The new school prayer

[belgareth]

A student

allegedly wrote this some years ago and a principle is in trouble for reading it out loud, over the school intercom!

Personally, despite my complete lack of religious beliefs, I enjoyed the poem and think I'll send the principle a

nice note of support. He's either very dumb or very brave to have read it to the school.


THE NEW SCHOOL

PRAYER


This was written by a teen in Bagdad, Arizona. This is incredible!



Now I sit me

down in school
Where praying is against the rule
For this great nation under God
Finds mention of Him very odd.



If Scripture now the class recites,
It violates the Bill of Rights.
And anytime my head I bow
Becomes a

Federal matter now.

Our hair can be purple, orange or green,
That's no offense; it's a freedom scene.
The

law is specific, the law is precise.
Prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice.

For praying in a public

hall
Might offend someone with no faith at all.
In silence alone we must meditate,
God's name is prohibited by

the state.

We're allowed to cuss and dress like freaks,
And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks.
They've

outlawed guns, but FIRST the Bible.
To quote the Good Book makes me liable.

We can elect a pregnant Senior

Queen,
And the 'unwed daddy,' our Senior King.
It's "inappropriate" to teach right from wrong,
We're taught

that such "judgments" do not belong.

We can get our condoms and birth controls,
Study witchcraft, vampires and

totem poles.
But the Ten Commandments are not allowed,
No word of God must reach this crowd.

It's scary here

I must confess,
When chaos reigns the school's a mess.
So, Lord, this silent plea I make:
Should I be shot; My

soul please take! Amen

[Felstorm]

This young persons frustration

is not unfounded, and completely understandable.

It's actually in the interest of the freedom of religion to

not teach it or allow it in any form in schools. It's largely a personal thing. Christians like to play at being

persecuted, when they themselves persecute others by their overbearing nature. Rabid atheists are just as bad. They

are as fanatical and disagreeable as their Christian counterparts.

It's not enough from some Christians to

have their faith and enjoy it. They feel insecure in themselves, so they have to loudly proclaim to others about

thier holiness. And a large political force has resulted from this insecurity. They would rather have Jesus' life

story rehashed every year for twelve years than an honest science deparment teaching evolution.

I agree with

the young man. No religion should be taught in schools at all. Nothing, not Christianity, Wicca, or what have you.

It's not fair to any of the parties involved.

One thing I find particularly hilarious. Back in the 1950's

when conformist culture was greatest, and Christian values supposedly reigned supreme, they had just as many

"Pregnant Prom Queens", and "Unwed Prom King Daddies". Such things were often dealt with secretly with a rusty

coathanger in some clinic lavatory. It was more important to have regular bowel movements than a decent orgasm. At

the peak of Christian power and moral rule in human history, we called it the "Dark Ages" because of the gross

ignorance and lack of understanding humans had about themselves and the world around them. The world was flat, the

sun revolved around the earth, and Jesus was coming back Any Time Now(tm).

Morals are not inimical to one

religion. I contest this young man's assertion that Christianity makes you a better and more moral person.



Survival is the highest law.

[Surreal]

Hi

I just would like to

begin with declaring I am atheist. There is no need to explain the reasons behind who I am.

I agree with

Felstorm......religion thoughout the ages are all mostly insecure about many things. I have noticed American

christ/GOD believing peoples are offending by other religions and beliefs. This ease to apprehention is built into

the religion itself. I understand the reason for being present. If there was no such mechanism (FEAR) involved in

the religion of christ/GOD believeing peoples I suspect the religion would of faded away before the Dark Ages.



If reference to the prinicle and the reading of the poem. It is completly unacceptable. Propaganda FOR or AGAINST

religion has no place in a STATE run institution. The poem fabricator is skilled and should be applauded, but in a

volunteer way. "Students I have a great poem written by a fellow classmate of yours. It will be archived in the

libary for your reading pleasure." The student may post the work if he/she chooses but not the state. It is the

LAW.

thats all for now

-Surreal-

[belgareth]

It does no harm to allow

freedom of religion in schools or on government property, for that matter. If you don't believe in it, ignore it,

no problem. All religions have their good and bad points, mostly as a result of some radical subset of that religion

and not of the religion itself. I see nothing wrong with prayer in school or with teaching religion, no more than I

see a problem with teaching eithics and philosophy. In truth, the presenting of religious information in a fair and

unbiased manner would probably be good for students and aid in teaching critical thinking skills; something sadly

lacking in our current education system. There is no such thing in my opinion as knowing too much and helping to

understand others by understanding their beliefs would bring more good than bad.

That said, our society is

becoming more and more amoral all the time. People are more concerned with their own gratification and rights than

with helping others and working together. If religion can help to reverse that trend, I'm all for enouraging at

least an understanding of the principles of it. I would not condone teaching "My way is the only right way" which

both the religious and the athiests are guilty of doing.

[bjf]

What is the guy whining about? He

can do it personally. You just can't have school officials do it, because that's forcing an individual thing on

everyone.

[belgareth]

Why shouldn't he be able to

pray aloud? Fro that matter, why shouldn't he be allowed to stand on the roof and shout his prayers through a

bullhorn? Every other special interest group does it, forces their opinion on me. Why shouldn't religions? I can

ignore them all equally, it's not a problem for me.

[bjf]

Who is stopping him from praying

aloud? I thought they just don't want to do it over the public address system, ie pledge of allegiance?

[belgareth]

What's wrong with it? Reading

aloud an opinion should also be alowed. Isn't there something about free speech involved in government protected

under the constitution? Isn't the school a government facility? What's the problem with the principle voicing an

opinion? Even standing on the roof and shouting it through a bullhorn or over the PA system?

[DrSmellThis]

I wonder whether the teen

really wrote it. It might have an element of urban myth, or be written by a parent. Teaching about religions from a

philosophical and cultural perspective would be fine if it could be unbiased, academic and objective. You'd have to

give voice to as many perspectives as possible. I don't think there is anything preventing kids from praying at

school. State sponsored prayer is another thing. Separation of church and state is not trivial.

[Surreal]

If you don't

believe in it, ignore it, no problem.

It is not that simple. (personaly for me.)

I am allergic to

cigerette smoke.... When ever I am outside in public places i smell it. It is foul and diguesting. (personal

opinion) When I am driving I somtimes can smell the smoke from the car in front of me. even going 55!!!!
2nd hand

smoke is a plainly a violation of public health and causes ill effects on others that do not smoke. Same as noise

polution, billboards,air polution, and nuclear war.

What/where is the connection? I don't smoke but I can't

ignore it. Parking lots, infront of stores, public parks, nation parks, ect. there is somone puffing up. Them

killing themselves is not problem nor do I care they smoke, the problem is my right to fresh CLEAN air to breath is

being taking away. I don't like capitalistic propaganda (advertisments everywhere) but where ever I drive I pass 5

fast food billboards and boards with half naked chicks promotian weight loss pills. I went to New York City.....and

the noise was insane. Sure thats what cities are, LOUD!! But have some restraints.

For the most part I do ignore

it all, though not easy.

Can my side/point be seen well?

-S

[Surreal]

What's wrong

with it? Reading aloud an opinion should also be alowed. Isn't there something about free speech involved in

government protected under the constitution? Isn't the school a government facility? What's the problem with the

principle voicing an opinion? Even standing on the roof and shouting it through a bullhorn or over the PA

system?
Yes.....If the principle was amoung friends as friends them sure go ahead. If he stood infront of

wal-mart reading the poem aloud that is fine. But while fulfilling his duties (on the clock for say) in a goverment

position he must abide by the law.

