Tolerance and Diversity

[salty hoosier]

Is it not funny (in a not so ha-ha way) that those who trumpet tolerance and diversity as being the greatest thing since sliced bread will not tolerate a view that is divergent of their own?

[Norman Bernstein]

Is it not funny (in a not so ha-ha way) that those who trumpet tolerance and diversity as being the greatest thing since sliced bread will not tolerate a view that is divergent of their own? If you're going to troll, you really ought to try a lot harder, salty.

As it happens, I listen to the first 5 minutes of several right wing radio shows every day (The O'Reilly show at 1PM, the Laura Ingraham show at 7PM, and often Sean Hannity at 3PM.

On EVERY ONE of these shows, the first 5 minutes is devoted to the bashing of anyone/anything which is NOT conservative.... often vituperously, with lots of snickering derision...

And you're accusing Democrats and liberals of being intolerant?

What a joke!

[George.]

I'm telling you, it's Dutch.

[Keith Wilson]

No, just hypocritical. The right doesn't think tolerance is good, so they don't have to do it. How they can then criticize others for NOT doing something they don't value is a bit of a stretch, but why strain at gnats when one swallows elephants hourly?

[TomF]

Salty, it's just that you look/feel so much like our resident shape-shifting troll. Maybe you are who you say, but maybe you're just another Dutch-let. Folks will extend their hands only so many times.

[salty hoosier]

Mr. Bernstein,

I really have no idea what you are talking about in your diatribe. Nothing in your post is any kind of respose to the topic.

Since I rarely listen to talk radio I don't know what goes on during the first five minutes.

I know this post is "diss'n" you in your own house and I will take a full broadside for making it. I thought I would bring up the hipocrisy.

Steve

[Gresham CA]

As it happens, I listen to the first 5 minutes of several right wing radio shows every day (The O'Reilly show at 1PM, the Laura Ingraham show at 7PM, and often Sean Hannity at 3PM.

On EVERY ONE of these shows, the first 5 minutes is devoted to the bashing of anyone/anything which is NOT conservative.... often vituperously, with lots of snickering derision... I listen to some of the same shows and you're absolutely right.


And you're accusing Democrats and liberals of being intolerant? I didn't see either of these words in his post.

[Norman Bernstein]

Troll or not, our mystery 'salty' friend does bring up a pretty good point... at least as far as tolerance of alternative views is concerned. I really DO listen to right wing radio... as I said, the first few minutes of the shows I mentioned... mostly to get the latest conservative spin, and to laugh and shake my head.

The most laughable part is when they start ranking on the 'MSM' (mainstream media) for a percieved liberal bias... and it constantly amazes me that countless mindless callers call in to agree... without EVER acknowledging that the MOST biased media in the world is right wing radio! smile.gif

[salty hoosier]

O.k., who is 'Dutch' and what is a 'troll'

Not one of you has attempted to discount your hipocracy, you just try to belittle me with insults.
Typical.

[Norman Bernstein]

I didn't see either of these words in his post. Was he referring to some OTHER group, Gresham? smile.gif

[John of Phoenix]

Haven't seen SamF for awhile. Perhaps? ;)

[Popeye]

hi karen

Boom :D

[ 12-06-2005, 10:10 AM: Message edited by: popeye ]

[Norman Bernstein]

Not one of you has attempted to discount your hipocracy, you just try to belittle me with insults.
Typical. There hasn't been one single insulted tossed your way, salty... just a lot of vigorous disagreement with your contention.

If you post here, you have to expect that. If you think we're all wrong... prove it.

[ 12-06-2005, 10:07 AM: Message edited by: Norman Bernstein ]

[Gresham CA]

Without him saying which group he could have been talking about Southern Baptists, French, or any other group that appears intolerant. Norman, you were the one that brought up the Democrats and liberals.

edited to add: not Karen or Sam. And I disagree, it's a great troll. Caught Norman first thing.

[ 12-06-2005, 10:12 AM: Message edited by: Gresham CA ]

[salty hoosier]

I didn't realize the topic was Right Wing Radio.

What about left wing radio. Oh, that's right there isn't any. No one will listen to it.

Back to the topic. Why are my views not given any credence. Your(those opposed to me) views are very insightful and while I may not agree with them I don't insult you for making them.

There are actually quite a few things we agree on. Freedom of speech is one of them.

Steve

[Norman Bernstein]

Without him saying which group he could have been talking about Southern Baptists, French, or any other group that appears intolerant. Norman, you were the one that brought up the Democrats and liberals. Fair enough, Gresham... you're right, liberals and Democrats have not been the ONLY group who have been tagged with that same accusation (I'd say 'smear', but if truth be known, there are indeed groups of people who do demonstrate intolerance, for sure, so it's not necessarily a smear, on a macro level).

Since 'salty' thinks his views are 'not given any credence', and in the interests of complete fairness and 'tolerance', I'll therefore respectfully ask salty just WHO he was referring to... and to prove the allegation. If he was indeed referring to liberals and Democrats, then it won't be hard to refute the allegation... once more, on a 'macro' level, NOT a 'micro' level (since ANY affinity group will always have some fringe who are NOT representative of the group as a whole).

[Wild Dingo]

Originally posted by salty hoosier:
Is it not funny (in a not so ha-ha way) that those who trumpet tolerance and diversity as being the greatest thing since sliced bread will not tolerate a view that is divergent of their own?I actually do find it funny in a haha way that I "trumpet" mmmm no its more than that... mmm oh thats it!... I sing of tolerance and divercity as being BETTER than sliced bread :cool: ... I do however tolerate a veiw that is divergent of my own... As the forum in general if thats what you were getting at we put up and tolerate a fair bit I mean look at Jack and his whacked out veiws and Memphis Mike and his belly button lint gazing we tolerate that dont we? We tolerate the antics of the christians and catholics (whatever did happen to old sam?) We tolerate people from all over the place from New York to Georgia to Brazil to England to Germany to heck even Australia we even tolerate Kiwis... and you!! see we are a tolerant bunch!! We are so tolerant we even tolerate you aint that amazing!! :cool:

Heck and to top it all of yous mob even tolerate me!! flamin bobby dazzler! :D

Tis only once in a blue moon or after a particularily nasty brew of rum that we start being intolerant or diverse... well we remain a diverse bunch... but after a few too many some here have been known to become severely intolerable and so thats when our fearless leader the gnome Scot comes out and does a bit of whats fondly termed "Scoting" or bein "Scoted" but Id not worry about that you will soon experience in a personal way...

"Whats a troll?" Get real even my 10 year old knows what an internet troll is!! dont act so flamin stupid its beneath you and you can do better that such :rolleyes:

Now lets get rollin on something far more interesting like

oooh the back of my eyelids? :eek: yep gotta go veiw the scenery back there and make some serious chainsaw noises :cool: just to wake her highness up!!! then oooh then blissfull sleep is mine!! :D

Cheers all

[Gresham CA]

Exactly Norman. Carry on, break is over.

[ljb5]

Originally posted by salty hoosier:
Why are my views not given any credence.Credence is not given. It is earned.


Your(those opposed to me) views are very insightful...Yes, they are.

If your ideas were better, more people would accept them. Since they're stupid, there's no foul in pointing this out.

Instead of wondering why everyone is against you, concentrate on being right, factual, logical and honest.

[salty hoosier]

Sorry Dingo, I have no bloom'n idea what you wrote. I was able to grasp the line about internet troll. I honestly don't know what that is.

[salty hoosier]

Mr. Bernstein,

The WHO is the persons in this forum.

[Keith Wilson]

Salty, look here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll):


In Internet terminology, a troll is a person who posts inflammatory messages on the internet, such as on online discussion forums, to disrupt discussion or to upset its participants. "Troll" can also mean the inflammatory message itself posted by a troll or be a verb meaning to post such messages. "Trolling" (the gerund) is also commonly used to describe the activity.
I don't think you're Dutch (aka "Dutch Rub"), nor a toll. Too civil. Often wrong, but civil. ;)

[ 12-06-2005, 10:29 AM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[cedar savage]

I, for one, find that, in general, the last acceptable intolerance permitted (more than permitted) the left is religious intolerance.

Religious and moral values are abhorrent to their agenda, therefore not to be tolerated.

[TomF]

Salty, for a brief history of Dutch, see my post in the Kids Questions about Death thread.

And Keith, I think you're right.

Welcome, Salty.

[Wild Dingo]

Oh what I forgot to add was... this is about your constant christian preachin and not being listened to or taken seriously right? okay then...

I do find it intolerable and insufferable the manner in which some "christians" tend to push their barrow and when theyre not "listened" to or suddenly gather a mass of followers to the cause they say they are not taken seriously or not listened to

ooooh poor widdle me :rolleyes:

Maybe just maybe some of us have experienced all we want need or intend to experience of psydo christian bullshyte bein shoved down our gullets?... perhaps were happy bein our own person standing on our own feet without the crutch of "christianity" propping us up? could be eh!

