for it to be fool proof.  I don't see it
    happening. 
    
    This is hypothetically speaking.  Again, I do believe the words of
    Genesis where God said that from dust you came and to dust you shall
    return.
    
    -Jack

    Tom:
    
    I was only stating that God gave us free will.
    
    -Jack

    >I was only stating that God gave us free will.
    
    OK, I don't understand the reasoning nor do I agree, but I get the
    point.
    
    ...Tom

   >>The prospect of living forever strikes me as grotesque.

    >Actually I think that the opposite is true. The essence of a happy and
   
Well, then, I guess our opinions differ on the matter.
Me, I like the the present way:  you're born, you live, you die.
The natural cycle.

	cycle is a dog food.... :-)

    >cycle is a dog food.... :-)
    
    And I'll bet it ain't natural.  :)
    
    ...Tom

      re: .433
    
      I actually used to think a little bit like you.  Just from the
      standpoint that infinity seems awful long and how can it always
      be a good time?
    
      But, as a Christian, I have come to believe that as God is love
      and is infinite in capability, He can provide more happiness for
      me than my limited mind can fathom.
    
      Not that the above is the motivation for being a Christian, but
      its still nice.
    
    						Tony
                                                         

>      But, as a Christian, I have come to believe that as God is love
>      and is infinite in capability, He can provide more happiness for
>      me than my limited mind can fathom.

Well, that is very nice.  I must admit, I'm envious of people who can
take such comfort in their religion.  It must provide great relief.

    re: .437
    
    >It must provide great relief.
    
    It does.  It also gives you different glasses to see the world through. 
    You don't tend to get as upset over temporal events when you know that
    God is always with you- at least in my experience.
    
    
    -steve

>    You don't tend to get as upset over temporal events when you know that
>    God is always with you- at least in my experience.

Or as happy, fulfilled, etc.?

TTom

      re: .437
    
        >It must provide great relief.
    
    It does.  It also gives you different glasses to see the world
    through. You don't tend to concern yourself with reality when you think
    that God is always with you.
    
    ...Tom

    now Tom, I have to spank you.  At least I didn't take Steve's 
    comment to indicate that those who don't have God with them
    (please note, no specific mention of Christianity) are therefore
    more easily upset about temporal matters.  But your comment rather
    indicates that those who do believe are not well grounded in reality.
    That was rather unfair, wouldn't you say?

    I thought the "in my experience" addition was sufficient to label my
    ramblings as a personal comment.  Guess I should've spelled it out a
    bit better.
    
    
    -steve

    Didn't mean to sound unfair. In fact the reply was more as a joke for
    Steve, who I think knows of my opposing viewpoint.  :)    :)
    
    ...Tom

    	Your repetitious barbs are becoming more than just a joke, Tom.
    
    	We all know your opposing viewpoint by now.  Anything more seems
    	like salt in the wound.  But if we try to defend ourselves from
    	the salt, you cry that we are shoving it down your throat.  Who
    	is really doing the shoving here?

     >Your repetitious barbs are becoming more than just a joke, Tom.
    
    Right Joe, and you don't go on and on about your beliefs?!?
    
    Tell you what Joe, I'll stop voicing my viewpoint and stop voicing
    yours. Deal??
    
    And where does this shovel and throat fetish of yours come from?
    
    ...Tom

    
    CATFIGHT!!
    
    
    ;^)
    

       <<< Note 430.445 by DASHER::RALSTON "Anagram: Lost hat on Mars" >>>

>     >Your repetitious barbs are becoming more than just a joke, Tom.
>    
>    Right Joe, and you don't go on and on about your beliefs?!?
    
    	In response to you, perhaps.  You have been pretty active
    	of late in declaring religious faith to be irrational, not
    	based in reality, etc.  When challenged, though, you try to 
    	laugh it off as a joke.  Sorry, Tom, but if your intent is 
    	to be annoying you are doing a pretty good job.
    
>    And where does this shovel and throat fetish of yours come from?
    
    	I don't know about the shovel part, but I've just been repeating 
    	back to you what you (and others) have said in the past.  Getting 
    	tired of it?  Maybe I can adopt your "push it onto me" or various 
    	"thumper" phrases that you've also used.  They're all intended to 
    	convey the same message, so it doesn't matter to me.

    	>You have been pretty active
    	>of late in declaring religious faith to be irrational, not
    	>based in reality, etc.  
    
    Ok, we agree so far.
    
    >When challenged, though, you try to 
    >laugh it off as a joke.  Sorry, Tom, but if your intent is 
    >to be annoying you are doing a pretty good job.
    
    I disagree. I really am joking if I say so or if I use a :), otherwise
    I am not. The joke statement was last used when I rephrased Steve
    Leech's note to conform with my beliefs. I explained it a couple of
    notes later. You seem to want to use one incident and apply it to all my 
    comments. IMO this is either a mistake on your part or an attempt to make 
    a nonexistent problem in order to prove an invalid point.
    
    	>Getting tired of it?  
    
    Dream on Joe. Actually I'm enjoying it. If you knew me better you would
    understand that I don't do anything that I don't enjoy.
    
    >push it onto me" or various 
    
    Push must be the word that bothers you. I'll try not to use it in the
    future.
    
    ...Tom

       <<< Note 430.448 by DASHER::RALSTON "Anagram: Lost hat on Mars" >>>

>    I disagree. I really am joking if I say so or if I use a :), otherwise
>    I am not. The joke statement was last used when I rephrased Steve
>    Leech's note to conform with my beliefs. I explained it a couple of
>    notes later. You seem to want to use one incident ...
    
