The new school prayer

[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?

[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?