I look at it this way... you believe in the risen christ? goodoh good for you... you believe in heaven in the afterlife cause a book tells you goodoh good for you... you believe in the holey trinity and all that confusing bullshyte goodoh good for you!... But mate Ive heard it all before and personally I dont buy it

Some here believe in allah some believe in buddha some believe in the same or a similar brand of the same marketing ploy as you do and some dont... good on each of them! Its when they or anyone starts shoving down my throat that you suddenly loose credence in my book... my choice based on my experience and therefore as valid as your choice to blindly follow a book

Maybe Im goin to purgutory in the after life maybe not maybe Im goin to valhalla maybe not maybe... but where ever I go I will go.... cause I will be dead to this life so it then becomes only relevent to the next and is therefore irrelevent in this one!

Cheers! :D

And by the way thats the second time youve said something like that in reference to my response to you... and I would aguably say a pretty reasonable and clear response for me... So are you really so challenged as to be able to not understand the written word? or are you intolerant of my diversity?

[ 12-06-2005, 10:42 AM: Message edited by: Wild Dingo ]

[Rick Tyler]

Originally posted by Norman Bernstein:
As it happens, I listen to the first 5 minutes of several right wing radio shows (...) On EVERY ONE of these shows, the first 5 minutes is devoted to the bashing of anyone/anything which is NOT conservativeMotes and beams, ducks. Want to share a transcript of the average Air America program?

[cedar savage]

Originally posted by George.:
I'm telling you, it's Dutch.Check the profile. There's an email addy. Dutch don't do dat. Never has, never will. We'll find him if he does.

[Norman Bernstein]

Motes and beams, ducks. Want to share a transcript of the average Air America program? I wouldn't disagree that most of Air America is partisan drivel... and is therefore just as un-listenable as right wing radio.

However, I'd point out two differences:

1) Even the most partisan of the hard core left wing hosts on Air America talks far more about the issues themselves, than they do about what they percieve as the offenses of right wing character. Even when they go far overboard, as most do, it's still subjectively less about trashing the opposition, than about trashing the opposition policies.... admittedly, it's a partisan perception on my part, but it's how it strikes me.

2) The ONE show on air America which breaks the mold is actually the Al Franken show.... which is extraordinarily civil, insightful, and mostly respectful of differences of opinion. I don't know of ANY show on right wing radio that does that.

It is worth bearing notice that the entire point of political radio is to be extraordinarily provocative... and the highest ratings come to the most extreme hosts.... you don't get ratings by being moderate... the audience is, by definition, partisan. One reason Air America does relatively poorly is that they really can't match the right wing for denigration, derisive snickering, and just plain political hatred... THAT is what sells air time.

[salty hoosier]

Thanks for the explanation Wild Dingo.
As a christain my heart is sad as to the general rejection of God on this site. I am truly sorry that someone claiming to be doing God's work has turned you away from him. That was most definintely not my intention here. I will not bother you anymore with my inflamatory views. I will let you all go back to whatever it is you do.

Thanks for the fun.

Oh, I will post on the boatbuilding part of this site 'cause I am builing two of 'em right now.
I promise to behave myself.

[Keith Wilson]

Religious and moral values are abhorrent to their agenda, therefore not to be tolerated.High C, this is utter and complete nonsense, unless you believe that "religious" only means conservative Christian, and "moral" means only those values you agree with. Yes, it's true that on the left there is a great deal of opposition to, and even intolerance of, fundamentalist Christianity. "Intolerance" is a strange accusation coming form one of the most exclusivist religions this side of Wahabi Islam (Everybody who doesn’t accept Jesus as their savior is going to be horribly tortured for eternity by a loving God, right?) but we’ll let that pass. The problem is that the religious right doesn't recognize values as moral unless they agree with them.

[ 12-06-2005, 10:53 AM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[George.]

Originally posted by cedar savage:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by George.:
I'm telling you, it's Dutch.Check the profile. There's an email addy. Dutch don't do dat. Never has, never will. We'll find him if he does.</font>[/QUOTE]Maybe. But check the recent posts. Check out the spelling and syntax, the improper use of smallcase, the way he addresses people, the way he suddenly started signing "Steve" once I suggested he was Dutch. The way he attacked Dingo's writing style, the way he just joined the Forum and dove into a flurry of trolling threads. We've seen all that before...

[TomF]

Originally posted by cedar savage:
Religious and moral values are abhorrent to their agenda, therefore not to be tolerated.Hello? Nobody on the Left has harassed me for holding or expressing my religious or moral values. Various on the more conservative end of the religious spectrum have taken umbrage now and then ...

[Tristan]

Originally posted by salty hoosier:
Is it not funny (in a not so ha-ha way) that those who trumpet tolerance and diversity as being the greatest thing since sliced bread will not tolerate a view that is divergent of their own?Ah Mr. Salty, Tolerance yes, it's just that some of us get really tired of being beat over the head with the sanctimonious drivel which you produce in EVERY post. Wild Dingo's post is pretty clear, but let me spell it out.
1. You are an Evangelical Christian.
2. Your game is to evangelize.
3. You are NOT willing to tolerate the views of others but rather you persist ENDLESSLY in trying to convert others to your beliefs.
4. This persistance pisses people off and allows you to complain, "Poor me, I just want to . . ."
5. Which makes a few weak souls to feel guilty and reassure you that they have nothing against you personally.
6. Which once again allows you to insert the wedge of your evangelizing.
7. And so ad infinitum, ad nauseum
8. This kind of behavior is knows as PASSIVE AGGRESSION. It is every bit as nasty as ACTIVE AGGRESSION. It is purely EVIL Mr. Salty, purely EVIL.
Best regards, Tristan
:D

[Norman Bernstein]

As a christain my heart is sad as to the general rejection of God on this site. I don't know what 'rejection of God' really means. Most people who truly believe in tolerance and diversity generally recognize that one's religious beliefs are personal... and that anyone ELSE's views about religion should have no effect on YOURS.

If you're a fervent Christian, salty, good for you... I'm sure it provides you with succor and comfort. It does NOT convey upon you any sort of moral superiority whatsoever... except in your own mind. If we discuss moral and ethical issues (like abortion, for example) and there are people here with different views than you, then that is what they are...'different'... and just as valid, for those who espouse them. If those values are not yours, and they make you 'sad', then i'm sorry you feel sad.

I don't.

[cedar savage]

Originally posted by Keith Wilson:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Religious and moral values are abhorrent to their agenda, therefore not to be tolerated.High C, this is utter and complete nonsense, unless you believe that "religious" only means conservative Christian, and "moral" means only those values you agree with. Yes, it's true that on the left there is a great deal of opposition to, and even intolerance of, fundamentalist Christianity. "Intolerance" is a strange accusation coming form one of the most exclusivist religions this side of Wahabi Islam (Everybody who doesn’t accept Jesus as their savior is going to be horribly tortured for eternity by a loving God, right?) but we’ll let that pass. The problem is that the religious right doesn't recognize values as moral unless they agree with them.</font>[/QUOTE]Sorry, Keith, that was me.

What I object to in the left's intolerance of religious belief is this whole idea that individuals should be allowed to hold any value set the individual desires, however destructive to the sustainability of a civilized society. This emphasis on individual rights over the good of society in the long term is misplaced. There are common values important to the maintenance of a civil society.

[George.]

I believe, cedar, that you misunderstand what many here do not tolerate. It is not religion, it is religious intolerance.

Of course holding any value should not be tolerated. If someone's values involve molesting children, or abusing the weak, that should not be tolerated. What SHOULD be tolerated is any religious belief, as long as such a belief does not drive one to try to impose it on others.

But you confuse religion with values. A society needs common values to function. It does not need a common religion. It could arguably function with no religion at all, although religion is a convenient way to frighten the masses into respecting common values.

[Norman Bernstein]

What I object to in the left's intolerance of religious belief is this whole idea that individuals should be allowed to hold any value set the individual desires, however destructive to the sustainability of a civilized society. This emphasis on individual rights over the good of society in the long term is misplaced. There are common values important to the maintenance of a civil society. First off, let's differentiate between beliefs we are 'allowed' to hold, and those that make up the laws and rules of society.

In a democracy, one is allowed to hold ANY DAMN VIEWS THEY WANT TO... even ones which are disgusting or offensive. Being allowed to HOLD such views doesn't convey permission, necessarily, to ACT upon them.

As for whethere there are 'common values important to the maintenance of a civil society', I totally agree....

And these common values are WHAT WE AGREE UPON, by virtue of the election of representatives that share those values, and the laws made by those representatives, when there is a plurality of opinion.

The problem I have with most conservaive Christians is that they automatically assume that those 'common values' we speak of are 'Christian' values... namely, THEIR values....

They are not. To whatever extent our common values coincide with Christian values (and many indeed do), then our laws can and should reflect that. However, there will also be laws that do NOT reflect any specific theocracy.

It's called the democratic process.

[Rick Tyler]

Originally posted by Norman Bernstein:
[QUOTE] 1) Even the most partisan of the hard core left wing hosts on Air America talks far more about the issues themselves, than they do about what they percieve as the offenses of right wing character.(...)