    	As your statement implies, you have done this more than once.
    	You are being unfair when you then say that I am trying to use
    	only one incident to make the point.  How are we to know that
    	you are not joking when it takes a follow-up explanation
    	several notes later to clarify it?  How many intended jokes 
    	have gone unchallenged and therefore remain unexplained,
    	thereby leaving the impression that they are deliberate attacks?
    
    	As I already said, you have given the impression that you are
    	on the attack lately.

Gee, this could go on forever!
Sure glad we don't live forever!

 .450  aaagagagag. ;>

    OK Joe, so that we can end this, I promise that I will either use the
    work joke or the more common :) so that there will be no confusion.
    However, like you, I will continue to state my view using SOAPBOX
    standards. If you want to call that attack, so be it.
    
    So with bugles blowing-------------------->
    
    AAAAATAAAAAAAAACK!!!!!!! [ :) (joke) ]
    
    ...Tom

    oops, see what i started?  sorry tom, i was being humor impaired,
    but while i'm here, may i still spank you? :-)

    I was a bit humor impaired on this one, myself.  
    
    Use a smiley, dagnabit!  8^)

Smileys are for sissies.

    
    .455:
    
    Yes, well, that's the kind of blinkered philistine pig-ignorance
    we've come to expect from you non-creative garbage.  You sit there
    on your loathsome spotty behind squeezing blackheads and not caring
    a tinker's cuss for the struggling artist you excrement!
    
    :^)
    

If yoo can't get yer flippin' point acrost without
usin' one a dem infernal :-)s then I say fergit it!

and why do you always see 'em this way :-) instead
of this way (-: any way?  Huh?

                               oooooooo
                         oooo$$$$$$$$$$$$oooo
                      oo$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$o
                   oo$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$o   
                o$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$o      
               o$$$$$$$$$    $$$$$$$$$$$$$    $$$$$$$$$o   
              o$$$$$$$$$      $$$$$$$$$$$      $$$$$$$$$$o  
             $$$$$$$$$$$      $$$$$$$$$$$      $$$$$$$$$$$$
           $$$$$$$$$$$$$$    $$$$$$$$$$$$$    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$        
          "$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$"   
          $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 
         "$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$" 
         "$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$" "$$$"
          $$$$$  $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$   o$$$
          "$$$$   $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$     $$$"
            $$$$    "$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$"      o$$$
            "$$$o     """$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$"         $$$
              $$$o          """$$$$$$$$$"""           o$$$
               $$$$o                                o$$$"
                "$$$$o                            o$$$$
                  "$$$$$oo                     o$$$$""
                     ""$$$$$oo            oo$$$$$""
                        ""$$$$$$ooooooooo$$$$$$""
                              oo$$$$$$$$$oo
                                  """""

Oi.  That's scary, that is.

 .457  i hate having to use 'em, but there are lots of people out
       there with no sensayuma and they get all bummed out if they
       think you're serious, you know?

                         oooo$$$$$$$$$$$$oooo
                      oo$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$o
                   oo$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$o         o$   $$ o$
   o $ oo        o$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$o       $$ $$ $$o$
oo $ $ "$      o$$$$$$$$$    $$$$$$$$$$$$$    $$$$$$$$$o       $$$o$$o$
"$$$$$$o$     o$$$$$$$$$      $$$$$$$$$$$      $$$$$$$$$$o    $$$$$$$$
  $$$$$$$    $$$$$$$$$$$      $$$$$$$$$$$      $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
  $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$    $$$$$$$$$$$$$    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$  """$$$
   "$$$""""$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$     "$$$
    $$$   o$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$     "$$$o
   o$$"   $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$       $$$o
   $$$    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$" "$$$$$$ooooo$$$$o
  o$$$oooo$$$$$  $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$   o$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
  $$$$$$$$"$$$$   $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$     $$$$""""""""
 """"       $$$$    "$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$"      o$$$
            "$$$o     """$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$"$$"         $$$
              $$$o          "$$""$$$$$$""""           o$$$
               $$$$o                 oo             o$$$"
                "$$$$o      o$$$$$$o"$$$$o        o$$$$
                  "$$$$$oo     ""$$$$o$$$$$o   o$$$$""
                     ""$$$$$oooo  "$$$o$$$$$$$$$"""
                        ""$$$$$$$oo $$$$$$$$$$
                                """"$$$$$$$$$$$
                                    $$$$$$$$$$$$
                                     $$$$$$$$$$"
                                       "$$$""""

So smileys are politically correct.

(-:  (i think this is how left-handed people should insert the smiley,
      feels more comfy.)

>>So smileys are politically correct.

	well everything in the friggin' universe is being called
	"politically correct" these days, but i never thought of 
	smileys that way.  being a sarcastic wench, i find they
	come in handy on occasion, that's all.

       Ophelia is correct: little tsatskies that tell people that a funny
       has been told are the electronic equivalent of laugh tracks.  If
       someone doesn't get the joke, tough nooggies for them.
       
       --Mr Topaz

    
    They are NOT the electronic equivalent of a laugh track...they are
    the electronic equivalent of facial expressions during conversation.
    

    
    R2D2
    

     depends on who's using them. 

    also depends on who's suing them.

    >sorry tom, i was being humor impaired,
        
    That's OK I thought it was funny enough for both of us.  :)
    
    >but while i'm here, may i still spank you? :-)
    
    OK, but be gentle.
    
