RE: Freedom -from- religion? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

luckydog1 -> RE: Freedom -from- religion? (10/18/2007 11:14:09 AM)

No alumbrado, what is dishonest is you trying to use "endorse" and "allow" interchangably.  Pretending I used dishonestly to refer to anyones opinion or view, is also dishonest, I used it to refer to your tactic of switching terms.  I agree 100% that the school should not ENDORSE any religion.What we have seen in this thread is that child is free to pray in his own time (not disrupting class), and religious clubs can set up just like any other club.  If you can see or hear a group of kids praying at recess is it "inflicted" on you?  If the kids for Jesus club hangs a flyer next to the Kids opposed to War club, next to the chess club, is anything inflicted on anyone?  



Alumbrado -> RE: Freedom -from- religion? (10/18/2007 12:42:40 PM)

Allow:

"...to approve; sanction"

"....to give approval of or permission for."

—Synonyms 1. Allow, let, permit imply granting or conceding the right of someone to do something. Allow and permit are often interchangeable, but permit is the more positive. Allow implies complete absence of an attempt, or even an intent, to hinder. Permit suggests formal or implied assent or authorization.


Endorse:

"...to approve"

"To give approval of or support to, especially by public statement; sanction: endorse a political candidate. See Synonyms at approve."



Approve:

"...To consent to officially"

—Synonyms ...authorize, endorse, validate.

http://dictionary.reference.com/





Neither English nor logic seem to be your strong suit.



Owner59 -> RE: Freedom -from- religion? (10/18/2007 1:28:25 PM)

Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists
The Final Letter, as Sent:

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

Of course, freedom of religion ,includes and also means ,freedom from religion.That`s what freedom is.To chose as you please.
Freedom of,also means freedom from.



luckydog1 -> RE: Freedom -from- religion? (10/18/2007 6:27:55 PM)

Alumbrado, you are starting to look silly here.  those words do not mean the same thing.  They are not synonyms.  Your own link shows so, and you are pretending you are right.  The exercise of religion is allowed, per the constitution, explicitly ""make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,"   It is not to be endorsed or given official support and sanction, nor is the exercise to be prohibited.


owner, you think "of" and "from" mean the same thing????  ok......can't really argue with that can I.  So, owner you want the freedom to choose to silence others, seems to fit your ideology.



Aswad -> RE: Freedom -from- religion? (10/18/2007 6:38:49 PM)

To the OP,

Freedom from religion is simply a specific instance of the more general principle that I am entitled to my opinions and beliefs, and you to yours. Except the more general principle isn't really as well enforced. People have lots of opinions and beliefs. Some of them, they can act on, others they can not. All of them, they can express. So, also, it should be with religion. If I'm allowed to behave like an asshole toward you for being kinky, I should be allowed to do so because you subscribe to a particular religion, or don't subscribe to one. Similarly, if I'm allowed to give you discounts or extra good customer service for meeting my standards of decent behaviour in my shop, I should be allowed to give you the same based on my religious opinions, if they said such a thing.

It's a matter of letting opinions and beliefs stand, but not forcing anyone to subscribe to them. At the same time, it does not, and should not, encompass any notion that these opinions and beliefs are less important or valid than any other unsupported opinions or beliefs that people are entitled to have. As any member of this board should know, there are damn many unsupported opinions and beliefs in the world. Religion is no different.

Whether I'm rude to Alumbrado for religious reasons or for not liking his style, doesn't matter. [:D]

Health,
al-Aswad.



luckydog1 -> RE: Freedom -from- religion? (10/18/2007 6:52:24 PM)

Aswad, then what would you describe freedom "of " religion to mean?  I generally agree with your view as to how things should be, but would use the "of" phrase to describe it.  Some posters are taking more of a right to never see/hear/deal with religous people or ideas



Aswad -> RE: Freedom -from- religion? (10/18/2007 8:42:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Aswad, then what would you describe freedom "of " religion to mean?


It's two sides of the same coin, where it should be a single facet of freedom.

Some people think they should be entitled to not deal with people who have religious views.
I think I should then be entitled not to deal with people who have views I find to be silly.
Neither is likely to happen any time soon, so I deal with them, and they with me.
The alternative is to stick them in Australia, and the rest of us elsewhere. [:D]

Health,
al-Aswad.



Alumbrado -> RE: Freedom -from- religion? (10/19/2007 9:54:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Alumbrado, you are starting to look silly here.  those words do not mean the same thing.  They are not synonyms.  Your own link shows so, and you are pretending you are right.  The exercise of religion is allowed, per the constitution, explicitly ""make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,"   It is not to be endorsed or given official support and sanction, nor is the exercise to be prohibited.




Your argument is with the dictionary and apparently, the Constitution. 

I did not cause 'allow' and 'endorse' to both be synonymous with 'approve', I just chose to use them in their proper context.