2) The ONE show on air America which breaks the mold is actually the Al Franken show(...)
It is worth bearing notice that the entire point of political radio is to be extraordinarily provocative... and the highest ratings come to the most extreme hosts.... you don't get ratings by being moderate... the audience is, by definition, partisan. One reason Air America does relatively poorly is that they really can't match the right wing for denigration, derisive snickering, and just plain political hatred... THAT is what sells air time.I don't see it that way. I can't listen to Rush anymore, and I can't stand the sniggering about stupid conservatives on Franken's show, either. Janine Garafalo is the Michael Savage of leftie radio. Stephanie Miller is probably the best broadcaster on Air America, but has the depth of a small puddle on a hot day. Franken gets too smug. I like Rusty (what's her last name?) sometimes. She usually avoids major ranting.

Sean Hanity gives me intestinal distress. Have you ever listened to Tony Snow? He is probably the best nationally syndicated conservative host. There are a couple of good conservatives on Seattle radio (go figure... it's like talking about good leftie hosts in Jackson, Mississippi), but they are just local shows.

I don't particularly find any political radio hosts to be members of my nascent Reasonable People's Party.

[TomF]

Originally posted by cedar savage:
This emphasis on individual rights over the good of society in the long term is misplaced. There are common values important to the maintenance of a civil society.I agree, but you've got the spectrum backwards. From free-markets to various aspects of libertarianism, the idea that individual choices and freedoms rather than collective planning will inexorably produce the public good is of the R, not the L.

[Memphis Mike]

Ain't but one thing worse than a troll and that's a Babtist troll.

[Norman Bernstein]

I don't see it that way. I can't listen to Rush anymore, and I can't stand the sniggering about stupid conservatives on Franken's show, either. Janine Garafalo is the Michael Savage of leftie radio. Stephanie Miller is probably the best broadcaster on Air America, but has the depth of a small puddle on a hot day. Franken gets too smug. I like Rusty (what's her last name?) sometimes. She usually avoids major ranting.
It's interesting that we would have such a different take on specific personalities... although we're in complete agreement about Jenine Gerafalo.... I think she's intolerable, too.

I'd swap on Rusty Rhodes and Al Franken, though... to me, Rusty is decidedly a 'ranter'... whereas Al Franken is often very insightful. The 'smug' quality is pretty hard to define.... Franken strikes me as a lot less smug than, for example, Bill O'Reilly, who's ego is so monsterous as to be truly insufferable.

Of course, all of this is 'entertainment' and nothing else, and not a single one of these people are deep thinkers.... they're radio talk show hosts.

I often wish that Tim Russert would host a radio show... he's got to be the single best political analyst in the media today.

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

I love tolerance and diversity. Sadly, Christian fundamentalists want to legislate their views.

First we have to figure out what is being tolerant.

On abortion: Is tolerance allowing people to make individual choice? or denying it...

On Gay marriage: Is tolerance allowing gays to marry or denying them?

If my views on this issue are different, I still get to keep them, but I didn't impose them on someone else.

[cedar savage]

In a democracy, one is allowed to hold ANY DAMN VIEWS THEY WANT TO... even ones which are disgusting or offensive. Being allowed to HOLD such views doesn't convey permission, necessarily, to ACT upon them.The problem is that held values invariably influence action. To value the idea that anyone can hold repugnant values is really the problem that I'm referring to. You've acted on that value.


As for whethere there are 'common values important to the maintenance of a civil society', I totally agree....Good.


And these common values are WHAT WE AGREE UPON, by virtue of the election of representatives that share those values, and the laws made by those representatives, when there is a plurality of opinion.So, if a Christian majority agreed that certain values should be put into law, that'd be O.K. with you? NOT. If a supermajority voted to restore democracy in Iraq by force of arms, that'd be O.K. with you? NOT.

Your value set, insofar as it reflects values, is that you can value whatever you choose. So much of what you write is some diatribe against the reality. You choose to value to attempt the creation of an alternate reality which you would prefer, at the expense of the values of the majority.

I choose to value the attempt to create a reality which the majority would prefer.

[Keith Wilson]

This emphasis on individual rights over the good of society in the long term is misplaced. There are common values important to the maintenance of a civil society.Cedar, that’s an excellent point. As anyone who has though about it seriously in the past 3000 years has recognized, there’s continuous tension between individual freedom and the good of society. Both are good, but a balance is essential; emphasizing one to the exclusion of the other is not workable. It plays out in many areas today; economic freedom, the right to do what one wishes with one’s property vs. the good of society in general, property rights, progressive taxation, the regulation of corporations, in environmental issues: how much restriction on the liberty of the individual to do as they wish is needed to prevent too much damage to the commons – it’s a thorny problem. This is, however, not a left-right issue by any means. The right (Libertarians excepted, who don’t believe that there is any such thing as “common good”) tends to favor individual freedom over the common good in some areas and not others, the left likewise, but in different areas. Finding the balance is always hard.

One must, however, make a distinction between ideals and behavior. In a free society, ideas are never regulated, although behavior is. I may freely believe that private property is inherently immoral, but if I take your car, it’s only right that the police should come after me. You may believe that all taxation is theft, but if you don’t pay your taxes, they will rightly come looking for you too. It’s not the ideas, but the actions.

However, you said something quite different before (and sorry HighC, I got confused there):


Religious and moral values are abhorrent to their agenda, therefore not to be tolerated.This is still nonsense. “Religion” is not only conservative Christianity. “Moral values” are not only conservative Christian ones. Whether one agrees or not, one could make a reasonable case that it is a moral abomination for anyone to make, say, $1 million in a year while there is a single person in this country who lacks necessary health care. This is just as much a moral, even a religious position as opposition to abortion.

[ 12-06-2005, 11:49 AM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[Norman Bernstein]

The problem is that held values invariably influence action. To value the idea that anyone can hold repugnant values is really the problem that I'm referring to. You've acted on that value.
Held values don't invariably influence action at all. It is the ACTION we constrain, by legislation... any attempt to regulate values and atitudes would be 'mind control'. Yo0u don't like MY values or attitudes? tough.... unless I ACT upon them in an illegal manner....THAT is the only time society has a right to intervene.


So, if a Christian majority agreed that certain values should be put into law, that'd be O.K. with you? NOT. If a supermajority voted to restore democracy in Iraq by force of arms, that'd be O.K. with you? NOT. You've cited two different hypotheticals, which require different responses.

In the latter case ( a supermajority voting to resotre democracy blah blah bla), that is more or less what has already happened. A majority of Senators voted to give George Bush the authority to use force, and he did so. I am not for one minute arguing that something illegal happened... I am indeed disagreeing with the event... as are an increasing number of citizens.

In the former case (a Christian majority agreeing that certain values should be put into law), our own Constitution puts limits on actions that, without actually modifying the Constitution, would be illegal regardless of the 'supermajority'. For example, the 89% of Americans who claim a Christian faith might want to declare America to be a 'Christian Nation', and impose Biblical law.... since this contravenes the provisions of the Constitution, they would need to pass a Constitutional ammendment to get rid of freedom of religion to do so. I don't think we're in much danger of that, do you?


Your value set, insofar as it reflects values, is that you can value whatever you choose. Yes, I can... and so can you. Where in the Constitution, or nature, or ANYWHERE, is it written that I am obliged to value what YOU value? The ONLY thing I'm obligated to do is observe the law... which is created from those 'commonly acknowledged values' we were talking about earlier in this thread.


So much of what you write is some diatribe against the reality. Against YOUR reality, perhaps... not mine. A Bush spokesperson once pointed out that the Bush administration 'creates it's own reality'.... well, if THEY do, why can't I? smile.gif


You choose to value to attempt the creation of an alternate reality which you would prefer, at the expense of the values of the majority. No, not at all. The values of the majority are what we create law from. If it ain't law, then evidently it's not really the vales of the majority, is it?

If abortion, for example, is in opposition to YOUR moral values, then you have the perfect right to organize, speak, and fight (within the bounds of law) to outlaw abortion... which will take the approval, by the way, of 2/3rds of the state legislatures to do so. Go for it!

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

This emphasis on individual rights over the good of society in the long term is misplaced. This "emphasis" is the reason that society has progressed. Can you imagine if certain socio political doctrines were applied to figures throughout history? Those people would have been executed. Going back to an old SamF debate with me... Galileo... had to dance with the church to stay alive, despite the science of his findings.

Who determines the good of society? The majority of people are uneducated on any given issue. Not too many take democracy seriously enough to really engage the process, yet they vote.

I listened to people on television during Bush's inaugural parade tell the camera they voted for him because he talked to God. Is that the majority you want to listen to? :rolleyes:

[cedar savage]

Keith (and others, if you want), a quick question to check where you're coming from.

Is the rise in meism, the religion of the self, something you see as being promoted by the left or the right? By moderate Christians (I get tired of being called a right wing fundamentalist Christian, I'm an Episcopalian) or liberal atheistic/agnosticism?

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by cedar savage:
I, for one, find that, in general, the last acceptable intolerance permitted (more than permitted) the left is religious intolerance.

Religious and moral values are abhorrent to their agenda, therefore not to be tolerated.Nonsense!