    ...Tom

Ophelia?

First, smileys.
Now, note signing.
What's next? (-;

There once was a gal named Ophelia...

    
    	... with nails so sharp she could peel ya.
    

...on one hot sultry night,

   she popped open a Sprite

...and quaffed it in the lobelia.

lobelia?

Gotta get a better dictionary at work.

I figgered it was some sort of plant, but had to call home to check.

/john

lobelia:

any herbaceous or woody plant of the genus _lobelia_ having blue, red,
yellow and white flowers.

Named after Matthias de Lobel, 1538-1616, French botanist, physician to
James I of England.

Perhaps this is part of the animosity between England and France. The
King needed a doctor and the French sent him a plant guy.

TTom

    Look what happens gone for 3 weeks and Jane is already picking a new
    Tarzan to whip! :-)
    
    

>    religion makes you superior to me that gives you the obligation to point 
>    out that not being a christain equals poor self image.  

Wrong!  That is not at all what I said.  A person who does not have a 
poor self image may come across a few people who think they are better than 
themselves, but when an entire group of people are accused of such 
behavior [when each person is as individual as a fingerprint] indicates 
a poor self image to me.
    
>    were pushing was the word of communisim, people would be outraged, but 
>    because it's christianity people feel nervous about complaining.  

Another indication that my question about your self image is correct.  
This is probably one of the most ludicrous statements yet.  You tell me 
why a country that once touted its Christian values is fervently doing 
all it can to erase Christianity out of the history books?

    
>    Christians put over the Feeling of Superiority themselves by pushing the 
>    superiority of christianity.  

This is merely your strainer for the message of Christ.  Again it just 
shows your own reflection in the mirror.  

Example:  I had roommates that were muslim living with me.  These 
roommates certainly declared to me that the Koran was the one true 
religion.  They even went through the Christian faiths beliefs to tear 
them down one by one exposing their supposed falsehood.

Their attitudes never once made me feel angry or lesser than themselves. 
I believe that in their hearts they only wanted good things for me.

>    Our's is the only true god -- and many
>    times I have heard that said and read it in booklets shoved in my hand in 
>    the street.

I won't apologize for this, just as Muslims won't apologize either.  
But there is a big difference between these two.  One FORCES their 
religion in their country and this country does not FORCE religion on 
anyone.  Christians no more force their religions than Alka Seltzer 
forces their product on a consumer.  The difference being one is on TV 
or magazines, newspapers, etc., and the other is typically in person or 
via pamphlets as you have written.

    
>    And to make matters worse, of all the people I have met, on both sides
>    of the pond, who call themselves christians, there have only been three 
>    people worthy of the title christian.  Mrs Bessy Sobey and her two son's 
>    Tom and Ken.  They showed what a christian should be and behave like.  
>    They did works of kindness quietly, went to church quietly, didn't point 
>    out that people who didn't go to church were living wrong, and never 
>    failed to help anyone in trouble no matter how small or large that 
>    trouble was, or their religion. 

Hmmmm... well it seems that perhaps you aren't as anti-Christian as you 
spout.  I happen to think that there are people who are called to be 
quiet testimonies of Christianity, but there are people who are called 
to be verbal and lifestyle examples of Christianity as well.

It almost seems as though your espousing a silencing of Christians.
Are you?  And just what would like to see if not?

>    Through these three people I learnt what a true christian is, and they
>    are rare, very rare.

It must be rewarding when you find someone who fits your definition of 
what is Christianity.  Of course, based on your notes I'm not sure you 
fully understand at all.

                                   
    

>    It's not their efforts that I doubt, it's their motivation.  If they
>    can't do it without reminding the world that they are christians
>    then their motivation is very suspect.  That kind of self seeking

This is what I mean.  I believe you truly lack an understanding of what 
fundamental Christianity truly means.  A Christian lives their lives 
giving God the glory for all that they do.  It is an allegiance to God 
to live Christ through us.  The motivation that you speak of is one pure 
of heart for most of Christianity.  Its the desire and love to see folks 
spend eternity in heaven.  To live life to its fullest possible joy on 
this earth and to obey the commandments of God.

I saw a program last week while I was home ill which truly amazed me.  A 
talk show host [sorry can't remember his name] asked an audience of 
liberal-minded people just what is "fearful" about the Christian right.  
When pressed the people brought up mostly extremist examples of lunar 
behaviors by folks calling themselves Christians.  When examples were 
brought of the vast many normal-minded Christians that go to church on 
regular basis that support the values of honesty, charity, integrity, 
respect and honor, the silence was deafening.

The truth is people use extremes to get their point across only to 
basically speak of a minority of unstable-minded people who kill and 
claim God told them to.

Most Christians are not this way, but the media won't sell papers about 
the First Baptist Church of [insert city] that fed the homeless.  

>    person is everywhere, but there is little support or opportunity for
>    non-christians to do the same--not that I would want them to.
>    Christians get away with things that other sections of society 
>    would not be allowed to and that seems to reinforce their feelings 
>    that they are above everyone else.

You'll have to give me some examples there for me to believe this 
paragraph has any credibility.

    
Nancy

    

                     <<< Note 430.476 by LANDO::OLIVER_B >>>


...on one hot sultry night,





	would you give your throat to the wolf with the red roses?