-S

[culturalblonde]

http://www.snopes.com/language/document/newpray.htm

Urban Legends Reference Pages

[bjf]

"I don't think there is anything

preventing kids from praying at school. State sponsored prayer is another thing. Separation of church and state is

not trivial."

What dst said is what I was saying. Don't agree with prayers over the PA system. If, however,

you are referring to the principal reading the poem Bel, that is a different issue which I haven't taken a stance

on.

So it is a urban myth anyway. I figured it might be, but it really doesn't matter if its fake or not

for the point of this conversation. Although right now I am a bit confused on what we are debating about :)

[belgareth]

Cigarette smoke can do you

harm, therefore you should not have to be exposed to it. By the same token, I should not have to worry about some

f*&%ing drunk on the road. If you want to drink or smoke or shoot drugs, I don't care. However, the moment you risk

somebody else's well being you need to be stopped.

A person talking about religion or voicing an opinion

cannot harm you. It might even do some good by offering you an alternative opinion. Unless and until you curtail all

personal opinions you cannot fairly curtail a person's right to an opinion or the voicing of it in ANY place. What

the man was doing was not really promoting religion so much as exercising his government protected right to speak

his mind. If you can stand up in a school and say a person does not have the right to pray in school, another person

has the right to say they do. Anything else is stiffling an opposing opinion and that is wrong.

[belgareth]

Since you mention cigarette

smoke, which I don't feel is in any way related, I'm going to digress for a moment.

Granted that cigarette

smoke is annoying and unhealthy. What about perfumes? They can and do cause asthma attacks and other health effect

along with many of them truly stinking. That's a definate public health hazard so let's outlaw the use of perfumes

in public places. Cheeseburgers are a public health problem too, they cost taxpayers uncounted healthcare dollars

every year, maybe we better outlaw them too. Then there is ice cream. Want me to go on? Where do you want to draw

the line and how are you going to justify it? That path is full of pitfalls.

The truth is that the laws and

people's biases are subjective and hypocritcal. "Do as I say because it's good for you." I don't accept that. We

call ourselves a free people but we make more and more rules all the time that are slowly whittling away our

freedoms. Are you going to contribute to that?

[Surreal]

Since you

mention cigarette smoke, which I don't feel is in any way related, I'm going to digress for a moment.

Granted

that cigarette smoke is annoying and unhealthy. What about perfumes? They can and do cause asthma attacks and other

health effect along with many of them truly stinking. That's a definate public health hazard so let's outlaw the

use of perfumes in public places. Cheeseburgers are a public health problem too, they cost taxpayers uncounted

healthcare dollars every year, maybe we better outlaw them too. Then there is ice cream. Want me to go on? Where do

you want to draw the line and how are you going to justify it? That path is full of pitfalls.

The truth is that

the laws and people's biases are subjective and hypocritcal. "Do as I say because it's good for you." I don't

accept that. We call ourselves a free people but we make more and more rules all the time that are slowly whittling

away our freedoms. Are you going to contribute to that?
Exellent points.

All and all I guess

contempory society really is not doing that bad. For the most part we are at peace. There is no Anarchy or major

destructive forces out to get us. For the exchange of living in the pursuit of happieness and freedom I let religion

run amuck around me. :)

-S


*EDIT*

I did not mean to single out religion.....I ment cheeseburgers,

energy problems, smokers, crack hors, W. Bush, Iraq, school shootings, drunk drivers, ect. :)

-S

[DrSmellThis]

I'm all for free speech, but when a principal reads it in his or her official role it's about more

than free speech.

There is a real power difference there; an implication of teaching; and of being compelled. A

student isn't free to tell the principal it's "BS" and/or to "shut up" in that situation, for example. The free

speech can only go one way there, perforce. So you also have to consider student rights to freely choose their

deepest personal beliefs and practice them as they see fit, as well as the students' right to free speech per se

(though equalizing this right alone wouldn't solve the problem).

The principal was also getting paid as an

educational professional. So this is tax dollars being spent to advocate a contentious viewpoint.

Those are

factors to consider.

Then there are the salient professional ethics issues of role conflict and power abuse to

consider. You could argue it was bad teaching on those bases. Of course those are peripheral issues if we are just

talking legality here.

However, I don't think the situation is great test case for church and state issues;

since the text is a political opinion more than a prayer. So the issue is more about the permissibility of partisan

public educational systems. Consequently, we'd want to consider whether the text was presented as a way to teach

about political opinions in a context of other opinions, for example (It doesn't seem that it was.). Further,

students often have only one choice of public schools to attend, by State law. Where is their freedom of choice if

that one school is a partisan institution?

More fundamentally, it's also an example of the issue in political

ethics where one cannot successfully base political policy on rights in general, much less single rights in

isolation.

Considering a right to, say, free speech -- in isolation -- is a classic and common trap to fall

into in ethics (Among the worst, most common and most foolish abuses here occur with property rights: "I own it and

can do anything I want with it."). Since rights often conflict and must be balanced according to something

else, you must base any political ethics on something bigger and deeper than rights in order for that

ethics, and consequent policy, to succeed (Libertarian politics often fail philosophically on these counts,

as do "libertarian-flavored" conservative policies.).

Rights politics, as a type of individualism, is party to

all the foolishness that individualism in general is. (When you are talking about "artificial individuals";

that is, corporations; which are considered individuals under the law; the foolishness of "individualism"

multiplies astronomically, resulting in many of the dire problems we see today.)

So the discussion would have to

widen to consider factors such as these, to treat the issue fairly. Wisdom always comes from a bigger

picture. Like every other important issue in politics, thinking about it in a simplistic, isolated, black and

white manner is a sure recipe for disaster.

The foolish and destructive omnipresence of this "recipe" in

today's dominant political thinking is matter for another thread. :type:

[Felstorm]

Context is everything.




Why shouldn't he be able to pray aloud?
He can. At home. In church. On the street

corner. In a gymnasiusm. On the moon. Anywhere. He can even bash on your door at 8 am, interupt your morning coitus

with a hot blonde, to peddle religious paraphernelia to you.

He just can't do it government buildings.



He wouldn't be able to enjoy doing such things if it weren't for a religously neutral government.

Vocal

"opinionated" Christians would have you believe their is pie in the sky when you die, so you'll eat their shit now.



The more someone proclaims what a good Christian they are, and why you should be a good Christian too (put

money on the plate) it's more than likely they are the furthest thing from being a Christian.

They claim that

America is a moral cesspool allowing homosexuals to live protected under the law, abortion, et cetera, ad nauseum.

They always fail to take note that their own man-god wandered around preaching the "Good News" with 12 dudes and no

chicks. Save his mom and some Mary Magdalene chick that wouldn't put out. Jesus never said jack about

homosexuality. I'm inclined to think that Judas Iscariot was a jealous lover.

Half the stuff Christians

complain about, Jesus never said shit about. They dig up their vitriol and hate from closet misongynists like the

Apostle Paul, or misinterpret the Old Testament and Mosaic Law.

They'll follow the "good book" word for word

when it comes to homosexuality, or abortion, but conveinently leave out bits that forbid them from wearing clothes

made of two seperate fibers, or eating shellfish, or bacon. Shit, anyone that is a Southern Baptist is gonna burn in

hell for sure because "soul food" contains so much pork in it.