[Meerkat]

Furthermore, that's just plain ignorant! :mad:

How about the "meism" of "my religious beliefs ought to be the law of the land"? tongue.gif

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

Christianity is not a religion of tolerance particularly, not through scriptural fault, but because of it's political evolution. I think it's very dangerous when a modern society looks to a specific religious doctrine to make their law. Diversity and tolerance are reversed.

[Keith Wilson]

Is the rise in meism, the religion of the self, something you see as being promoted by the left or the right? By moderate Christians (I get tired of being called a right wing fundamentalist Christian, I'm an Episcopalian) or liberal atheistic/agnosticism?Either or both, at different times and in different areas. Capitalist conservatism promotes "meism" with a vengeance. "It's my property and I have a right to do what I damn well pease with it!" Libertarians are "meists" by definition. Curiously, conservative protestants often take this view as well. "Meism" on the left these days is generally more in the area of the personal - sexuality, reproductive rights, that kind of thing. Within religion, traditional Catholicism generally emphasizes communal values over individual liberty. Protestants vary a lot, with a similar liberal/conservative split emphasizing communal values in different areas.

Individualism vs. communitarianism is an important question, but not a left-right thing. All tyrannies, left or right, Communist or Fascist, are about emphasizing the communal to the exclusion of the individual. Balance, balance.

[ 12-06-2005, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[Norman Bernstein]

Is the rise in meism, the religion of the self, something you see as being promoted by the left or the right? I would think that the most prominent examples of 'me-ism' would be corporate CEO's who rape and plunder their stockholders... some of whom may not be religious..and some of whom are indeed religious... and some of which may be liberal (politically), but some of whom are also conservative.

However, I think the very concept of 'me-ism' is itself bankrupt. One might argue that Libertarians are the most 'me-ist', in terms of political philosophy....

You can also add those who say, 'I'm a Christian, so the values important to ME are the ones that everyone ELSE should live by.'

[ 12-06-2005, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: Norman Bernstein ]

[cedar savage]

Balance, balance. Where? How? By whom? To the satisfaction of whom?

[Popeye]

i think it is about time we all stood up and checked our we-ness

[ 12-06-2005, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: popeye ]

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by cedar savage:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Balance, balance. Where? How? By whom? To the satisfaction of whom?</font>[/QUOTE]Compromise is the fine art of mutually acceptable dissatisfaction. ;)

[Tristan]

Originally posted by cedar savage:

I choose to value the attempt to create a reality which the majority would prefer.[/QB]Within the confines of the U.S. Constitution calling for the separation of church and state -- RIGHT?

[Tristan]

Originally posted by Memphis Mike:
Ain't but one thing worse than a troll and that's a Babtist troll.PRAISE GOD MIKE! YOU DONE GOT IT!

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

Capitalist conservatism promotes "meism" with a vengeance. and the vengeance is exclusion..... enter the poor.

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by cedar savage:

I choose to value the attempt to create a reality which the majority would prefer."Create a reality?" That's the first flaw in your thinking. Reality is reality - it is not created, it exists.

What majority are you talking about?

The Constitution exists not to empower the majority, rather, it exists to protect the minority.

[Rick Tyler]

Originally posted by Meerkat:
Reality is reality - it is not created, it exists.Jeez, I'll put up with a lot in a public forum, but you have to draw the line somewhere. Epistemology is across the parking lot in the Bilge Annex. Once you start thinking about philosophy you can really screw yourself up.

(Edited to correct spleling error.)

[ 12-06-2005, 03:28 PM: Message edited by: Rick Tyler ]

[TomF]

Originally posted by Rick Tyler:
...Epistomology is across the parking lot in the Bilge Annex.:D

[Norman Bernstein]

The Constitution exists not to empower the majority, rather, it exists to protect the minority. I think it would be a bit fairer to say that the Constitution exists to empower the majority while protecting the minority. One of the most essential protections is that of religion... not merely the freedom to practice and observe it, but the freedom not to be compelled to practice or observe it.

With 89% of the country professing the Christian faith, all claims of Christians being denied their rights strikes me as absurd... the only 'right' Christians are being denied is the 'right' to impose their views on the 11% of the nation which does NOT profess a Christian faith.

[ 12-06-2005, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: Norman Bernstein ]

[Gresham CA]

Then why do the 11% non-Christians have the 89% so cowed that they are afraid to say "Merry Christmas" and it is now "Happy Holidays" Norman? Is it so that the 11% can feel included?

How's this for thread creep? From politics to religion.

[Keith Wilson]

Religion is mentioned only twice in the US constitution, in both cases to establish separation of church and state:


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Note: no mention of God, the creator, or anything supernatural in the least.

From Article VI

. . . no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.And in the First Amendment:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;And I'm not a Christian, and I say "Merry Christmas" with impunity.

[ 12-06-2005, 03:14 PM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[Gresham CA]

Keith I dont claim to be "christian" either and I say "Merry Christmas" too.

What you posted doesn't say anything about sepparation of church and state. Please point it out if it does.

[Norman Bernstein]

Then why do the 11% non-Christians have the 89% so cowed that they are afraid to say "Merry Christmas" and it is now "Happy Holidays" Norman? Is it so that the 11% can feel included?
Are you so sure that this is meaningfully true, Charles?

As it happens, there's something of a running battle between Bill O'Reilly, and Kieth Obermann, on this very issue. O'Reilly is very fond of taking one or two minor points out of the press and making a 'national issue' out of it... and Obermann is very fond of pointing this out.

I think the truth is more like this: there have been a very few, minor occurances of people inclined to be 'politically correct' who tried to make an issue out of the 'Merry Xmas' vs. 'Happy Holidays' thing.... and by a very few, I mean just that. O'Reilly has been trotting these instances out on a daily basis on radio and TV, making it appear as if it were REALLY true, i.e., that 89% of the population is really being intimidated...

You REALLY think that's true, Charles?

I don't think it's even remotely close. It's nothing more than some opportunistic partisan hack like O'Reilly to make an issue out of something where no real issue exists. Sure, some tiny number of PC people on the left will do stuff like what we're talking about... but how significant is it?

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by Rick Tyler:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Meerkat:
Reality is reality - it is not created, it exists.Jeez, I'll put up with a lot in a public forum, but you have to draw the line somewhere. Epistomology is across the parking lot in the Bilge Annex. Once you start thinking about philosophy you can really screw yourself up.</font>[/QUOTE]Ok, you argue with the rock that's about to land on your head as to whether or not it's real - I'm going to be getting out of the way! ;)

BTW, what does the study of the nature of knowledge hve to do with reality?

[Rick Tyler]

Originally posted by Meerkat:
BTW, what does the study of the nature of knowledge hve to do with reality?42?

[Gresham CA]

Norman, The people that I associate with say "Merry Christmas". Have you noticed how many of the more visible establishments(including government) have "Merry Christmas" showing?

Maybe cowed was the wrong word. Maybe they are just trying to include everyone. What do you think?

[Keith Wilson]

"A wall of separation between church and state," is Jefferson's own phrase describing the intent of his words in the constitution. It appeared in a letter to the Danbury Baptists. The phrase was originally "a wall of eternal separation”, but he crossed out “eternal” in the final draft. Here’s a site that discusses the context in detail, with links to the original text of the letter and its drafts. (http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html) The exact phrase is, of course, not in the constitution, but the point of the passages quoted is that the state cannot use is power either to encourage or discourage religion. That is the essence of the current law about the separation clause.

Merry Christmas, everybody! :D

[ 12-06-2005, 03:35 PM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[Rick Tyler]

Nothing to see here ... move along.

(deleted post)

[ 12-06-2005, 03:40 PM: Message edited by: Rick Tyler ]

[Meerkat]

89% by whose count?

Most of them are, at best, "cruxifix christians" - show the cross and make the claim, but rarely, if ever go to church or open the bible, if they even own one.

Being a Christian in the US is mostly a matter of convenience and society.

[Gresham CA]

Keith, If that was what he intended then why not write it in. People should not read between the lines because if you look there is nothing there. A man as learned as Jefferson should have known this. In the Constitution there is no establishment for the sepparation of church and state, meerly that our government can not establish a church.

[Norman Bernstein]

Norman, The people that I associate with say "Merry Christmas". Have you noticed how many of the more visible establishments(including government) have "Merry Christmas" showing?

Maybe cowed was the wrong word. Maybe they are just trying to include everyone. What do you think? I do think 'cowed' was the wrong word, Charles.

I don't know a single soul, liberal or conservative, that would hesitate to say 'merry Christmas' without a second thought, and I say it myself, frequently, this time of the year (despite the fact that I was born a Jew and have since become an agnostic! smile.gif )

My point is this: there's no perceptible assault on Chritianity or Christians whatsoever. The lunatic fringe who make a federal case out of the saying 'Merry Christmas' are just that: the lunatic fringe... and they're a tiny number of people that NOBODY (with the exception of Bill O'Rielly, always willing to be 'fair and balanced' about things, when he sees a ripe red herring) gives one rat's ass about.

Is there an assault by Christians on non-Christians? No... but there's no doubt that there are larger numbers of evangelical Christians (more than a 'lunatic fringe', but smaller than a 'majority') who do indeed want their religion to exert a far greater impact on the course of our lives and laws.