Under various rulings, the Supreme Court has made a clear distinction as to when 'allow' does become synonymous with 'endorse'.

When a school allows the teaching of MLK Jr's role in civil rights, they are not endorsing his particular denomination or it's religious doctrine.

When a school hands over the microphone at a school sponsored event, and allows someone to preach, proselityze, witness, testify, evangelicize, sermonize, or spread the word about their new BFFE, Jesus, they have made a de facto endorsement of one particular religion.

Now if this doesn't suit you, feel free to cherry pick, redefine, move goalposts, whip up some straw, and trot out the handy ad homs...

At the end of the day, both Reality and the Supreme Court will go their merry way, unfazed by such maneuvers, and you will be left with nought but conspiracy kooks and high school debate team captains for company.  [;)]





luckydog1 -> RE: Freedom -from- religion? (10/19/2007 11:09:38 AM)

"I did not cause 'allow' and 'endorse' to both be synonymous with 'approve', I just chose to use them in their proper context." 

How do you figure that making stuff up is thier proper context?  Allow is not synonmous with Approve, the links you gave say so.  But why go digging into Synonmyms at all.  The words have different meanings.  If you read the stuff you edited out of the definitions you posted (that's Real honest (pun intendid)  editing quotes and definitions for meaning), it is quite clear and simple.  Allow is the abscence of hinderance of something...endorse is the active support of something.  I know you are smart enough to know this, why act dumb over it.

Are you going to act like you did on the ward Churchill thread?  IF so, you can have the last word here, and I won't respond



Alumbrado -> RE: Freedom -from- religion? (10/19/2007 3:25:26 PM)

quote:

Allow is not synonmous with Approve, the links you gave say so.


Allow:

"...to approve; sanction"

"....to give approval of or permission for."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/allow



"The school district's supervision and control of a high school graduation ceremony places subtle and indirect public and peer pressure on attending students to stand as a group or maintain respectful silence during the invocation and benediction. A reasonable dissenter of high school age could believe that standing or remaining silent signified her own participation in, or approval of, the group exercise, rather than her respect for it. And the State may not place the student dissenter in the dilemma of participating or protesting. Since adolescents are often susceptible to peer pressure, especially in matters of social convention, the State may no more use social pressure to enforce orthodoxy than it may use direct means. The embarrassment and intrusion of the religious exercise cannot be refuted by arguing that the prayers are of a de minimis character, since that is an affront to the Rabbi and those for whom the prayers have meaning, and since any intrusion was both real and a violation of the objectors' rights"
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0505_0577_ZS.html


I would agree it is definitely time for you to folllow the pattern of running away after getting caught spinning reality so blatantly.
Feel free to also declare victory and whine about being abused over your shoulder.[8|]

Anyone else who cares to, can follow the links to the dictionary and to the Supreme Court rulings and decide for themselve what is said in there.



luckydog1 -> RE: Freedom -from- religion? (10/19/2007 3:41:09 PM)

actually alumbrado, it says




7.
Archaic. to approve; sanction.       
You attempted to edit for meaning by leaving out the part that says that is the 7th definition and is an archiac one, not what the word means today.  rather dishonest of you.

and I agree, Administration led prayers should not be an enforced part of any school activity, nice of you to pretend I was arguing otherwise.

Ain't much else to say on this subject.  Everyone can judge our arguments for themselves.



Petronius -> RE: Freedom -from- religion? (10/19/2007 4:02:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

so how do y0u propose we defend a christian based constituition when people are not educated in christian morals?  or any morals at all for that matter?

Since the Constitution is not christian based I have no opinion on your hypothetical question except to note that I took an oath many years ago to defend the Constitution from all foes foreign and domestic and anyone trying to create a theocracy in the US should keep in mind how seriously I take that oath.


letting kids exercize their right to practice their religion by saying a morning prayer is creating a theocracy?  Since when?

you may have a huge chip on your shoulder but allowing kids to pray in their own religions respectively does not violate anything that I could find on the subject.

Now teaching it does but that is not what i was talking about.






I think this post shows the routine dishonesty of those supporting various fundamentalist Christian claims.

The issue has never, as far as I know, been one of anybody wishing to forbid students from saying a morning prayer in schools. To suggest it has it to engage in the dishonesty that fundamentalist organizers are increasingly known for. (Witness the various proponents of "Creation Science" who proclaim that no, no, no, it has nothing to do with religion, it is just so damned scientifically brilliant.)

The issue was of mandating citizens provide tax money to support public schools and then requiring that the money be used for mandatory periods of prayer. Is that a move to set up a theocracy? You bet. In fact, one could call it quite accurately a pocket of state theocracy in an otherwise non-theocratic state.

And any student is perfectly free to say any prayer they want, subject to the same rules and regulations as any other student activity.