And don't get me started on Catholic girls

because we all know how naughty they are.


For that matter, why shouldn't he be allowed to stand on

the roof and shout his prayers through a bullhorn?
Because of the sectarian nature of religions. Other

religious people might become offended, and some nutcake might trade his bullhorn for a rifle, and do "God's

judging for him". Ie, abortion clinic bombers.

Religion is such a touchy subject, whole wars have been started

over who prays to what. Millions of people have been subject to genocide because of what deity they prostrate to.



Fact of the matter is, religions tend to contain quite a bit of violent supremacist ideology. Particularly that

of Abrahamic monotheism. (Judaism, Islam, and Christianity) It's better that we teach children to think critically,

than to blindly accept because some old book told them something was true. Shit, we tell them all kinds of lies,

like Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny, but when it comes to the other invisible capricious being

known as "God", we never bother to let them down about that one and tell them God may or may not exist.





Every other special interest group does it, forces their opinion on me. Why shouldn't religions? I can

ignore them all equally, it's not a problem for me.
It's hard to ignore a religion when it overtakes a

government, and then systematically liquidates anyone outside of the new Ideology. See: Nazi Germany Circa 1932.



America is one of the few places in the world where two diametrically opposed religions can co-exist with one

another without rampant bloodshed. Sunni, and Shiite can worship here peacefully. Protestant and Catholic get along

happily. Jew and Muslim live on the same block.

Why? Because the government does not endorse or promote one

religion over another. Everyone gets a fair shake, kinda. If you kill someone over religion here, you get the

punishment as anyone else regardless of your faith.

In the US you are generally not allowed to use force to

make someone believe in a religion that you have not taken for yourself. And it should be this way, so all people,

religious or not, can live in peace together.

It's not the place of the government to make kids pray to a god

they may not believe in. Spiritual expression can be a beautiful thing. Look at the works of Johan Sebastian Bach.

But you would have never gotten that if it were FORCED.

God is a deeply personal thing. It's not something

you can put in a church, or describe in a book. It's something that exists within all of us and can be tapped at

will to do great things. One should not kneel and pray to God, or spend pointless hours in church, or padding the

pockets of pedophile preists. But doing something useful and productive and helping better their community,

themselves, and their fellow humans.

That is what religion is. Lots of people talk about it, denounce others

over it, put labels on it, kill for it... but very few people practice it.

[belgareth]

No, what you are talking about

is intolerance and hypocracy. You appear to be as intolerant as the religious folks you complain about. You also

seem to have a problem with christians specifically. I live in the bible belt and know a good many honest and devout

christians, and a few sleazeballs as well. Now remove the word christian from the last sentence and replace it with

any other sect or athiest and the same will be true. It's kind of a round about way of saying they are all human

and have human flaws.

My point is that the anti-religious groups can speak long and loud but the religious

groups cannot. It seems like they are as guilty of the same crimes. Most often, when I hear that kind of vitriol

against any group I assume it has more to do with hate, fear and intolerance than any reasonable issue.

There

has been nothing in my writing saying anybody could or should be forced to pray or that violent measure were at any

time reasonable or acceptable. There is a big difference between voicing an opinion and using force to make people

worship the same as you. However, using the courts to prevent somebody from worshipping is another application of

force or coercian.

[BassMan]

http://www.snopes.com/language/doc

ument/newpray.htm (http://www.snopes.com/language/document/newpray.htm)

Urban Legends Reference PagesThank you. That just _smelled_ like an urban

legend.

-Bass

[belgareth]

Thank you. That

just _smelled_ like an urban legend.

-Bass
That's why in my original post I said a student allegedly

wrote it. The part about it being read over the school PA system was from AP so I believed that part.

[Felstorm]

There has been nothing

in my writing saying anybody could or should be forced to pray or that violent measure were at any time reasonable

or acceptable. There is a big difference between voicing an opinion and using force to make people worship the same

as you. However, using the courts to prevent somebody from worshipping is another application of force or

coercian.
One can worship freely anywhere except a government building or a taxpayer paid public school.

Anywhere else. But it's never enough. Such is the nature of the fundamentalist Christian political movement. There

are a great many politicians in power that quite honestly beleive that atheists, pagans, homosexuals, lesbians, or

any other minorities that fall outside thier dogma, shouildn't even be considered citizens.

Whether these

elected officials act upon those personal opinions is another matter. But the fact of the matter is, the US is

becoming increasingly hostile to religous and social minorites. I like to point out the hypocrisy of Christins

largely because they are the are usually the most vocal about being holier-than-thou. It may seem like I have a bone

to pick with them on a personal level, but it's not the case. If it were Islam, Judaism, or even Buddhists and they

behaved in the same fashion I would have the same opinions.

When it comes to religious expression, it usually

one-sided. Many courtrooms have portrayals of the Ten Commandments. What would happen if a Wiccan put up a stone

pentagram with the Wiccan Rede engraved upon it? Or perhaps an Islamic monument with segements of the Quran

imprinted upon it? Or a Hindu donating a statue of Ganesh? Would Islam boys and girls be allowed to interrupt class

three times a day to bow to the east and say their prayers? Would Neo-pagan children be allowed to ritualise in

front of classmates?

Frankly I don't really care if they did. But I believe it is wrong for the State to

sanction the prayers and religous historical documents of one religion over another. If your gonna let people put up

Ten Commandments statues in courthouses, other religious groups should be allowed to the same with their documents

as well. How well do you think having a Satanist putting up their Eleven Rules of the Earth in a courtroom or

classroom would go over in the Bible Belt?

It wouldn't that's what.

See what I'm driving at here?

Unless you afford everyone the same priviledge, it doesn't work. It's just easier to say, "don't mx church and

state at all, period". It really works for everyones benefit and overall happiness... if they could just stop

arguing with each other long enough to see it that way.

[BassMan]

There has been

nothing in my writing saying anybody could or should be forced to pray or that violent measure were at any time

reasonable or acceptable. There is a big difference between voicing an opinion and using force to make people

worship the same as you. However, using the courts to prevent somebody from worshipping is another application of

force or coercian.Assuming there _was_ a principal ignorant enough to read such a thing over the intercom in

a public school in the year 2004 (which somehow I'm sure there is), my question to him/her would be: are you going

to give me/my child equal time to read a poem expressing an "opinion" about the Killing Times - when "christians"

assasinated "witches" for being heretics? Somehow I doubt it. Since I really don't want to invest the energy to

make a (almost certainly winnable) federal case out of it, I think it's better not to start down that path to begin

with.

-Bass

[belgareth]

Yeah, I see what your driving

at and I disagree completely.

Do you enjoy your freedom to do as you wish? Does it irritate or anger you when

some special interest group stops you from doing something for some obscure reason? How offended would you be if you

were told you couldn't practice the freedoms you have in a public place where you were required by law to be?



The point of difference here is fairly simple from my perspective. I don't have the right to control your actions

so long as you are not harming somebody else. Nor do you. Yet we as a group always want to tell everybody what they

can and cannot do 'for their own good'. That's exactly what you are doing "It's the law and that's that!" If

that were true we would still keep slaves, women wouldn't vote and witches would be burned.

The anti-christian

sect is just as self righteous about their stand as the christians are, as the muslims are and on and on. And each

of you wants to use your self righteousness to tell every other group how to behave. I do not accept your authority

or that of any other group to determine how I or anybody else should live or act, so long as they do no harm to

another. Since I don't see where reading that document has harmed anybody, I don't see where it's a problem. As

for it being the law, so? Like the bible says, he who hath no sin... Unless you obey every law's intent, that holds

no water.