Some of us are fighting back... in the patriotic and American spirit of the defense of the Constitution and the American Way! :D :D :D

[Norman Bernstein]

Keith, If that was what he intended then why not write it in. People should not read between the lines because if you look there is nothing there. A man as learned as Jefferson should have known this. In the Constitution there is no establishment for the sepparation of church and state, meerly that our government can not establish a church. Sophistry, Charles.

What's the difference between 'establishment of a church' and any OTHER relationship between church and state?

Are you suggesting that, if there is no such thing as 'separation of church and state', that there then is a basis for church and state to be intermingled somehow?

If so.. then HOW?

[ 12-06-2005, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: Norman Bernstein ]

[Donn]

ACLU Sues to Tax Bible Sales

ATLANTA-November 16, 2005 - The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit arguing that a Georgia law exempting the Bible and other "Holy Scripture" from sale taxes is discriminatory.
The lawsuit says the exemption should be extended to all publications dealing with the meaning of life.

The federal lawsuit was filed on behalf of Candace Apple, whose Phoenix and Dragon Bookstore in suburban Atlanta sells a witches' Bible for Wiccans and other spiritual books. Her co-plaintiff, Thomas Budlong, is the former president of the Georgia Library Association.

Apple and ACLU attorney Maggie Garrett say the lawsuit is aimed at ending discrimination against religious faiths that are outside the mainstream.

(Copyright 2005 by the Associated Press. All rights reserved.)

[Norman Bernstein]

The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit arguing that a Georgia law exempting the Bible and other "Holy Scripture" from sale taxes is discriminatory.
Sounds pretty reasonable to me. If the Bible is exempt from tax, why shouldn't the Koran be, as well?

If you don't agree, than can you please provide a basis for why the Bible should get special treatment over all other religious texts?

[Donn]

Now look what you've done, Charles. You had to bring it up, didn't you? Now Keith is equating establishment with encouragement, and Norman is going further by equating it with recognition.

There is a small group of folks with the enviable job of reading the Constitution, between the lines. None of this group is a member of the WBF, and it doesn't matter what the WBF thinks about what the Constitution means, because this small group of "Nine Scorpions in a Bottle" gets to decide what it means. The Scorpions are appointed by the President, and approved by the Senate. I'm sure you've noticed that both of those institutions are Republican. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see "establishment" get a bit finer definition in the not too distant future. Bush legacy, and all that, eh? :D

[Gresham CA]

If so.. then HOW?
We elect people to represent us based on what they present to us as their beliefs. Hopefully these beliefs are based on some kind of fair, just and equitable training that can be from any religion you choose but that in itself precludes ANY sepparation of church and state. I dont care if they worship Barney the dragon it to them is their church.

[Paul G]

Religious nuts! Religious nuts!
tra la la la Tra la la la
RELIGIOUS NUTS

merry christmas :D :D :D

[Donn]

"If the Bible is exempt from tax, why shouldn't the Koran be, as well?"

IIRC, the Georgia law does include the Koran, but not the Bible for Wiccans.

[Keith Wilson]

Keith, If that was what he intended then why not write it in? People should not read between the lines because if you look there is nothing there. A man as learned as Jefferson should have known this. In the Constitution there is no establishment for the separation of church and state, merely that our government cannot establish a church.Well I defer to Mr. Jefferson on this. He said very clearly what he meant in his letter to the Danbury Baptists. If you don’t believe his own words, nothing I can say will convince you.

Current law on the establishment clause comes from a case in 1971, Lemon v Kurtzman. Here’s a link to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman) the complete text of the Supreme Court decision, if you’re interested. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=403&invol=602) This decision established what’s called the "Lemon test", which details the requirements for all laws concerning religion. It has three sections:

1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion.

If a law can’t pass all three tests, the government's action is unconstitutional under the establishment clause. It seems very reasonable to me.

[ 12-06-2005, 04:01 PM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[Gresham CA]

Hey Donn. So far this has been very civil. I like that.

Damn y'all type fast!

edited for fat fingers AGAIN

[ 12-06-2005, 04:04 PM: Message edited by: Gresham CA ]

[Donn]

"I dont care if they worship Barney the dragon it to them is their church."

I may be mistaken, but I believe Barney is a dinosaur. :D

[Norman Bernstein]

We elect people to represent us based on what they present to us as their beliefs. Hopefully these beliefs are based on some kind of fair, just and equitable training that can be from any religion you choose but that in itself precludes ANY sepparation of church and state. I dont care if they worship Barney the dragon it to them is their church. So you're suggesting, I think, that we elect people based on the notion that they are religious... in at least the sense that they profess SOME religion.... so does that mean that agnostics and atheists need not apply? How about religions that you might personally find offensive? Wiccanism, Devil worship, and so on? Are you suggesting that there is indeed a de facto, if not de jure, religious requirement for election to office? (Of course there is... no Moslem will EVER be elected President... I just want to hear somebody SAY that there is a requirement, despite the constitutional prohibition against one).

You still didn't answer the question.... you made the statement, '...that can be from any religion you choose but that in itself precludes ANY sepparation of church and state...'

What do you mean? HOW are church and state legitimately co-mingled... and where in the constitution do I find the support for this view?

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by Donn:
"If the Bible is exempt from tax, why shouldn't the Koran be, as well?"

IIRC, the Georgia law does include the Koran, but not the Bible for Wiccans.Which makes the law an establishment of religion. Ewps!

[Gresham CA]

Keith, I'm not arguing about the letter. It's not in the Constitution. If that was your intent,PUT IT THERE!

Yeh Donn. That's the problem, they try to read between the lines.

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by Gresham CA:
Keith, I'm not arguing about the letter. It's not in the Constitution. If that was your intent,PUT IT THERE!
What's not in the constitution?

[Norman Bernstein]

IIRC, the Georgia law does include the Koran, but not the Bible for Wiccans. Seems like the State of Georgia must have a commission somewhere to decide on what qualifies as a religion, huh?

Talk about slippery slopes!!!!!!

Well, FWIW, I'd tend to agree with the ACLU... barring meaningful evidence that the plaintiffs don't actually represent a religion. The State has a very limited power to decide what is, or is not, a religion. Granted, the Wiccans may actually be viewing all of this as a tax dodge (just like the famed 'Universal Life Church', selling Doctor of Divinity diplomas by mail-order), but it's certainly dangerous ground.

[Gresham CA]

Here is what I said Norman


We elect people to represent us based on what they present to us as their beliefs. Hopefully these beliefs are based on some kind of fair, just and equitable training That training can be from any belief and will be and that training can not be filtered out.

[ 12-06-2005, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: Gresham CA ]

[Osborne Russel]

Originally posted by Donn:
it doesn't matter what the WBF thinks about what the Constitution meansIt doesn't matter what you think about anything if you don't have "the power", and Republicans have it.

What is your predicted re-formulation of the law of church and state? I realize what you think doesn't matter but I'm curious anyway.

[Donn]

Originally posted by Norman Bernstein:

Well, FWIW, I'd tend to agree with the ACLU... Of course you do, and if it weren't the Bible for Wiccans, it'd probably the Anarchist's Bible, the Golfer's Bible or the Shooter's Bible.

[Keith Wilson]

OK Charles, fair enough. So tell me. do you think that the three tests in Lemon v Kurtzman are wrong? If so, how do we tell if a particular statute violates the establishment clause of the first amendment? What changes do you suggest?

[Meerkat]

Golf and Shooting are religions?

Hmm... I wonder if that would make Hustler qualify - the Holy Church of Self Pleasuring... :D

[Meerkat]

Come to think of it, maybe there ought to be a prohibition on taxing any printed material as an impermissable restriction on freedom of speech.

[Norman Bernstein]

The curious would do well to read a fascinating article about Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists at http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html

It provides a great deal of insight into Jefferson's thinking, aside from being the first mention of the phrase 'separation of church and state'...

And Charles, I'm still waiting for an explanation... as to just HOW the church and state are constitutionally co-mingled. You seem to be suggesting that some form of 'training' (religious in nature) is some kind of requirement to hold elective office... and I'm still curious to know just where in the Constitution this comes from?

[George.]

What a silly argument. Tax them all, I say.

[Norman Bernstein]

Of course you do, and if it weren't the Bible for Wiccans, it'd probably the Anarchist's Bible, the Golfer's Bible or the Shooter's Bible. I can always rely on you, Donn, to TELL me what it is I believe in.... your powers of clairvoyance are rather remarkable.

[Donn]

Originally posted by Norman Bernstein:
I can always rely on you, Donn, to TELL me what it is I believe in.... your powers of clairvoyance are rather remarkable.I didn't TELL you anything, Norman, and if I were clairvoyant, I wouldn't have used the word PROBABLY.

[ 12-06-2005, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: Donn ]

[Gonzalo]

There are reasons why the establishment clause was written the way it was. One is that the Constitutional convention was like a large committee where sometimes you need to be vague in order to get approval from everyone.