    <<< Note 430.483 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>
    
> When pressed the people brought up mostly extremist examples of lunar 
> behaviors by folks calling themselves Christians.  When examples were 
> brought of the vast many normal-minded Christians that go to church on 
> regular basis that support the values of honesty, charity, integrity, 
> respect and honor, the silence was deafening.
    
    This is not a condition that is limited to Christianity.  I encounter
    the same approach regarding motorcycles, and motorcycle riders.  In
    conversation with people who don't ride, I have found that the general
    impression of motorcycle riders is that they drive crazy, probablly
    drink and do drugs.  I ride, and as a result, I'm am more aware of
    motorcycle riders than most non-riders.  What I have found is that
    there are a number of people who drive stupidly, and maybe there are a
    few more bikers who ride stupidly than there are car drivers who drive
    stupidly, (though I'm no really convinced of this).  But I can ASSURE
    YOU that not ALL bikers fit that description.  In fact I'd guess
    probably at least 75% are calm, easy-going riders just trying to do
    what they enjoy.  But the few jerks are the bikers that most people
    remember, and therefore the people associate motorcycle riders with the
    jerks that they remember.  They never remember the 15 or 20 bikers that
    were just riding minding their own business, they remember the pin-head
    who passed between them and the next lane.  You know the guy, with the
    3' beard, brain-bucket, load pipes, who weighed 750 lbs. if he weighed
    an ounce.  You know all bikers are like that !
    
    Dan

    Actually, I shaved and dropped a few pounds.  

    <--- I know, and I ment to tell you you're lookin' much better now.
    
    Must have all the 'box babes (can I say that?) all over you !

    -1 :-)

    I'm *not* alone! :-) :-) :-)

>would you give your throat to the wolf with the red roses?

Only if he wore a gold crucifix...

cool....

	 SALT LAKE CITY (Reuter) - High school students who defied a
federal court order and sang religous songs at  graduation ceremonies face
disciplinary action, including expulsion, Salt Lake City school district
authorities said Thursday.

	 "We are attempting to identify some of the students involved by
securing video tapes of the ceremony," said West High School principal Bill
Boston. Punishments may range from "discussing the incident with the
student to suspension to expulsion," he told a press conference.

	 On Wednesday night some students in a choir defied a federal
appeals court order that prohibited the choir from singing two religuous
songs.

	 The court had ruled on behalf of a Jewish 10th-grade student,
Rachel Bauchman, a member of the school's choir.

	 In response to the court order, the school changed the evening's
program.

	 However, one graduating senior took the microphone from the
principal and led part of the choir and the audience in singing one of the
songs, "Friends," which contains a reference to God.

	 The senior who instigated the event was escorted from the stage
and has not yet received his diploma. The principal tried to stop the
singing, but his appeals were drowned out by singing and yelling from the
audience.

	 But one school board member said he did not believe anybody broke
the law because the school authorities tried to comply with the order.

	 "We did everything we felt we could do. I don't think the students
were under the injunction," said Roger Thompson, vice president Salt Lake
City Board of Education.

    The U.S.A. - it's almost a free country.

  Whatza mattah with kids these days, anyway?  Why don't they bring
 guns to school like other kids?



 Jim

    Jim, don't forget the drugs and condoms.  Every red-blooded American 
    student should have some.

    
    
    	Guess the pledge of allegiance is next eh? "One Nation, Under
    God.." etc. etc.....
    
    
    

    	I don't think I've heard the song.  How is God mentioned?  
    
    	Doesn't the Jewish student believe in God?  If not, why does
    	she label herself with a religious term?
    

    
    no one should have to justify why they don't want to sing Christian
    hymns in school.
    
    aren't there plenty of secular choral works to perform without
    having to force objectionable pieces on the performers?
    
    

    
    
    	One would think so Robert. Can't let that stop the little buggers
    from going to court tho'.....
    
    
    

    	re .498
    
    	Is "Friends" a 'Christian hymn'?

    
    
    	re: friends
    
    	I think it just mentions God but is not a christian hymn.
    
    jim

    I imagine that there are many LDS (Mormon) students in a Salt Lake City
    High School and in the past they would have been used to singing Christian
    hymns at many school functions. It is typical of government to use some
    wordy nonsensical regulation instead of considering the faith of the
    majority of the students and using a little common sense. Just more out
    of control and constrictive government interference IMO.
    
    There just is no thinking going on in the federal government these
    days!
    
    ...Tom

    >> "We are attempting to identify some of the students involved by
    >> securing video tapes of the ceremony," said West High School principal
    >> Bill Boston.
    
    Looks like that back-of-the-comic-book course in ventriloquism will
    be making a big comeback pretty soon...
    
    Chris

This "Friends" song.  Is it the one that Elton John sings -
"That's What Friends Are For"?  Or is it the one that 
Bette Midler sings, "You Gotta Have Friends"?

Could someone identify this song?  Maybe sing a few bars?

    re: .493
    
    Throw the scum behind bars!!  How dare these upstart juveniles sing a
    song that references GOD in this nation!!  HORRORS!!!  Next thing you
    know, folks will be obeying the 10 Commandments or something equally
    harmful.
    
    -steve

Is it James Taylor's "You've Got a Friend"?

    
    
    Carly Simon's version has so much more feeling in it!
    
    
    
    

	But isn't Carley Simon's version, "You're so vain"? :-)

    
    
    She does both of those songs very well, in my opinion. :*)
    
    
    
    
    
    Terrie
    

Could it be the theme song from the "Three Amigos"?