I think one of today's core fundamentalist lies -- and one of the core Christian "false witness" against their neighbors -- is the flat out lie that prayer has been banned from the schools.



Petronius -> RE: Freedom -from- religion? (10/19/2007 4:16:55 PM)

Somebody once covered the rant of "how dare you be an atheist and say that God does not exist!" argument.

Sadly, I forget who. It might have been Mark Twain, Ben Franklin, H.L. Mencken, or, I believe, George Bernard Shaw.

In essence, the argument went, I as a total atheist believe almost exactly the same thing as the Christian fundamentalist. And the Christian fundamentalist agrees with almost every aspect of my atheism.

I don't believe in Allah. The Christian fundamentalist doesn't believe in Allah.

I don't believe in Krishna, or Vishnu, or Kali, or any of the other Hindu gods. Neither does the fundamentalist.

For 999 of the 1,000 gods of humankind, the Christian fundamentalist is an atheist. Only when the 1,000th god comes up, the fundamentalist's god, does the Christian abandon his previous scientific principles and go off Bible thumping and fearing damnation like a child afraid of the monsters under the bed.

But as for real atheism: the fundamentalist is 99.9% a confirmed atheist and proud of the fact.

So how can I say that God does not exist? I say it for the same reason that the fundamentalist who asks me that questions says that Vishnu doesn't exist.




Raechard -> RE: Freedom -from- religion? (10/19/2007 4:30:22 PM)

Putting a different spin on things but how exactly does this effect people of other religious denominations. Surely promoting one religion at school is going to discriminate against people of other faiths and make them feel unwelcome.

Different faiths have different requirements also; for instance a separate place for male and female Muslims to prey. You either cater for all of them or you discourage any of them. Myself I think it better that church and state is separated as much as possible and therefore religious activity in school should be discouraged.

Why is it you need to conduct worship at an educational establishment when you have a church or mosque to go to? We all know the answer to this though don’t we: what better way to spread the word than to demonstrate your religious activities in what should be secular institutions.

I think freedom from religion for me means no one walking up to me at a place of learning and asking me to join a worship group. If I am curious about a religion I will seek it out myself. I don’t want people asking me to join groups or demonstrating the benefit of it by preying in front of me. That would be state sponsored peer group pressure.



philosophy -> RE: Freedom -from- religion? (10/19/2007 5:21:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raechard

I don’t want people asking me to join groups or demonstrating the benefit of it by preying in front of me.


...those catholic priests have a lot to answer for.........



Alumbrado -> RE: Freedom -from- religion? (10/20/2007 7:20:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

actually alumbrado, it says




7.
Archaic. to approve; sanction.       
You attempted to edit for meaning by leaving out the part that says that is the 7th definition and is an archiac one, not what the word means today.  rather dishonest of you.

and I agree, Administration led prayers should not be an enforced part of any school activity, nice of you to pretend I was arguing otherwise.

Ain't much else to say on this subject.  Everyone can judge our arguments for themselves.


So dishonest, that the Supreme Court used the same archaic definition when they ruled that a school which 'allows' proselityzing as part of a school function is violating the Constiution by implicit 'endorsement'. You are familiar with the Coercion Test, right? 

Surely it is in one of the numerous links you've provided so that people can 'judge your argument for themselves'.



luckydog1 -> RE: Freedom -from- religion? (10/20/2007 9:29:05 AM)

Yes religous conversion as part of a school function would fail the etablishment clause. 



Real0ne -> RE: Freedom -from- religion? (10/20/2007 4:49:02 PM)


So lucky caught you in one of his little bait and switch slight of hand gigs and then promptly proceeds to call you a liar huh?


From the top:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

The point isn't the disruption, the point is the religious content.

If a school endorses the message, they are in violation of the Constitution.

Schools are free to allow all sorts of non-religious messages and exercises that may distract or even offend some students.


You used both words endorse and allow in reference to schools making the point of other activities allowed or endorsed by the gov/constitution.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

which of course shows religion is being singled out, and eventually leads us into thought policing if taken to the end game.


I summarized your last post as the government has no problem with other offensive endorsements or allowances in schools but in the case of religion takes the side of the (freedom from group) to the disadvantage and discrimination of the (freedom of group) 

(short story made long)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Woah!!!!!  I am in agreement with Real on this one.  Very well said Real.


Lucky agreed

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

So you agree that the practical applicaton of the Constitution, as it is currently applied, is to provide people with the freedom from a religion getting government to endorse their message?


You correctly summarized what I said in reference to the government and incorrectly summarized lucky's position asking lucky for confirmation on your conclusion.

So if you did not notice here is how the gig works....

You see where you said "government endorse":

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

So you agree that the practical applicaton of the Constitution, as it is currently applied, is to provide people with the freedom from a religion getting government to endorse their message? 


well lucky went on to make his point to say "school allow":

However instead of just saying NO you have my position reversed he went on to slander you by calling you a liar by accusing you of the very thing he is about to do to you!!!.