The very vagueness of the wording of the establishment clause increases the protection offered by the first amendment. The convention could have written "Congress shall pass not law establishing a national church." But if they had done so, it would have left open a raft of possible back door establishments that could not possibly have been foreseen in detail by the convention. For example, some clever congressman could get a law passed that taxed all houses of worship except Presbyterian churches, or introduced subsidies for Methodist missionaries, or excluded Jews from the officer corps of the Army and Navy, or any number of laws setting up preferences for or prejudices against one religion or another without actually establishing a national church. The vagueness of the law allows challenges to any such laws on the basis that the law may be "respecting establishment of religion" even though it may not literally establish a national religion.

[Keith Wilson]

Good point, John.

Again, if anyone has objections to the current interpretation of the establishment clause, the "Lemon test", please suggest an alternate method by which we can determine if an action of government violates the establishment clause. Here it is again:

1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion.

[Jagermeister]

Getting back to the original topic of diversity, here is an interesting take that says minority status breeds some level of tolerance - at least in debating skills. In this case, they are speaking of the minority status of conservative students in academia. Originally taken from the WSJ opinion page, and relinked.

Think Again: Minority Advantage (http://jewishmediaresources.com/article/906/) by Jonathan Rosenblum
Jerusalem Post
December 1, 2005

Relevant C&P (not complete):

Because of their minority status it is far more difficult for conservative students to entertain the illusion that all smart people think like them. They are exposed to many obviously bright young men and women whose opinions on almost every issue vary radically from their own.

...

Being forced to recognize that there are different points of view helps make bright young conservatives such good debaters. They learn early on the limited persuasiveness of shouting at someone with whom they disagree, "You're an idiot." Of necessity they have to develop the ability to cast their arguments in ways that appeal to those starting from very different premises.

...

LIBERALS CAN be wonderful people, and boon companions, but they often have a hard time dealing with people of opposing views - especially when they cannot dismiss them out of hand as idiots. Too often they have spent their entire adult lives surrounded almost entirely by those who think just like them, and it comes naturally to dismiss those of other views as intellectually or morally challenged.

...

My best friend from freshman year in college, with whom I once shared a youthful passion for Camus, bluntly informed me that he could not bear to receive any further communications from anyone who believes in God.

[Donn]

Originally posted by Keith Wilson:
Good point, John.

Again, if anyone has objections to the current interpretation of the establishment clause, the "Lemon test", please suggest an alternate method by which we can determine if an action of government violates the establishment clause. Here it is again:

1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion.#1, strike the word "secular."

#2, insert "any specific" between inhibiting and religion.

#3, strike the whole thing.

[Gonzalo]

Norman,

Let me refer you to the American Religious Identification Survery, conducted by the Graduate Center of City University of New York in 2001. This was a survey of over 50,000 American households asking detailed questions about how people self-describe their religious affiliation and practise. The survey did not ask detailed questions about belief, such as "do you believe in God."

In this survey, the largest I know of, the number of people who classified themselves as Christians was only 76.5%, not the 89% often cited.

Fourteen percent said they "did not subscribe to any religion," 3.7% were in non-christian religions, and 5.4% declined to answer the question.

This means that while people who call themselves Christians are a large majority of Americans, but not as overwhelming majority as previously. In 1991, the same survey found that 86.2% described themselves as Christians.

I know there are various surveys of religion conducted with other methodologies, often asking questions about belief rather than affiliation. This survey caught my eye because it is so large (50,000) and it relied on people's self description in answer to a simple question, "What is your religion, if any?"

Edited to add the URL http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_studies/aris.pdf

John

[ 12-06-2005, 04:56 PM: Message edited by: Gonzalo ]

[Keith Wilson]

OK, Donn: a test case under your revision. Say the State of Oregon in its wisdom decides that those who do not attend religious services at least weekly (any religion, they have a list, and getting your church added to it is easy) will be taxed at a rate 50% greater than those who do. Under your revised test:

1. The Oregon legislature thinks religion is good thing, encourages law-abiding behavior and that they should encourage it. That's a "legitimate purpose", in their eyes.
2. It treats all religions equally.
3. is gone

Is this OK?

Another test case: The state of Wisconsin declares atheism to be a capital crime. Is this OK?

[ 12-06-2005, 05:12 PM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[Norman Bernstein]

I know there are various surveys of religion conducted with other methodologies, often asking questions about belief rather than affiliation. This survey caught my eye because it is so large (50,000) and it relied on people's self description in answer to a simple question, "What is your religion, if any?"
I can't honestly tell you where I've seen the 89% number... but I have indeed seen it in several places. Regardless, whether the number is 76% or 89%, and regardless of the way in which the question is asked, it is nonetheless true that a substantial majority of americans self-identify with Christianity, in one way or the other.

[Norman Bernstein]

"LIBERALS CAN be wonderful people, and boon companions, but they often have a hard time dealing with people of opposing views - especially when they cannot dismiss them out of hand as idiots. Too often they have spent their entire adult lives surrounded almost entirely by those who think just like them, and it comes naturally to dismiss those of other views as intellectually or morally challenged."
Wow... I don't think I've EVER seen anything even REMOTELY as patronizing as this complete horses#%t... incredible! It's almost as if the writer is dispassionately describing dog breeds ("Golden Retrievers can be wonderful pets, but they do suffer from genetically induced hip displaysia...").

If I described CONSERVATIVES in that tone of voice, I'd be strung up from the nearest elm tree!!!!!

I'd say it's a PERFECT example of why some people can't see beyond their own prejudices.

[Donn]

"Is this OK?

Another test case: The state of Wisconsin declares atheism to be a capital crime. Is this OK?"

No, both violate the 8th amendment.

[Keith Wilson]

Eighth amendment? "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted?"

You could make that argument for the death penalty for atheism perhaps, but certainly not for the tax.

[Donn]

And why would the tax not be considered an excessive fine?

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

I read somewhere that the State of Connecticut was a Congregationalist colony that required residents to attend church a few times a week, many Connecticut towns were initially formed as parishes that allowed resident farmers to avoid traveling long distances to attend church services.

[Osborne Russel]

Originally posted by Donn:
[QB#1, strike the word "secular."

#2, insert "any specific" between inhibiting and religion.

#3, strike the whole thing.[/QB]None dare call it theocracy, least of all those who advocate it.

[Keith Wilson]

And why would the tax not be considered an excessive fine? Geez, I dunno, why wasn't a top marginal tax rate of 91% considered excessive? (We had one from 1950 through 1963.) It's not a fine at all, not a punishment for a crime, just a tax benefit for going to church, no different than the mortgage interest deduction. If you don't like it, go to church. ;) I can't imagine you could overturn it based on that rationale. OTOH, why is is NOT an "establishment of religion?"

[ 12-06-2005, 05:48 PM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

OTOH, why is is NOT an "establishment of religion?"

Because it applies to ALL religions therefore, makes no effort to establish one.

[Donn]

Originally posted by Keith Wilson:
It's not a fine at all, not a punishment for a crime, just a tax benefit for going to church, no different than the mortgage interest deduction.The way you posed the question, "taxed at a rate 50% greater than those who do" presents it as a punishment, or fine.

[Keith Wilson]

Nah. I can deduct mortgage interest. Somebody who rents can't. It encourages home ownership. Let's say you get a 1% deduction every time you go to church, up to 50% if you go every week. It encourages churchgoing. No problem, right?

[Donn]

Mortgage interest deductions are not designed to encourage home ownership, they are designed to increase local tax revenue. It saves the Fed a bunch.

Why don't you stop the silly games, and just ask me what I think the federal government's policy on religion should be?

[Sam F]

Originally posted by Keith Wilson:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Keith, If that was what he intended then why not write it in? People should not read between the lines because if you look there is nothing there. A man as learned as Jefferson should have known this. In the Constitution there is no establishment for the separation of church and state, merely that our government cannot establish a church.Well I defer to Mr. Jefferson on this. He said very clearly what he meant in his letter to the Danbury Baptists. If you don’t believe his own words, nothing I can say will convince you.

Current law on the establishment clause comes from a case in 1971, Lemon v Kurtzman. Here’s a link to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman) the complete text of the Supreme Court decision, if you’re interested. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=403&invol=602) This decision established what’s called the "Lemon test", which details the requirements for all laws concerning religion. It has three sections:

1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion.

If a law can’t pass all three tests, the government's action is unconstitutional under the establishment clause. It seems very reasonable to me.</font>[/QUOTE]Do you think Mr. Jefferson would pass your "citrus" test? :D
This is from your own posted link...

Jefferson's participation in House church services and his granting of permission to various denominations to worship in executive office buildings, where four-hour communion services were held...Still want to defer to Mr. Jefferson?

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

Uh OH
Sam's back :eek:

How do you greet a doorknocking religious nut? (http://www.woodenboat-ubb.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=027972)

:D

[ 12-06-2005, 08:55 PM: Message edited by: Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ) ]

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by Norman Bernstein:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I know there are various surveys of religion conducted with other methodologies, often asking questions about belief rather than affiliation. This survey caught my eye because it is so large (50,000) and it relied on people's self description in answer to a simple question, "What is your religion, if any?"
I can't honestly tell you where I've seen the 89% number... but I have indeed seen it in several places. Regardless, whether the number is 76% or 89%, and regardless of the way in which the question is asked, it is nonetheless true that a substantial majority of americans self-identify with Christianity, in one way or the other.</font>[/QUOTE]i don't know where either of you get your numbers. According to the US Census, by far the largest "poll" around, about 37% of Americans are regular church attenders. A far greater number call themselves Christians, but most of them say they don't attend church on a regular basis or not at all.