Is it the Stones' "I'm Just Waiting on a Friend"?

This is an ugly incident.  We MUST know the specifics.
The lyrics of the mystery song "Friends" are of the 
utmost importance.  We can't deny that.

    It is an extra heinous crime if it was originally done as a duet.  

We can't deny that, either.

    Nope, lyrics are irrelevent as long as GOD is mentioned.  They are
    GUILTY and should be beheaded as an example for others who would think
    about singing about GOD in public.  This sort of illicit activity
    should stay in churches and the home (until BC finally labels such folk
    as "terrorists" and rightly jails the scum).
    
    Don't you see what's happening?  They are conspiring to recognize a
    moral authority above man.  Shame shame shame on them.  We all know
    that morals are not absolute, right?  
    
    If left to their own devices, they may begin spreading seditious messages 
    like "love thy neighbor as thyself".  The consequences could be horrible.  
    Good thing we have the government to keep this stuff from continuing! 
    
    Expulsion is not enough!  These kids are terrorists!!
    
    
    -steve

      re: .505
    
      Nah, they'll leave out the 4th...you know, the one about the
      _7th_ (not the 1st) day.

>Nope, lyrics are irrelevent
                         ^  
                         ^
   The lyrics are irrelevant?  How can you say this?
   Surely you jest.  We don't even know the real name
   of the song yet.  Have you ever asked yourself "Why?"

    Re: .502
    
    >considering the faith of the majority of the students
    
    So, if the majority of the students happen to be Muslim, then everyone
    must sing hymns in praise of Allah?

Was it "What a Friend I Have in Jesus"?

 What a friend *we* have in Jesus.

    re: .519
    
    Who said anything about "forced"?

	yes, Ophelia, don't be selfish.  btw, may I call you "Oph"
	for short?  "Phelia"'s a bit too suggestive.

>btw, may I call you "Oph" for short?

as in, sounds like `oaf'?

Chris.

  .525  gee, for a youngster, you're pretty quick, aren't you.

Okay, okay.  We, alright?

Here I am, looking for the light, begging anyone
who has any information about the alleged song to
come forward and what happens?  Horsewhipped for a
misplaced I.   

Bonnie (Phelia) Oliver (Liver) 

    >So, if the majority of the students happen to be Muslim, then everyone
    >must sing hymns in praise of Allah?
    
    One wonders why this question requires a response!? But..... 
    
    NO, who said that the kids at this SLC Highschool MUST sing anything?
    
    
    ...Tom

    Re: .523
    
    >Who said anything about "forced"?
    
    I don't know.  Who?

    Re: .528
    
    Fine.  Then the students must listen to hymns to Allah at their
    graduation ceremony?

    
      In a Moslem country, you have no such choice, as the songs are
     sung publicly, usually from a tower, and everybody checks their
     geophraphic orientation, and prostrates themselves towards Mecca,
     teachers, students, everybody Moslem.  Non-Moslems don't.
    
      Required by the prophet.  I believe, three times a day.
    
      So, yes, you have to be subjected to them.  No choice.
    
      bb

Um, those aren't songs.  Those are calls to prayer.  Sorta like church bells.

    Yea like "What a Friend We have in Allah" :)
    
    This whole rights thing that we in the US have gotten ourselves into is
    destroying the drive that once made this country great.  Everyone has a
    right to sing what they want, but everyone has a right not to hear what
    they don't want. Every situation is differant and with a little common
    sense we can adapt to that situation instead of destroying what good the
    situation may present.
    
    ...Tom

    
      A few years ago, I was invited to attend the Bar Mitzfah of an old
     college buddy's son down on Long Island.  Of course, I got totally
     lost on the LIE, the Grand Central, the Cross Island, etc.  Finally,
     I got to the synagogue.  Now, I have no Jewish background that I
     know of, so I entered with some trepidation.  They all were wearing
     beards and these little black head thingies.  I would have put one
     on but I don't know how, so I sort of shuffled into this big hall.
    
      For more than an hour, this kid and some old guys were singing in
     Hebrew, of which I know not a word.  So I did what I always do,
     try to look like a potted plant, and mumble when the others mumble,
     bow my head, and try to clear my brain to produce pure alpha waves.
     Every now and then, apparently important things would happen, and
     the people (all men - apparently there is some sort of gender
     separation ?) would do something unexpected, which I had to decide
     whether to replicate.  I had to stand the whole time, though actually,
     it is easier to look bogusly pious when standing, so I didn't mind.
    
      Afterwards, I wandered out and followed the people to some fancy
     restaraunt.  My friend saw me and escorted me firmly to the "goyim
     guest table" - you know, the two catholics, two protestants, and a
     Hindu, plus three empty seats.  The advantage is, you get good bar
     service.
    
      I suppose I'm old-fashioned, but I never felt put-upon.  And I think
     people miss the point of tolaration.  Tolerance is practiced by
     someone in my position that day.  It is NOT practiced by the majority.
     You cannot expect them to modify their 5000 (?) year old service for
     me or my feelings.  As long as they don't stone me or burn me at the
     stake, I consider them tolerant of me.
    
      So I have little sympathy for those who cannot put up with the
     religious or national traditions of others.  In my view, it is they
     who are intolerant.
    
      bb

Um, you _voluntarily_ went to a religious ceremony.  A public school graduation
isn't a religious ceremony.

    Re: .531
    
    >In a Moslem country
    
    Which this is not, but thanks for playing.