Personally, I have no religious beliefs. That's because I don't know what the truth is. As an

athiest you claim to know what the truth is. I'd love to be so sure of myself as to determine something does or

does not exist just because I say so. It would be wonderful to be certain that all those billions of people are all

wrong. I'm not that sure that just because I can't touch, see or taste it, it doesn't exist.

[DrSmellThis]

I'd like to make a "process"

note here, if I may.

Bel is correct to point out that what is or isn't the law is beside the point, since

presumably we're discussing what the law should be.

Moreover, it's not about "doing something in

government buildings." As I established above, there are considerations that the topic demands if it is to be

addressed directly and fairly. The salient issues haven't been addressed (not that all of them need to be here).



So far guys seem to be talking past each other -- one about a person's right to do as they choose as long as they

don't harm anyone, and another about state sanctioning of something. These are different issues, and no one has

really identified where and how they might intersect. So there's no clear area of agreement or disagreement

so far -- only vague disapproval of each others' posting, peppered with general political opinions.

The first

step is to pick an issue (or issues) and have everybody address it. I tried to help with that in the last post,

without success.

[Felstorm]

Do you enjoy

your freedom to do as you wish? Does it irritate or anger you when some special interest group stops you from doing

something for some obscure reason? How offended would you be if you were told you couldn't practice the freedoms

you have in a public place where you were required by law to be?
Equality means equality. Not special

priviledges for certain groups. Actually, I should be using the word liberty, instead of freedom because it

describes this concept better.

If we were to allow prayer and so forth in schools, it would have to be done

equally. And when it comes to Christian fundamentalists, who are pushing for their children (and yours) to pray in

schools, they however aren't interested in having everyone share their religion. They want just their own to

be seen and heard. That is where your original prayer/poem originated. From a fundamentalist Christian sect. They

designed it, and the urban legend behind it, for the very purpose of making people angry.

These very same

Christians would get offended if a Wiccan child came in and started ritualising in front of the other classmates.

They don't want their children exposed to such "devil worship". Already neo-pagan kids have to be careful in some

schools for fear of being expelled due to the nature of their religion. Many have. And it doesn't even need to be

neo-pagans, there is plenty of animosity between Christian sects as it is. Last thing we need is Catholics and

Protestants fighting over who gets more prayer-time in the classroom when the kids should be learning the three

R's.

THAT is why school should be irreligious. Too many people throw temper tantrums and get their feelings

hurt when you go to insert religion into a taxpayer paid environment. It's better just to say, "No religion here

please." than to try and manage the three-ring circus that injecting religion into schools would cause.




The point of difference here is fairly simple from my perspective. I don't have the right to control your

actions so long as you are not harming somebody else. Nor do you. Yet we as a group always want to tell everybody

what they can and cannot do 'for their own good'. That's exactly what you are doing "It's the law and that's

that!" If that were true we would still keep slaves, women wouldn't vote and witches would be burned.


I'm sorry. But it isn't a black and white issue.

And as for, "That's exactly what you are doing "It's the

law and that's that!" If that were true we would still keep slaves, women wouldn't vote and witches would be

burned.", This simply isn't true. It's the law because there is a good reason behind it. Not because of some

arbitrary decision. It was the Christian element that fought to keep women from voting, segregation of negroes, and

in earlier millenia, the burning of "heretics" and "witches". People with humanistic morals have had to fight

Christian intolerance (morality) tooth and nail all the way to get to where we are today. You wouldn't have

anesthesia to perform surgery, because the Church was of the opinion that it was immoral to ease the suffering of

sick human beings.

The seperation of School and Church exists because too many people would get pissed off

over it. You couldn't keep it fair to everyone, one religion would dominate and silence all the others. Much as it

is with the Christian dominant US now, if you aren't Christian, you are a second-class human being. And those that

do feel this way wouldn't bat an eye at legislation banning minority religions they disagreed with. That could mean

you.

Imagine a twit like Jerry Falwell deciding what your kid could learn and couldn't learn. This is the

agenda of the Christian political movement in the US. They start with little things like "prayer in schools" and

"Intelligent Design", and work their way up. It's not a slippery slope, it's a gradual decent back into the past.

A past that is romanticised as "more moral" because women didn't have rights, and negroes were openly hated, and

you wouldn't be charged with murder for lynching a witch, or shooting a gay man.


The anti-christian

sect is just as self righteous about their stand as the christians are, as the muslims are and on and on. And each

of you wants to use your self righteousness to tell every other group how to behave. I do not accept your authority

or that of any other group to determine how I or anybody else should live or act, so long as they do no harm to

another. Since I don't see where reading that document has harmed anybody, I don't see where it's a problem. As

for it being the law, so? Like the bible says, he who hath no sin... Unless you obey every law's intent, that holds

no water.
Your assumption that vocal prayer, and dispensing, and dissertation of sectarian religous

documents and paraphernelia "does no harm" is fallacious. It can, and will do harm to those that would choose to not

have their children exposed to it in the first place. It can and will do harm if it teaches hatred, "because God

hates <insert subculture> kiddo".

Are we any more just in saying "Put up, and shut up. Even if you don't agree

with it, and it tramples on your own morality.", than saying "No religion in school please."?

Either way

sucks, but at least with the latter option you keep nutballs from getting to your children before you do.




Personally, I have no religious beliefs. That's because I don't know what the truth is. As an athiest you

claim to know what the truth is.
I never said I was an atheist. And I never claimed to have the truth,

just an accurate observation of how people behave with one another in regards to religious beliefs.




I'd love to be so sure of myself as to determine something does or does not exist just because I say so. It would

be wonderful to be certain that all those billions of people are all wrong. I'm not that sure that just because I

can't touch, see or taste it, it doesn't exist.
I'm not saying that "all those people are wrong about

their religous beliefs". I'm saying that "All those people can't get along well enough with one another to allow

open religious expression in schools and government buildings. Too many people would get offended at the other's

religous practices and the whole point (diveristy and understanding) would be obscured by petty religious

bitch-fighting."

I wish people were different. But there are just too many intolerant parents, Christian,

atheist, Muslim, etc, to allow prayer and ritualisation in schools. With the recent upsurgence in in evangelical

fundamentalist religions, I don't see this level of understanding happening any time soon. It would be less of a

learning experience, and dissolve into a morass of backstabbing, literal and figuratively speaking.

I'm not

sure how you would feel if you knew that your tax-dollars would go to teaching and exposing your child to a religous

philosophy you adamantly opposed/could not stand.

[DrSmellThis]

"Equality means equality. Not

special priviledges for certain groups. Actually, I should be using the word liberty, instead of freedom because it

describes this concept better." -- Huh? Liberty and freedom are virtually the same thing. And are you talking about

"equality" or "freedom" here? They are different topics from each other, and it's unclear what you mean by this

statement.

So you've abandoned the original question about whether it was OK to read the political poem (as I

clarified to deaf ears); and have now unilaterally changed the topic to whether religious content in public places

is OK. So everything that came before this is trashed.

And now you're saying that the "separation of church

and state" is about not pissing people off, and not hurting their feelings; and about how bad the

Christian right has always been. Both these are off target, even for discussing religion in public places (or just

schools?), the new issue you apparently changed it to. I think separation of church and state is a bit different of

a concept.