[Donn]

Meerkat...Will you stop with the vernacular anecdotal BS? There is nothing in Christianity that requires a Christian to "go to church." You can't really be that lame, can you?

[Keith Wilson]

Donn, I did ask you, although I was perhaps not as clear as I should have been. You proposed something that would allow the government to use the full power of the state to either encourage or discourage religion, as long as it did not discriminate between different varieties of religion. It would allow tax credits for going to church, or additional taxes for churchgoers.

OK, I'll ask you again. What do you think is OK for the government to do under the establishment clause of the first amendment?

And Sam, you know very well that I cited Jefferson in reference to the phrase "wall of separation between church and state", which he wrote in order to explain his position. If you have a problem with the "Lemon test", (which is not mine at all, but the law according to the Supreme Court), please propose an alternative.

[ 12-06-2005, 09:16 PM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by Donn:
Meerkat...Will you stop with the vernacular anecdotal BS? There is nothing in Christianity that requires a Christian to "go to church." You can't really be that lame, can you?Well, if you're a Catholic, there are several times a year you're require to go to church if you want to continue to be a Catholic.

As for the rest, form does not substance make - kind of like you. tongue.gif

[Sam F]

Originally posted by salty hoosier:
...
As a christain my heart is sad as to the general rejection of God on this site... I will not bother you anymore with my inflamatory views. I will let you all go back to whatever it is you do.
Ah, now you know how often "tolerance" and "diversity" is a complete bald-faced fraud.
"Whatever it is that [they] do" is often Christian baiting. It has become a very popular sport among the "tolerant".
Rudeness, insult, sloppy reasoning and sloppier evidence, character assassination and falsehood are all OK when advancing the secular cause, but you will be held to the strictest of double-standards.

Welcome to Orwell's world where everyone is equal but some are more equal than others and freedom of speech means "Shut up".

[Meerkat]

Per usual, Sam continues to completely miss the point... :rolleyes:

[Sam F]

Originally posted by Keith Wilson:

And Sam, you know very well that I cited Jefferson in reference to the phrase "wall of separation between church and state", which he wrote in order to explain his position. If you have a problem with the "Lemon test", (which is not mine at all, but the law according to the Supreme Court), please propose an alternative.I know very well what Mr. Jefferson in fact did with his separation of church and state - he approved of Christian communion services in executive office buildings.
My question, and you still haven't answered it, is do you still want to defer to Mr. Jefferson's judgment in this matter? Or in other words, do Mr. Jefferson's actions pass your Lemon test?

[Donn]

Well, Keith, just to establish the point that I don't share your interpretation of the establishment thingy, I'll point out what I hope my new SC will do in that regard.

1. I'd like to see the federal government recognize the position of religious belief in the creation of our country.

2. I'd like to see the government support, through positive reinforcement, faith-based organizations which help, without preaching to, those who need help.

3. I'd like to see religious icons displayed in government premises, without discrimination as to the specific religion represented (within reason).

Is that all asking too much? If not, I've got more.

[Donn]

Originally posted by Meerkat:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Donn:
Meerkat...Will you stop with the vernacular anecdotal BS? There is nothing in Christianity that requires a Christian to "go to church." You can't really be that lame, can you?Well, if you're a Catholic, there are several times a year you're require to go to church if you want to continue to be a Catholic.

As for the rest, form does not substance make - kind of like you. tongue.gif </font>[/QUOTE]Well, I'm not a Catholic. I'm a Christian, and you're a jerk.

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by Donn:

3. I'd like to see religious icons displayed in government premises, without discrimination as to the specific religion represented (within reason).
Just whose reason do you propose we use?

Mythical divinites help us if it's yours! :eek:

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by Donn:
I'm a Christian, and you're a jerk.Well, being a jerk is one step above you - jerkoff.

Plus, you couldn't prove you're a christian by that kind of remark, now can you? tongue.gif

[Donn]

I don't need to prove it.

[Wild Dingo]

Originally posted by salty hoosier:
Thanks for the explanation Wild Dingo.
As a christain my heart is sad as to the general rejection of God on this site. I am truly sorry that someone claiming to be doing God's work has turned you away from him. That was most definintely not my intention here. I will not bother you anymore with my inflamatory views. I will let you all go back to whatever it is you do.

Thanks for the fun.

Oh, I will post on the boatbuilding part of this site 'cause I am builing two of 'em right now.
I promise to behave myself.Sigh... after a shyte day at work with a bunch of absolute shytes drivin an utter shyte of a truck I have to come back to read this drivel...

Firstly... you profess your beliefs? YOU BELIEVE THEM??? Then bloody well stand on your two bloody legs and defend those beliefs! shyte! be a bloody man "salty"... you say were not tolerant or accepting of diverse beliefs? sorry mate its you who doesnt have the conviction of their beliefs to stand up and defend them

Sadly that is just ruddy typical :rolleyes:

We are definantly a tolerant bunch just take a walk down through the archives and you will see some bloody long posts on the church on religion on dogma on theology and I do mean LONG... Sam it were you wasnt it that started that bloody humongus thread about the catholic church a fair while ago wasnt it? Now that showed a hell of a lot of diverse responses and the whole tenor of the thread was tolerant to your and others very strong long held views... and I bet you would still go around again and stand up for your belief in the catholic church!!

I have no problem accepting as mates people who hold strong religious beliefs be they catholic evangelical baptist jew islam or buhddist I really couldnt give a rip what their relgious beleifs are if the person is genuine caring kind passionate compassionate and a good person to be around... and as long as they know when to stop with the force feeding of their religious beliefs to me who is quite simply not interested... I will debate and discuss it without a problem and listen to your arguments and statements without insulting you or your beliefs... if you also do the same for me

I dont apologise for my outburst back there you earnt it and deserved it I believe so it stands

Actually I find people with religious conviction fascinating... most are intreguing and intellectually stimulating as well as being for the most part rather clever at manipulating the word of the bible to suit their own agenda... and that sort of behaviour is not tolerant nor accepting of diverse beliefs and opinions but rather very much the opposite

Keep posting in the bilge but when posting to a thread its really not necessary to harp on about christ or your brand of the marketting of christianity... talk on whatever subject you choose and be welcome just expect to cop some flak if your continually post your beliefs

Tolerance is a two way street diveristy is a part of life we all face it every day of our lives.

Cheers

[George.]

Originally posted by Donn:
And why would the tax not be considered an excessive fine?Because the decision would be made by the same people who don't consider waterboarding and sodomizing "cruel and unusual punishment."

[Donn]

The State of Oregon doesn't consider waterboarding and sodomizing "cruel and unusual punishment?" You must be thinking of Brazil.

[ishmael]

Hmm. Not reading the entire thread, it seems people confuse Christianity with its public image. Evangelizing is a small part of it. And yaking at someone is not likely to change anything.

Jesus was an embodiment of tolerance. To know god the father, and yet willingly be crucified, an ultimate tolerance. The meeting of those. To evangelize genuinely is to suffer with the evangelee not preach at him or her. Good preaching has it's place, but Jesus didn't preach much, he lived with his flock in all their pain.

[ 12-07-2005, 07:15 AM: Message edited by: ishmael ]

[George.]

I can hardly think of a more intolerant attitude than fervently embracing the idea that all those who don't believe in your faith will burn in hell for all eternity.

I know what Jesus said, Jack. But that is not Christianity as it came down to our days. There are many versions of Christianity, and some are as objectionable as they come.

[ishmael]

I agree, George. Followers and sycophants have made a mockery of what Jesus said and did. It's Christianity's crown of thorns.

It's understandable projection of desire for salvation. All too often translated to some twisted earthly power. Much of what has been done in his name makes me ill.

But his actual teaching is good. He can't help what people have made of it.

[Norman Bernstein]

1. I'd like to see the federal government recognize the position of religious belief in the creation of our country.
You mean 'recognition' by way of acknowledgement of the historical relevance of religion to the founding of the United States? Like a footnote? If not, then just WHAT do you mean by 'recognition'? Has anyone been denying that some, but not all, of the Founding Fathers were religious? Just what IS the 'position of religious belief in the creation of outr country', anyhow? As I read history, it strikes me that philosophically, most of the founding fathers were Deists, a belief system we don't often see, 240 years later....


2. I'd like to see the government support, through positive reinforcement, faith-based organizations which help, without preaching to, those who need help.
Then I would presume that you would object to the faith-based jobs program in Texas which accepts Federal tax dollars and requires its participants to listen to a one hour sermon before being given a job assignment, right?