    
    I know the distinction you are trying to make, sax.  But it looks
    like no difference to me at all.  In real life, you cannot do much
    about occassionally turning up in a situation where you are the
    odd man out.  In fact, what I did was about as "voluntary" as
    airline travel, or getting your transmission fixed.  That is, it
    is purely voluntary, except that you have to do it.  School's sort
    of like that, too.  Considering all the other indignities of school,
    this seems to me more like people lashing out for no good reason,
    trying to make everybody else as uncomfortable as they are.
    
      In other words, I sympathize to some extent with intolerance on the
    human level.  But I don't think running around trying to suppress
    all theism among students has a "prayer" of actually working.  Heck,
    we can't stop them from taking dope - we will have no chance of
    actually suppressing religion.  If the Russian tanks couldn't do it
    in Poland, what chance do you think such suppression has in the USA ?
    It's better for your blood pressure to just get used to witnessing
    religions you don't believe in.  It hardly hurts a bit.
    
      bb

    Re: .537
    
    >But I don't think running around trying to suppress all theism among 
    >students
    
    Perhaps you might give us an example; we haven't had one yet in this
    discussion.  Suppressing theism (or some form of religion) at a
    graduation ceremony, yes, but that's hardly the same thing.

It's really not that hard to get out of an invitation.  Say "Let me check my
calendar.  [Pause].  Oh, I'm terribly sorry, but [my cousin's getting married]/
[I'm washing my hair]/[etc.] that day."

Not to mention Buddy Holly, who sang about "Allah my lovin', Allah my kissin'."

Well, I don't have any problem with "Allah" or with "Dieu" or "Gott".

"Allah" is simply Arabic for "God"; and the Moslems pray to the God of Abraham.

I have sung and prayed to Allah together with Arabic Roman Catholics at the
Cathedral of the Holy Annunciation in Roslindale.

Palestinian spokeswoman Hanan Ashrawi prays to Allah at her Anglican Church
in Palestine.

/john

 .541  aaagagag.

	Milady... loks like he's back from rollerblading....

    
    re, .538 - well, I haven't seen the words of the song the students
              were trying to sing, but my understanding was the school
              attempted to suppress a theistic song, and the students
              rebelled and sang it anyway.  Exactly as you would expect.
    
               The only offensive thing I see is the behavior of the
              doddering fuddyduds who "run" the school.  On the other
              hand, they seem not to have damaged the spunk in the
              students, so maybe they aren't doing so bad after all.
    
               If you think that trying to suppress religious expression
              at public ceremonies in the USA is going to work, I think
              you are wildly wrong.  People have strong feelings on this
              and there are simply too many of them to shut up.  Better
              to just get used to it, in my humble opinion.  Unless you
              get off on failure.
    
              bb

 gerald was rollerblading?

                     <<< Note 430.545 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>

    
>    re, .538 - well, I haven't seen the words of the song the students
>              were trying to sing, but my understanding was the school
>              attempted to suppress a theistic song, and the students
>              rebelled and sang it anyway.  Exactly as you would expect.
 
	Tell a story to 10 different people and see what comes back......

	The school did not take a position until they were under a court
	injunction to eliminate the song. The school complied with the
	court order. The students did not. It's called civil disobedience.
	So far, all well and good. The problem now becomes those that 
	believe that you can participate in civil disobedience without
	consequence. That's not how it works. The students made a choice,
	they now have to own up to the responsibility for their choice.

Jim

>my understanding was the school attempted to suppress a theistic song,
>and the students rebelled and sang it anyway.  Exactly as you would expect.

The United States Government, upon a request from a Jewish student's parents,
ordered the school to forbid singing of the song.

Whether the injunction applied only to the school or to the students as
well may or may not be relevant to any action the school takes against
the students.

/john

	We think Covert might have been....

    Re: .545
    
    >but my understanding was the school attempted to suppress a theistic
    >song
    
    Which is not a matter of suppressing theism among students.  The
    students are entirely free to believe in whatever they choose.  The
    injunction did not constrain their beliefs, only their behavior.  And
    even then, it does not prohibit behavior outside of the graduation
    ceremony, so it was hardly onerous.

             <<< Note 430.548 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>

>Whether the injunction applied only to the school or to the students as
>well may or may not be relevant to any action the school takes against
>the students.

	How so? It might matter to the judge in determining whether to
	hold someone in contempt, but it does not affect the relationship
	that the students have with the school. It seems pretty clear that
	the school told the students that they were not going to sing this
	song. The students chose to disobey. They now must own up to the
	consequences of that decision.

Jim

    
      By the way, on the Moslem thing.  Of course, it is demographically
     impossible for the USA to go Moslem any time soon, so the whole
     question was hypothetical.  Suppose it did, what would happen ?
     Lots of things.  Public displays of Islamic faith would certainly
     be one of them, including quasi-public events.  That would be the
     least of the changes.  Can you imagine half of Digital coming to
     work in chador ?  No more baconburgers, etc.  It's like a game I
     used to play (now obsolete) of trying to imagine a communist USA.
     It would not have been the same flavor as a communist China or a
     communist Cuba.  Some of the same stuff, some new and unique.
    
      On the "civil disobedience" of the students - it is to laugh.  If
     you really did try to enforce discipline, which isn't going to
     happen anyways, the net effect would be to cause these things to
     happen all the more.  We have seen this effect so often, you could
     probably even predict the numbers.  "Gee, cool - I want to be like
     those guys."  If Nero couldn't stamp out the Christians with lions
     in the Coliseum, the disciplinary efforts of USA school
     administrators, who can't keep their charges from smoking joints on
     the school's front step, will be a complete joke.
    
      bb
    

        re .550

    > ceremony, so it was hardly onerous.