It is not suprising that this conversation is going nowhere. Unfortunately, we still need to hit the

issues and keep with them, for everyone's benefit.

You are correct that it's not a simplistic, black and

white issue. I hate the great evil of black and white thinking with a fervent passion. But it's futile to bring up

the salient issues when they are then ignored for people's pet political talking points or whatever.

[Felstorm]

"Equality

means equality. Not special priviledges for certain groups. Actually, I should be using the word liberty, instead of

freedom because it describes this concept better." -- Huh? Liberty and freedom are virtually the same thing. And are

you talking about "equality" or "freedom" here? They are different topics from each other, and it's unclear what

you mean by this statement. I liken the word freedom closer to an anarchist definition of "do whatever you

want damn the man and the consequences." We aren't REALLY free in the most literal sense of the word. We live by

laws that inhibit our behaviours, usually the more negative aspects.


So you've abandoned the

original question about whether it was OK to read the political poem (as I clarified to deaf ears); and have now

unilaterally changed the topic to whether religious content in public places is OK. So everything that came before

this is trashed. I haven't abandoned original question. Already answered it. It's not okay to read

religio-political opinion in schools because of the various reasons I already explained.

Look at how this

thread has devolved into "Felstorm you just have a beef with Christians, it's all a personal vendetta." because I

feel that religion is far less important to be taught, allowed, in schools than other subjects. The subject is so

deliriously controversial, the ACLU wouldn't even touch it. I only have a "beef" with Christians, if they go around

bullying other people. I'd take the same issues with any other religion, even my own.

The US already has

problems with teaching kids the utilitarian stuff, they'll cut, music, art, sports, and other activities and put a

theology class in it's place because it makes the Church down the street feel more comfortable.

If it looks

like I'm picking on Christians it's because they are a majority and there are certain groups, not all of them,

among that religious sect that would impose their religion on everyone by law. And they are starting this by trying

to force prayer back into schools, abortion, yadda yadda yadda.

Is it any more just of us to tell people,

"The US is a Christian nation, other people of other faiths can come here, but you'll be treated differently and

your children will be forced to go to schools and sit in classes where they will be exposed to Christianity on a

daily basis. "Freedom of religion really means, freedom of OUR religion and not yours." Sit, down, shut up, and pray

to our god. Thank you." than it is to say, "Please be respectful of other people's beliefs, leave your religion at

home when you come to public school. Practice your religion on your time anywhere you wish, save taxpayer paid

facilities."

It's not just an isolated thing. It's part of a far bigger agenda on behalf of such political

groups like the Moral Majority, and CWA.


And now you're saying that the "separation of church and

state" is about not pissing people off, and not hurting their feelings; and about how bad the Christian

right has always been. Both these are off target, even for discussing religion in public places (or just schools?),

the new issue you apparently changed it to. I think separation of church and state is a bit different of a

concept.

It is not suprising that this conversation is going nowhere. Unfortunately, we still need to hit the

issues and keep with them, for everyone's benefit.

You are correct that it's not a simplistic, black and

white issue. I hate the great evil of black and white thinking with a fervent passion. But it's futile to bring up

the salient issues when they are then ignored for people's pet political talking points or whatever. The

salient issues have as much to do with, and are pivotal in how this country is going to educate it's children. If

it's okay to let Christian Timmy pray in school, it should also be expected that Muslim Sara and Jewish Micheal can

do the same. Are the Christian politcal constituents that want to see this implimented so badly, going to allow

these other religious minorites to practice freely, or is it going to become just a platform for one religion to

promote itself over another?

I'm okay with the idea so long as it treats everyone equally. If it just turns

schools into a theological brainwashing camps for one religion that muscled it's way into the schools to promote

itself, than I have to say that would impinge upon people's liberty to worship as they please.

And I say that

with regards to all religions, not just Christianity. I would object even if it were my own religion in question.

[belgareth]

"Equality

means equality. Not special priviledges for certain groups. Actually, I should be using the word liberty, instead of

freedom because it describes this concept better." -- Huh? Liberty and freedom are virtually the same thing. And are

you talking about "equality" or "freedom" here? They are different topics from each other, and it's unclear what

you mean by this statement.

So you've abandoned the original question about whether it was OK to read the

political poem (as I clarified to deaf ears); and have now unilaterally changed the topic to whether religious

content in public places is OK. So everything that came before this is trashed.

And now you're saying that the

"separation of church and state" is about not pissing people off, and not hurting their feelings; and

about how bad the Christian right has always been. Both these are off target, even for discussing religion in public

places (or just schools?), the new issue you apparently changed it to. I think separation of church and state is a

bit different of a concept.

It is not suprising that this conversation is going nowhere. Unfortunately, we still

need to hit the issues and keep with them, for everyone's benefit.

You are correct that it's not a

simplistic, black and white issue. I hate the great evil of black and white thinking with a fervent passion. But

it's futile to bring up the salient issues when they are then ignored for people's pet political talking points or

whatever.
Doc,

You've got some good points and I am not ignoring you. Never would I ignore my

favorite opposition. :lol: Been terribly busy again but frankly feel felstrom is way off base. I'll get back into

it as soon as I get a few minutes.

[belgareth]

I'm going to start off and

admit that you are both absolutley right about how people are going to act,; the christians, the rich, the

republicans, the progressives and so on. Then I am going to say that I am right and they will not act that way.



First, the people are going to respond to however you expect them to. If you expect them to try and force their

opinions on you, they probably will and if you expect them to mindlessly destroy their environment, they probably

will. Frankly, you both are far too simplistic in your outlook on people and it is primarily the fault of the way

you were taught. Simply put, the vast majority of people couldn't care less about how any one of us feel and just

want to live in relative happiness without all this hoopla. That applies to almost everybody.

Felstorm,

In

some of your earlier posts you use terms like "man made god". Terms like that are almost always associated with

athiests. If I jumped to a wrong conclusion, I apologise. I would like you to explain how you can be so certain

about who created what. Or were those statements intended some other way?

You state that christians as a group

want everything to be their way, that's utter nonsense. Most of them don't care how you live so long as you don't

disturb their lives. If you choose not to worship, they see it as your own business. The few in leadership positions

and their followers who feel otherwise are the exception, not the rule. Their reasons for their actions probably

have nothing to do with non-believers but are related to consolidation of their power base. If you did not have

those few fruitcakes in leadership positions most of your issues would disapear. The same can be applied to almost

all the other annoying and dangerous things people in leadership positions like to do. And they do most of it with

the same words and ideas you are using in these posts. Fear is a powerful tool in the hands of a person with an

agenda.

I am not the least bit concerned about my kids listening to somebody talking about their religion. In

fact, I encouraged them to learn about all religions, not just christian. I even took them to various churches so

they could see it for themselves. I feel it is extremely important for them to know as much as possible and to give

them the information to make their own choices. I have nothing to fear from religions.

The big difference here

is in basic philosophy. Each of you would use coercian to force others to follow your paths. By coercian I mean any

method that forces people to do something. That includes the legal system and all it's methods of sanctioning

people who don't follow its arbitrary rules and bounderies. Education and reason, compromise and mutual best

interests are fine. But the moment you force somebody to do what you want against their will you are commiting a

crime.

Now, each of you is going to tell me why it won't work and as I said before, you'll be absolutely

right. You remind me of a VP I used to report too. I moved to Texas as part of a company transfer to take over a

failing department of 95 technicians. They gave me a free hand to run my department so long as I met certain

expectations. I ran it along the same lines I run my life, my household, my relationships and my previous

departments.