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1
Alumbrado, you are attempting to use "allow" and "endorse" interchangeably, not very honest.

Schools are free to allow all sorts of  messages and exercises  (both religous and secular) that may distract or even offend some students.  But not allow participation to be mandatory, or even officially encouraged, under the current law and what is commonly called "freedom of Religion".  


What the OP is about and several including you (if I am reading you correctly) want to take it further into "Freedom FROM Religion", where if it is determined that the result of the democratic proces or the exercise of individual liberties has a religous overtone, it must be overturned or supressed.


and on further to say:


quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

No alumbrado, what is dishonest is you trying to use "endorse" and "allow" interchangably.  Pretending I used dishonestly to refer to anyones opinion or view, is also dishonest, I used it to refer to your tactic of switching terms.  I agree 100% that the school should not ENDORSE any religion.What we have seen in this thread is that child is free to pray in his own time (not disrupting class), and religious clubs can set up just like any other club.  If you can see or hear a group of kids praying at recess is it "inflicted" on you?  If the kids for Jesus club hangs a flyer next to the Kids opposed to War club, next to the chess club, is anything inflicted on anyone?  


BLAM!!!  

Now he sets the hook by tying the two together hence blaming you for his error and calling you a liar for not catching his error.  (or was it really just an error?)

Take note again how you said government and he just slipped in school so slick and clean and chose to call you a liar rather than answer your question with a simple NO!!!!!  

Then to take it even one step farther:

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1
(that's Real honest (pun intendid)  


Gotta get that cheap shot in on me right away

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1
Understand Demolition??  Why would Silverstein and the Fire Chief be talking in technicall demolition terms?  Neither one is in demolitions.  He was talking with the fire chief, who told him the fire was uncontrollable.  And they decided since so many had already died fighting it it was pointless.  So he said pull it(refering to the fire crew).

But the point is that anyone interested in this can look, and see that you are lying.



Yes they certainly can now cant they?

Lets take a closer look at that LIE!

From the desk of the Grammar Professor:


quote:


Sorry. I get your meaning now.  And you're right, and the word "And" is part of the linguistic flag here:

pull it = demolish the building

"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it (to demolish the building).' And they made that decision to pull (to demolish) and then we watched the building collapse."

Linguistic evidence
If we assume that pull it means to pull (the plug on) the operation, to stop the operation, then the second pull doesn't fit grammatically, because it would have to carry the same meaning. It'd have to be "....they made the decision to pull out ...", a different verb altogether.

The problem here, or rather the apparent problem, is the phrase pull it. It's ambiguous, that is, it has two potential meanings:

1) to end an operation, to pull out of an operation
2) to demolish a building

If the idiom pull it means to pull out of an operation, then its base verb form to pull should follow semantically. That is, in order to keep the same meaning, which is evident by the speaker's use of the conjunction "And" which connects the two sentences, to pull would have to be to pull out.

In short, you are correct. Good eye! Pull in pull it and to pull means to demolish, not to pull out. To pull is short for pull it. 



Thankfully we have honest lucky around to keep all of us liars on the straight and narrow with his bait and switch tactics.   (and grammar teachers to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt he does not comprehend what he reads which correctly seems to be the general concensus)








Raechard -> RE: Freedom -from- religion? (10/20/2007 5:04:36 PM)

People spend too long debating the meaning of words when they fail to realise its only important what those that wrote the law meant by the words. Maybe that sounds a bit complicated to follow but all I’m saying is you can debate the meaning of words all you like but I bet the lawmaker wasn’t any better at using the correct words than anyone else. So the law is open to interpretation and it will be interpreted in many cases to come. Judges will set precedents and maters will be settled beyond the jurisdiction of anyone here. Therefore to debate words and their meanings here is pointless.



Real0ne -> RE: Freedom -from- religion? (10/20/2007 5:14:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raechard

People spend too long debating the meaning of words when they fail to realise its only important what those that wrote the law meant by the words. Maybe that sounds a bit complicated to follow but all I’m saying is you can debate the meaning of words all you like but I bet the lawmaker wasn’t any better at using the correct words than anyone else. So the law is open to interpretation and it will be interpreted in many cases to come. Judges will set precedents and maters will be settled beyond the jurisdiction of anyone here. Therefore to debate words and their meanings here is pointless.


yes and the founding fathers warn us to take their words in the context of the time and the way they meant it essentially however that is not being done.  They are changing the meaning to strip us of our constitutional rights.

which is to say that we can research their intent and meaning in 1776 as well as the words today are all spelled out for us.  Keeping that in mind yes we can debate it here, and in fact it is our duty as citizens of this country to understand the meaning and intent.



Page: <<   < prev  7 8 9 [10] 11   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875