    That is a matter of opinion.
    Similar things happened in my high school.  Not regarding religion, it
    was more rock and roll stuff, you know "this kind of music will not be
    played on school property..."  The net effect was the more they told us
    not to the more we were obliged to do it.  Some times the school would
    crack down, sometimes they'd just blow it off.  What I discovered was
    that if they tried to crack down, the whole event would turn ugly. 
    People would brood about how they had been wronged, etc., and the end
    result would be a more unpleasant situation.  Usually if it was
    something minor, like a song be played (or sung) it was essentially
    ignored.  We would be collectively reprimanded, and that would be it, 
    We had blown off our steam, and we went about our business.  Something
    serious however (where someone could have been physically hurt) was
    cracked down on hard.  We were always told why, and we almost always
    agreed, so there was no problem.

    The approach that this school is taking is completely wrong.  No one was
    hurt, so the principle should do the old "Now knock it off, you had
    your fun, now lets get back to doing what we're supposed to be doing"
    and put it behind them.

    Dan

    Have they put those criminals in jail yet?

        <----

    Well for our tenth reunion, the warden is gonna give us an extra hour
    in the exercise yard ! ! !

    ;-)
    Dan

                     <<< Note 430.552 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>

    
>      On the "civil disobedience" of the students - it is to laugh.  If
>     you really did try to enforce discipline, which isn't going to
>     happen anyways, the net effect would be to cause these things to
>     happen all the more. 

	So then you favor the notion that any discipline by school	
	authorities is a waste of time? For any infraction of
	school rules or directives?

Jim

    
      Jim - no.  I think any kind of discipline, school or otherwise,
     OF THE MAJORITY, is doomed.
    
     I've seen this - in the army, both giving and taking commands.
     In the American army, if you just give orders without explaining
     them, they are not obeyed.  If you don't like it, pick another
     country.  We win enough wars our way.
    
      This country was founded on the fundamental principle that staid
     authority figures deserve to be given the finger.  Smart leaders
     know this.  Dumb leaders don't get it, and lose their followers.
    
      bb

                     <<< Note 430.557 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>

    
>      Jim - no.  I think any kind of discipline, school or otherwise,
>     OF THE MAJORITY, is doomed.
 
	So you favor anarchy as long as 51% of the students approve?

>     I've seen this - in the army, both giving and taking commands.
>     In the American army, if you just give orders without explaining
>     them, they are not obeyed.

	Given the situation under discussion, a reason was given. A court
	order was issued instructing the school to remove the song from
	the program. Right or wrong, it was a lawful order. Do you believe
	that encouraging students to ignore lawful orders is a good thing?
	Do you beleive that students that ignore lawful orders should not
	be subject to disciplinary action?

>      This country was founded on the fundamental principle that staid
>     authority figures deserve to be given the finger.

	Gee, I have copies of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution
	and the Federalist Papers. I've seen no refernce to flipping someone
	the bird in any of these documents. Perhaps you can point me to a 
	reference.

Jim

    
>>      This country was founded on the fundamental principle that staid
>>     authority figures deserve to be given the finger.  Smart leaders
>>     know this.  Dumb leaders don't get it, and lose their followers.

	So you should have no problem with kids smoking joints on the
	front steps of the schools then, right?

>Right or wrong, it was a lawful order.

At Spitbrook we have a hallway dedicated to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

On the wall is written

	Just as we have an obligation to obey just laws, we
	have an equal obligation to disobey unjust laws.

/john

	"No society can exist unless the laws are respected to
	a certain degree.  The safest way to make laws respected
	is to make laws respectable.  When law and morality
	contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alter-
	native of either losing his moral sense or losing his
	respect for the law."

				- Frederic Bastiat
				  The Law

    re: .560
    
    I have a problem with that.  It's really a lovely concept.
    All "rally round" and "stir up the masses" and all that.
    But when the smoke clear, there is still the question,
    Who gets to define "unjust"?  You? Me? The Guy Next Door?
    What's the criteria for "unjust"?  Suppose I think the tax
    code is unjust?  Suppose you think stop lights and speed
    limits are unjust?  Simply disobeying laws you believe are
    unjust invites anarchy.  
    
    Now, working to *change* laws you believe are unjust is another
    matter.  You are part of a group, or if not, you quickly will
    be if you have a popular stance.  There is a criteria, there is
    agreement on what needs to be changed.  There is an attempt to 
    take the system that is in place and make it work for you.
    
    I believe working to change unjust laws is a citizen's responsibility.
    Simply disobeying them is not.
    
    Mary-Michael

    
      Actually, you probably can't even deal with a substantial
     minority either.  Do I ignore the speeding laws ?  Yes, I do.
     No problem.  It doesn't mean I drive 150 mph.  It means I
     drive the same speed as everybody else, the wise course.  And
     I don't even read the meaningless signs they put up.
    
      So you think because some appointed-for-life judge issues an
     order, everybody ought to just fall into line, huh ?  How would
     we ever have gotten a USA if our ancestors thought that way ?
     We wouldn't have.  Sure, you can pick out a few ringleaders and
     make martyrs of them, for all the good it will do you.
    
      Here's a clue, from General Patton : "If you issue an order that
     is not obeyed, it is your fault."
    
      bb

	Sounds like the good General should have left the philosophizing
	to others.