AT the end of the first year I met with this VP. He was thrilled with my performance and as a

result I recieved a sizable pay raise and bonus. A few people had quit with the change in management but moral was

at an all time high. All the important stats were far better than expected and I was well under budget. Once I

explained what I was doing, this VP with his MBA began to explain why my way wouldn't work. He was absolutely

right, just as you both are. At the end of our conversation I went back and continued doing what I had been doing

and my department continued to improve. I have several awards on the wall for our performance during the 3 1/2 years

I ran that department before starting my own business which I run the same way.

You each will continue to run

your lives and believe your way and I will do the same. I get results and never resort to coercian of any sort. I

use explanation, understanding and agreement as my main tools. As a result, I do very little in the way of

supervising and have wonderful people working with me.

It's easy for you to argue that it won't work that way

in a macro environment and as I said before, you are right because you believe it won't and can probably give me a

hundred different reasons for it. That's fine. I'll continue to believe it will work and continue trying to change

my little corner of the world towards what I see as a happier and healthier style of life. In the meantime your

world can continue to be filled with strife and fear. I choose not to live that way.

So, as for whether somebody

can read a poem, political statement, pray or voice an opinion in school, they are not harming me, I don't have any

reason to fear their actions and am happy to allow every person the opportunity to voice an opinion. My favorite

hobby of inciting people to tell me why I am wrong has taught me many wonderful things that I would not know

otherwise. It has given me perspectives that before somebody else presented them to me, I had no clue about. At the

very worst a person's opinion turned out to be a nul value and a waste of my time. In most cases I learned

something new and was thereby enriched. I may not like what somebody has to say but I will listen to it. I don't

fear that any religion is going to 'Take Over' because they only will if the people have so little knowledge as to

be led by those beliefs. Since I believe in the inate goodness of the human animal, I have faith that we will

continue to grow despite the best efforts of closed-minded fools and power happy 'leaders'.

[DrSmellThis]

"Strife and fear"?? I don't

know what you are advocating for, Bel, and you apparently don't know much about any "simplistic view of people" I

might have. (That's the first time I've ever been accused of that). I raised issues that needed to be considered,

but was not so kind as to express a specific position. You seem to think that by ignoring them, talking about your

former boss and career successes, and claiming you are "right" about a nonexistent debate, you can "rebut" them,

even though they were not rebuttable positions, per se. I think I see the main point in your last post -- I might

agree with part of it -- but I regard it as just something you happen to believe; not part of any real two way

discourse.

[belgareth]

I hope your not being

intentionally obtuse about what I was trying to say. It had little to do with career success and was an example

related to a whole life philosophy applied in a given situation. I had hoped you would understand that. Your

comments above make me wonder once again how much of what I write you understand or if you misinterpret on

purpose.

No strife and fear? Really? Sorry Doc, but most of your arguments use fear of one thing or the other

happening as a reason for action. It's not just you, it's government, religion etc. It's intrinsic in the way we

are governed or managed. Fear of reprisals of one sort or another is the single most common motivational tool used.

Fear of Christians taking over is the whole basis of Felstorm's argument. I don't believe in that as a way to

handle people. I believe in teaching and working together for mutual benefit. As just one good example, how much has

been accomplished by telling people how they are destroying our planet. Would you get better results teaching them

how they could make their own lives more comfortable by adopting other methods? I believe so. You are being

simplistic if you believe you can motivate people to act through fear, they only grudgingly consent and as we become

more sophisticated people will respond less to fears. Look at our society and tell me how much good fear of

consequences is doing towards keeping people from robbing, killing or detroying things.

To sum it up,

Felstorm's arguments are all about fear as yours are. I don't choose to live that way or treat people like that.



Sorry that I didn't address your last post before that long one of mine. Simply forgot that part but you did have

some very good points in it. I was addressing earlier comments.

[DrSmellThis]

I think I understood your

example and its underlying philosophy adequately (and have been discussing and meditating on that issue in depth for

15 years); but wanted to say I didn't find it to the point of interactive discussion, regardless of whether I

agreed with the idea behind it. You could reread the thread. I don't deny it was to the point from your

perspective.

Not to digress, but I disagree about my posts and fear, and consider myself a strong advocate of

love over fear. Fear (or other painful emotions) has not been the point. That doesn't mean there is no role for

painful emotions on the planet. In a twelve step program there is a first step of realizing fully what the problem

is. That part is difficult and painful. Similarly, there must be some waking up about the environment, some

shattering of illusions; if we are to survive. Period. You can't just work together cooperatively with the denial

part (the rest, yes). It doesn't make sense to think of that as "fear mongering". In the case of stuff about the

current administration, a certain apprehensiveness has proved eminently reasonable, unless you don't find carnage,

etc., etc., something to be apprehensive of.

I've no idea of any single thing I said in this thread that was

about fear. Maybe something is buried in my unconscious. But you told me my comments are "all about fear".

That's blatantly false; and you'll get nowhere with me like that. Again, no one here knows my opinion on prayer in

schools, though I've identified some issues for consideration. I've been advocating for the discussion, rather

than my opinion, despite the fact that 22 years of education in religious schools (plus 5 in public ones) qualifies

me to have an opinion.

You're being unfair; as you were earlier with Felstrom in throwing out everything he

said without showing having heard him. I tried to moderate, without success. Felstrom's overemphasis of

questionable fundamentalist intentions or Christian hegemony in the US (though these are contextual factors) is sort

of beside the main issue, and I did try to steer him back. But not everything he said was "completely off

base," as you were suggesting.

Rather, both sides were saying some reasonable things, in isolation; but there

was insufficent relation between the sides for mutually productive discussion.

A "fairly simple" argument to the

effect that anyone can say or do anything, anytime, as long as they aren't hurting anybody; and that religious and

political speech is not hurting anybody; sounds good by itself; but ignores quite a few crucial issues here. You

still don't seem interested in acknowledging or considering them. That discussion is doomed.

This is

too bad, as it prevents people from eventully supporting one another and finding agreement. That is not "working

together."

It's not about agreeing or disagreeing with what you said, much less misunderstanding it. I'm not

interested in considering abstract opinions in isolation, outside of cooperative discourse and context; if that's

what the abstractions supposedly grew out of; and don't find people to have been intellectually "cooperative" in

this thread. I'm not really excited about prayer in schools, and don't need to continue.

[Felstorm]

Well, lets try and bring it

back.

Here's the deal. I understand and sympathise with belgarath's stance. I too feel that it's ridiculous

when some atheist parent should run crying to the ACLU everytime a child or teacher discusses religion in school. Or

a teacher openly wears a crucifix and then gets fired over it. Or a pagan child is suspended because other students

suspect her of casting spells to harm other students. It is silly, and people should grow more of a skin.

I

also feel that religious people of any denomination should not be allowed to use schools are platforms for promoting

their own religion on taxpayer monies.

Having a theology class, where all religions are discussed on equal

terms I would support.

Having the principle, teacher, or a student lead a public school in prayer that

represents only one religous philosophy over an intercom is unacceptable, and is anathema to the "Freedom of

religion" clause. Freedom of religion does not mean, "Freedom of your religion to trample other people's religions

in favor of your own.".

Belgarath. Your last rebuttal you wrote about your experiences in the workforce as an

executive. That essay makes me think that you feel that just because it doesn't bother you, or you don't mind it,

and if you ignore it and just do what you have done all along, it won't affect you or your kids, or their kids or

someone elses kids.

What about others that aren't as open-minded and educated like we are? How can we educate

these people to be as tolerant and understanding if they themselves are so close minded and full of bigotry and

hatred because of their pastor, mullah, rabbi, or cleric told them to be that way?

Keep in mind that those

radical people that are "exceptions to the rule", are also the same kind of people that put Hitler in power. It only

took one Adolf to bring the whole world to the edge of annihilation. All for Hitler's idealised vision of a

Catholic superstate where the seat of religious and politcal power would have been a blonde haired blue eyed

caucasian Germany of eugenically created ubermensch. Imagine it if hw had won. No Jews, no blacks, no Islamics, no

pagans, nothing but Christian Nazis running the world with an Iron Fist under the Iron Cross.

All it took was

a little "inspired" antisemitism, support from the local clergy, and a nation willing to dedicate itself to a cause

that was ultimately horrific and in error. They artfully used the Christian label, and it's "Good guy badge", in

propaganda to whitewash what they were doing. And the mainstream majority of Christians in Germany at the time

swallowed it hook line and sinker.

It is foolish to think that this can't happen again. It already has.

Another guy by the name of Osama bin Laden has done the same thing. He took some religous philosophy, and Islams

"Good guy badge", stirred it all together with a liberal dose of his own political agenda and started a Jihad

against the US.

And where does all this start?

With children who have been conditioned to accept anything

a person from their own religous heirarchy tells them.

Children will believe anything you tell them. Even

lies. In fact we think it's cute to lie to them and get them to believe in something that isn't real. Like Santa

Claus and the Tooth Fairy. This I find disgusting and morally reprehensible.

Some folks, "hellfire and

damnation" preachers especially, will go so far as to start implanting bigotry and racial hatred in children as soon

as they are able to speak. Should we allow this? Should we allow radical clerics to build little terrorists? Bigotry

is bigotry regardless of the religous label you slap on it.

That is where your poem/prayer comes in.

It

is a tool of people that want to change the US into a "Christian" nation, only. All others unwelcome. If they can

get kids to believe that Christian's not of their own denomination, or pagans and Islamics and Jews are all evil

and are gonna burn in Hell. It's so much easier to get people to dehumanise these minorites when they are adults,

if you start it when they are a kid and don't know any better.

If we aren't careful and vigilant about

protecting religous freedoms of everyone, you and I, or your kids could, one day, find yourselves looking down the

barrel of an m16 now in the hands of the New Christian US National Guard. Atheists, pagans, homosexuals, Muslims,

and Catholics will be shot on sight. This is what these fruitcakes want. I know, I was raised in a community full of

people that think this way.

Belgarath, you are right. My viewpoint is an obervation based upon fear. Because

it is something that is worth being scared shitless about. Ever been to the Holocaust museum in Washington D.C.?

After seeing the contents of that "museum", I vowed that I would not stand for another person to justify bigotry by

using the name of any god or religion. I've gotten really good a sniffing out the BS, because I see what the

"exceptions to the rule" are trying to do. And there is more than just a few of them. Your prayer/poem which you

thought was so terribly cute, is a wedge used to divide people, and trigger unthinking indignation in the minds of

Christians.

These kinds of power hungry people were so scary and dangerous, it was so important that the

founding fathers put in the establishment clause and set a legal precident to prevent "the exceptions to the rule",

from doing something horrific with their new state under the guise of religion.

The case history with

Christianity, the majority religion in the US and the World for that matter, has been a long, bloody, intolerant

one. Many of it's followers have risen to power based solely upon hate found within the bible. The world is not a

more peaceful place because of them, but in spite of them. Every advance we have had to make life better, has been

fought tooth and nail by the Christian establishment. I dislike them not because of who they are, but because of

what their leaders do with the message that was delivered to them.

Peace amongst men doesn't mean only on

their own terms or at point of a sword. And until all peoples of all faiths see these patterns of abuse, and excise

the people and teachings that are detrimental from their religions, we will continue to see the patterns of

indoctrinated bigotry and bloodshed.

Something tells me this isn't what "God" had in mind.

Anyway.



I'm done here.

I enjoyed debating with you belgarath. But I will stop here. I have said everything I could

have said, and I am content with the outcome that we will simply agree to disagree. I can live with that.

No

hard feelings, eh?

:drunk:

[DrSmellThis]

Felstorm, the first third of

your essay was perfectly to the point (though I'm not saying I'd express my opinion in the same way).

The

second two thirds seem like you are maybe just giving an extreme case example of why church/state separation is

important and necessary; but this connection was still unclear to me; and might be to some others. Still, your essay

was much more coherent and salient this time, though I'm sure some will disagree about the extent of dangers of

fundamentlist Christianity; and many no doubt already disagree with your earlier statements against Christians in

general -- which struck me as completely unnecessary, and as spoiling some good points for everyone.

But even

though I felt a little bit taken off track, I admit that you sucked me in to the issue enough that I wanted to post

a link regarding Hitler's religiosity, which is not often talked about.



http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm

I apologise if I have

sidetracked us even more. I was done with this thread too, but I felt this information needed to be shared, even if

I had to embarrass myself by typing into the thread again. The value of the link is in the extensive Mein

Kampf quotes, which give a little of the flavor to his rhetoric. He did write that he considered himself

Catholic, which is embarrassing having been raised Catholic. Like me, he was an "altar boy". I'm just posting this

because it gives people a little bit of context for what you are talking about -- so that it doesn't seem to be

coming from Mars as much (Some might still think "Moon", ;) but maybe we're still not sure where you are coming

from with your past, and your powerful fears. Religions are dangerous; often subtly; even increasingly so in our

shrinking, increasingly interdependent world. That does not mean that they shouldn't exist, of course. I would

personally prefer that religions drastically change the way they operate, which would be possible only if their

relations to their central texts, clergy, and dogma would change -- a tall order.)

About 10 years ago I

conducted a deep psychological analysis of Mein Kampf for some academic research I was doing. Among other

things, I was moved by how such horrific destruction could arise from such mundane thoughts and life-themes. In

history, transformations from benign to malignant are almost always hard to perceive in the moment -- impossible for

many, even; such is human nature and the nature of "evil" -- yet each of us is responsible for detecting these

transformations, given that they depend on our collective compliance. This is a disturbing responsibility, to put it

mildly; since if what is normal turns out to be malignant, our worlds will be turned upside down.

[belgareth]

Felstrom,

Yes, I've been

to that museum. Also to the internment camps in the Mojave desert, worked through the library of pictures from

Horishima, spent time on an Indian reservation and in the big city ghetto and a number of other places that sickened

me. It's incredible how fear and hatred can be used as an excuse to do such things to our fellow man. But refusing

to allow another's point of view will never prevent such thing from happening, it will encourage it. Even if it

does not encourage it, lack of knowledge and understanding of how another thinks is an open door to it happening

again. Knolwedge, understanding and open discourse are the most likely ways to prevent such horrors. I could spend

time picking apart your arguments but will instead just say that if you would use facts you would be more

believable. An example is that christianity is not the worlds largest religion, muslim is. There were a few other

mis-statements but you see my point.