    
    <-------
    
    
     Why??
    

>>     Why??

    Because the notion that disobedience is always the fault of the
    order giver is Patton-tly ridiculous, (obligatory IMO).
    

    
    
    <-------
    
    "always"????
    

    
      On the kid smoking a joint on the front steps of the school :
    
      I've already said this before :  the kid is making a dumb mistake.
     But if there are LOTS of kids doing it, you aren't going to succeed
     with a "War on Drugs" type prohibition.  It will fail in its object,
     just like the seatbelt law, or any other anti-dumbness campaign.
     It's too late for that.
    
      On Patton : well, he said it of course in a military context, but
     I agree with it.  And you better believe that's the view of upper
     managers of lower managers who can't control their people - get rid
     of the person, substitute somebody who gets results.  Before you
     ever give an order - to your kid, your spouse, your employee, your
     student, your soldiers : stop, think - will they do this if I tell
     them to ?  If your guess is, "no", don't give the order.  Something
     else is wrong.
    
      On the Constitution and flipping the Bird : I'd guess the 1st and
     10th would pretty well cover it.  What was the Boston Tea Party ?
    
      bb

    re: .563
    
    Coming from Patton, I would tend to believe the philosophy
    behind the quote was, "It's your fault because you did not
    properly beat everyone into submission beforehand."
    
    That's not exactly what I'm getting at.  Unjust laws should
    be challenged and changed.  Actually, if we were all doing
    our jobs as watchdog citizens, unjust laws wouldn't get on
    the books to begin with, unless there was a conflict involving
    two equally vocal groups (ie, abortion).  In that case, the
    pendulum appears to swing back and forth.  But by choosing
    to live in a society we do have an obligation to obey the laws
    of that society to the best of our ability.  That doesn't 
    make us sheep.  That makes us a society.  If you don't like
    obeying laws, go be a hermit.
    
    Mary-Michael

    
    
    RE: .569  Not really.  The philosophy behind the quote was that you
    haven't earned the respect and trust of your men and you are not a good
    leader.
    
    
    Mike

             <<< Note 430.560 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>

>	Just as we have an obligation to obey just laws, we
>	have an equal obligation to disobey unjust laws.

	And Dr. King, true to his convictions, followed his conscience
	AND accepted the consequences of his actions.

	It sound like quite a few of you are suggesting that we teach
	our children that there are, or should be, no consequences for
	civil disobedience. Is that something you REALLY wnat them to 
	learn?

Jim

    
    
    re: .571
    
    Jim,
    
      >And Dr. King, true to his convictions, followed his conscience
      >AND accepted the consequences of his actions.
    
     and I respect his convictions... and his accepting the consequences..
    
    
     I do not however feel I fall into your "quite a few of you"
    statement....
      
      I've always tried to adhere to the old adage...
    
      "You've made your bed.... etc..."
    
    
     Andy
    

    re: .570
    
    We've never discussed how I feel about the military, have we? :-)
    
    

                     <<< Note 430.563 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>

    
>      So you think because some appointed-for-life judge issues an
>     order, everybody ought to just fall into line, huh ?  How would
>     we ever have gotten a USA if our ancestors thought that way ?
>     We wouldn't have.  Sure, you can pick out a few ringleaders and
>     make martyrs of them, for all the good it will do you.
 
	You have completely missed the point. Nowhere have I said that
	the students did not have the right to act as they did. All I have
	said is that once you decide on an act of civil disobedience then
	you should expect that there will be consequences and that you should
	be prepared to accept those consequences.

	Teaching children that they can ignore authority with impunity
	is not a "life lesson" that I would expect the majority of
	Christians in this forum to support. But from the postings,
	it appears that I may be wrong.

Jim

    	re .519.
    
    	No, just the choir.

>>  <<< Note 430.567 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy caweful of yapping zebwas" >>>
>>    "always"????


    Yeah - "always".  Read the quote again.  If Herr Braucher got it
    right, Patton didn't put in any qualifiers.
    

    
    
    Funny Di.... I didn't see it that way when I read the quote...
    
    Oh well... You say tomayto and I say tomahto..
    

	re: andy

	er, yeah, whatever.

    Re: .552
    
    >it is demographically impossible for the USA to go Moslem any time soon
    
    The original statement about being guided by the majority wasn't
    bounded by the nation, but by the school.  It is not in the least
    demographically impossible to wind up with a school where the majority
    of students are Muslim.
    
    >so the whole question was hypothetical
    
    I take it this is supposed to be some kind of revelation to us.

    Re: .557
    
    >This country was founded on the fundamental principle that staid 
    >authority figures deserve to be given the finger. 
    
    Go to the library and look up the Alien and Sedition Acts.  Then try to
    say that again with a straight face.

    
    re, .580 - both of these acts were openly thwarted, at the
              instigation of an entire party, not to mention the
              Vice President.  And nowadays, if they came up,
              they would certainly be (1) ignored, (2) unenforced,
              and (3) ruled unconstitutional.
    
      I repeat, with a straight face (in other language, that is) :
      The USA was created on the fundamental grounds that the only
      possible basis for authority is the common people.
    
      If you think otherwise, Celsea, you're wrong.  The writings, the
      events and actions of the times, and the comments of the scholarly
      all agree that this was so.
    
      As to a school, it is a mere hireling of the people.  If it does
      not do their bidding, it has no basis for existence.
    
      bb