Where I am trying to go is that each of you is reacting to a symptom, not

the root of the problem. I am not nearly as upset about Bush as you are DST because I realize that he is little more

than a figurehead and that his only likely opponent would not have been much different. The entire structure under

them is parasytic, bloated and corrupt and neither president would fix the underlying problem. I doubt either would

have much effect at all on it. Kind of like taking an aspirin for a broken leg, it helps a little on the short term

but doesn't do much about the real problems. Osama is another horror that we ourselves created. All we've done

about him is attack another country, the desease, the fear and the hatred are still there. We have not addressed the

root of the problem. Ok, if you play with a knife and cut yourself, you need to stop the bleeding. We've put a

small bandaid on but the cut's still there and we are still playing with the knife.

So, what is the problem? In

my opinion it is the underlying attitude of dominance and control; in a word, Power! Hitler wasn't about religion,

he was using religion as a tool to control the masses. The Catholic church isn't about religion, nor are the

Mormons or the Jehovah's Whitnesses or the myrid other churches. Many members of each church truly believe in their

gospel but still use it as a control tool. You were right, Felstorm, when you said that the basis of the christian

church is fear. They use fear to control the masses. DST, you speak out against the mega-corporations, and

rightfully so IMO. They rape our environment and subjugate the people to their will. For what reason? Power and

money (Same thing) to a select few. How do they control the employees? Fear of unemployment, fear of no health

benefits and so on.

I'll use the rain forests as an example of the problem we are dealing with. Destroying the

rain forests is doing serious harm to the environment. So, let's stop the logging and the clear cutting. How many

people living at the edge of the rain forests will no longer have a means of feeding their families today? What

alternatives do you offer them? When a child is doing something you don't want them to do, you offer a more

attractive alternative to distract them. An adult who has no alternative will contiue to cut down trees to feed

their family. The alternative of taking money from other people to feed and house the displaced workers is self

defeating, it takes the motivation from one group and delivers it as a demotivator to another. That's just

shuffling the problem, it does not fix it.

I do not supervise or lead based on fear, I do so based on how we can

all pull together to make all our lives better. When I talk to my employees it isn't about what we did wrong it's

about what we can do better, how we can help each other and what's in it for everybody. Then, when we do accomplish

more, I share it with them in a manner we have agreed is fair and also helps protect the future of the business.

It's my fervant hope that no employee working in an organization supervised by me will ever have to fear for their

job or any other form of security.

Do you see where I am going? Yes, we need to stop destroying the environment

and stop allowing zealots to kill innocent people or lead others into such distructive behavoirs. You can

acknowledge mistakes and bad courses of action, you can examine what is wrong but using fear of those things is the

same path, the same mentality that motivated Hitler's followers and so many others. We need to break that cycle and

work towards a different mindset that uses positive motivators rather than negative. Saying you cannot do this or

that simply makes some people dig in harder and fight you. It's a fight that has gone on for millenium and has yet

to be won. Answering the question of prayer in school with "Certainly! I've always felt that I would like a few

minutes of silence where I can meditate, it would do me wonders. What time of day do you think is best?" pulls the

rug out from under them. They no longer have ground to fight from, there is no longer a reason to fight about it.

Many of the answers are not that simple but the philosophy holds true. There are still demented people who want to

dominate others but as you one by one destroy their excuses, their followers slowly fade away. They cannot generate

fear and hatred when you don't fight with them. The fear mongers lose their power to control others and are

marginalized. It may not be as rewarding to the ego as winning the fight but it will be a much better solution in

the long run.

The topic has digressed and gone back and forth but my reasons for supporting the principle are

all part of the philosophy I live by. I don't know what his reason was for reading the poem and I don't really

care. Opening up the subject to discussion took either a lot of courage or stupidity. In either case it serves what

I feel is an important goal, opening up a dialog will reduce misunderstanding which will reduce fear and hatred if

handled properly.

[Fatal]

What's next? Taking "under god"

out of the pledge? "In God we trust" off of the american currrency? The nation was founded on the belief of god. The

word god can mean multiple religon's god, not just christianity. It would be such a shame and discrase if they did

that. So what if you don't belive in god? Does it really offend you that it sais that on your money? If so that's

really petty and sad. "Oh no, look at me I don't belive in god so I want it off of American money. I'm willing to

start a huge fight over it." It's reidculous. It's not religon is being forced upon anybody or you don't have

freedom. Who really cares, I think if you get THAT offended over a poem, you need a serious reality check.

[phersurf]

Sorry Fatal, but your knowledge

of history is a little faulty.

Under God was not in the original pledge, it was added during the "Red Scare"

of the 50's. Read this for the story - http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm

And the US was not

founded on the beleif of God!!

Here's a small example,

In a sermon of October 1831, Episcopalian

minister Bird Wilson said,

Among all of our Presidents, from Washington downward, not one was a professor of

religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism.

The Bible? Here is what our Founding Fathers wrote about

Bible-based Christianity:

Thomas Jefferson:

I have examined all the known superstitions of the world,

and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded

on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have

been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world

fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.

SIX HISTORIC

AMERICANS,
by John E. Remsburg, letter to William Short

Jefferson again:
Christianity...(has become)

the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the

teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of

Jesus.

More Jefferson:
The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving

mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to

themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ.

Jefferson's word for the Bible?



Dunghill.

John Adams:

Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions,

Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these

days?

Also Adams:

The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for

absurdity.

Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 states:

The Government of the United States

is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.

Here's Thomas Paine:

I would not dare to so

dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible).

Among the most detestable villains in

history, you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to 'God' to butcher the boys, to

massacre the mothers and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not dare so dishonor my Creator's name by

(attaching) it to this filthy book (the Bible).

It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral

justice of God against the evils of the Bible.

Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can

forgive sins...and you will have sins in abundance.

The Christian church has set up a religion of pomp and

revenue in pretended imitation of a person (Jesus) who lived a life of poverty.

Finally let's hear from

James Madison:

What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In

many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the

guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy

convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the

clergy.

Madison objected to state-supported chaplains in Congress and to the exemption of churches from

taxation. He wrote:

Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed

together.

These founding fathers were a reflection of the American population. Having escaped from the

state-established religions of Europe, only 7% of the people in the 13 colonies belonged to a church when the

Declaration of Independence was signed.

[Fatal]

Apperently what they teach in

school can be a little biased eh? Glad to learn something. But still, you get my point.

[belgareth]

That's true, this country was

not founded on religious beliefs other than that each person has the right to practice however they see fit. The

seperation of church and state was intended to prevent the government from interfering with the practice of

religion. It has since been extended to mean that religion cannot interfere with government, rightly so in my

opinion.

As athiests argue, you cannot prove the existance of god and that is true. You cannot disprove his

existance either. Either position is strictly a matter of faith making both positions religious in nature.

Logically, athiests have no more right to force their views on people than any other belief system. Since we are a

representative democracy, athiests are entitled to bring it to the voters as are religious people. Either group is

entitled bring up the issue in order to amend the constitution. A small group taking it to the courts is simply

saying "I want it my way and don't care about the majority".

Personally, I think these people need to get a

life if they have so much free time and spare cash to argue such a petty and inconsequential point. If you don't

believe in god the statement under god has as much meaning as blue bananas. Both are nul and meaningless terms. It

isn't worth the expense to the people to waste time on it. Their dedication and fervence makes me think that they

are not as sure of themselves and their opinions as they'd like everybody to believe. Fear as a motivator has

always made people do the most pointless and bizarre things. It is worse than pointless, it's a waste! You can bet

that if the athiests get a ruling in their favor the religious groups will start fighting for their beliefs and

wasting still more resources that could be spent on more important things like helping the poor. All for a few

meaningless words?