3. I'd like to see religious icons displayed in government premises, without discrimination as to the specific religion represented (within reason).
The 'within reason' part bothers me a bit. I've always felt that the objections to the display of a Christmas creche, etc., were petty and short-sighted, and I've disagreed with those who object to simple cultural symbolism like that. However, one of these days, some Moslem is going to want to erect some symbol that veterans of this Iraq War are going to object to...STRONGLY.... are you prepared to defend the Moslems and criticize the veterans?

[ 12-07-2005, 08:08 AM: Message edited by: Norman Bernstein ]

[George.]

The foundations of America, and of modern democracy in general, are built upon the Enlightenment. That is something that could use more recognition in today's fundamentalist climate.

If it were not for the Enlightenment's secular, rational ideology, we'd all still be burning witches and heretics.

[Norman Bernstein]

Good point, George... I'd say that your reference to the Enlightenment seems a LOT more apropos of the thinking of the Founding Fathers than religious orthodoxy ever was....

[Donn]

1. I didn't, and don't specify any particular religion.
2. Right.
3. Yes.

[ishmael]

14

The wild gander leads his flock through the cool night,
Ya-honk he says, and sounds it down to me like an invitation,
The pert may suppose it meaningless, but I listening close,
Find its purpose and place up there toward the wintry sky.

The sharp-hoof'd moose of the north, the cat on the house-sill, the
chickadee, the prairie-dog,
The litter of the grunting sow as they tug at her teats,
The brood of the turkey-hen and she with her half-spread wings,
I see in them and myself the same old law.

The press of my foot to the earth springs a hundred affections,
They scorn the best I can do to relate them.

I am enamour'd of growing out-doors,
Of men that live among cattle or taste of the ocean or woods,
Of the builders and steerers of ships and the wielders of axes and
mauls, and the drivers of horses,
I can eat and sleep with them week in and week out.

What is commonest, cheapest, nearest, easiest, is Me,
Me going in for my chances, spending for vast returns,
Adorning myself to bestow myself on the first that will take me,
Not asking the sky to come down to my good will,
Scattering it freely forever.

[peb]

How interesting. While a thread about tolerance and diversity is going on, SamF comes back and on the R v W thread is instantly attacked and an effort is immediately made to drown him out.

SamF, welcome back. Believe it or not, some of us have missed your insights.

[Norman Bernstein]

How interesting. While a thread about tolerance and diversity is going on, SamF comes back and on the R v W thread is instantly attacked and an effort is immediately made to drown him out.
Interesting.

I reviewed this thread... and haven't found a single instance of SamF being 'attacked' (although he was indeed disagreed with, which is something that is quite ordinary and common and quite purposeful, here in the bilge)

Neither did I see any evidence of any effort to 'drown him out'.... how in hell would you 'drown' anyone out, anyhow, here on the WBF?

[Tristan]

Originally posted by Donn:
"I dont care if they worship Barney the dragon it to them is their church."

I may be mistaken, but I believe Barney is a dinosaur. :D Well Barney used to be a black guy dressed in a Barney suit. And I ain't worshiping no black guy in a damn Barney suit, I don't care what the constitution, the Civil Liberties Union, George Bush, or Tom Delay says!

[peb]

Originally posted by Norman Bernstein:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> How interesting. While a thread about tolerance and diversity is going on, SamF comes back and on the R v W thread is instantly attacked and an effort is immediately made to drown him out.
Interesting.

I reviewed this thread... and haven't found a single instance of SamF being 'attacked' (although he was indeed disagreed with, which is something that is quite ordinary and common and quite purposeful, here in the bilge)

Neither did I see any evidence of any effort to 'drown him out'.... how in hell would you 'drown' anyone out, anyhow, here on the WBF?</font>[/QUOTE]Ridiculous!. Do you not think that Joe's posting of large sections of War and Peace is not trying to drown him out? Joe said so himself. When asked if a War and Peace post would follow every one of Sam's posts, he said "AYUP".

And while we are talking about tolerance and diversity I will quote Joe again:

Originally posted by Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )

Sam F
Member Number: 4363
Registered: 01-03-2002
Posts: 4,306 AND ALMOST EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM ADVOCATING THE ROMAN CATHOLIC AGENDA Taking this comment along with his stated attempt to drown out SamF, it is clear that his tolerance is limited. He clearly does not want a Roman Catholic adgenda to be presented.

[TomF]

Originally posted by peb:
Taking this comment along with his stated attempt to drown out SamF, it is clear that his tolerance is limited. He clearly does not want a Roman Catholic adgenda to be presented.Does Joe want to drown out Sam? Yes, I read it that way too. His tolerance for Sam is limited.

But censoring out the presentation of a Roman Catholic agenda? That's far over-reaching. Joe's not drowning out you, or George Jung, or Bob Cleek, or ... Looks to me like this has nothing to do with Catholicism, and everything to do with Joe's feelings about Sam's presentation style.

[Keith Wilson]

Ah, now you know how often "tolerance" and "diversity" is a complete bald-faced fraud. "Whatever it is that [they] do" is often Christian baiting. It has become a very popular sport among the "tolerant". Rudeness, insult, sloppy reasoning and sloppier evidence, character assassination and falsehood are all OK when advancing the secular cause, but you will be held to the strictest of double-standards. Welcome to Orwell's world where everyone is equal but some are more equal than others and freedom of speech means "Shut up".Oh, Sam . . . :rolleyes: . . When a version of this argument has been used against your positions, you recognized it immediately as specious nonsense. How pedophile priests render the entire Catholic Church corrupt, remember? Catholics are not noticeably more virtuous that the average, so the church’s ethical teaching is “a complete bald-faced fraud”? Can you show us “character assassination and falsehood” directed against salty? Strong disagreement, yes, but if one comes to the bilge, one should expect disagreement.

I’m willing to go WAY beyond Mr. Jefferson in government recognition of religion. I think Thanksgiving as a federal holiday is just fine. Government offices can close on Christmas too. No problem. You’re welcome.

And Joe, please cut out the “War and Peace” crap. Sam is damnably persistent and writes a lot, but he has just as much right to post his opinions here as you and I do.

[Norman Bernstein]

Ridiculous!. Do you not think that Joe's posting of large sections of War and Peace is not trying to drown him out? Joe said so himself. When asked if a War and Peace post would follow every one of Sam's posts, he said "AYUP".
If Joe wants to make a fool of himself, that's his business. Yes, I think his tactic is quite offensive and counter-productive... but the singular thing about free speech is that we do indeed have the right to be really STUPID about the way we behave here.

However, NOTHING Joe posts is stopping SamF's posts from showing up. Whether people read his posts, agree wih them, disagree with them, or engage in any discourse with SamF is up to them.

If Joe's incessant 'war and peace' postings are viewed as being disruptive, then by all means, let Scott know, and he'll get banned or whatever.... and I will join the list of folks here who are relieved not to have to scroll through that crap.

Joe, you're behaving like an ass about this.... meaning no disrespect you you, personally, of course smile.gif

(BTW, the 'drowning out' behavior was on another thread that I hadn't seen... I still don't consider it to be 'drowning', but I do concede the point)

[ 12-07-2005, 09:39 AM: Message edited by: Norman Bernstein ]

[ishmael]

Joe's a bully. When he sees something he doesn't like or doesn't understand he stomps on it. I'm sure he's also a fine, kind person, in person. We contain these seeming opposites.

Christianity, as perceived in large part because of it's public persona, is badly denigrated. The part about taking it out into the world is often taken too far, in wrong ways.

"Love god with all your heart, and your neighbor as yourself."

[peb]

Originally posted by TomF:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by peb:
Taking this comment along with his stated attempt to drown out SamF, it is clear that his tolerance is limited. He clearly does not want a Roman Catholic adgenda to be presented.Does Joe want to drown out Sam? Yes, I read it that way too. His tolerance for Sam is limited.

But censoring out the presentation of a Roman Catholic agenda? That's far over-reaching. Joe's not drowning out you, or George Jung, or Bob Cleek, or ... Looks to me like this has nothing to do with Catholicism, and everything to do with Joe's feelings about Sam's presentation style.</font>[/QUOTE]TomF, I am simply putting 2 and 2 together and getting 4. He says he is drowning out Sam (my words, but his meaning) and he makes a point that Sam only posts a Roman Catholic adgenda. The logical conclusion is that he wants to silence a Roman Catholic adgenda on this forum.

Now, I will give him credit. He clearly admits to this tactic. What is interesting to me is that others try to deny, downplay, ignore, or enjoy the fact that he is doing so.

Lets imagine a neo-nazi started spouting his adgenda, I think someone would be justified in trying to drown him out. the neo-nazi's right to free speech does not necessarily extend to this forum and even if the owners of this forum decide it did, others have would have a corresponding right to try to "drown him out".

So to me, it is not an issue of SamF's rights or an issue of tolerance. Like I said, Joe is being quite honest in his intention. The response of others is illuminating.

[TomF]

Peb, sorry but I think you're putting 2 and 2 together, and getting 5. Post something about the original thread topic, from your perspective as a faithful Catholic, and see whether or not Tolstoy ensues. My money's on "not."

Sam rubs some folks the wrong way, because of how he says things as much as because of the content. You reap what you sow. Goes for Joe too ...

[Norman Bernstein]

Sam rubs some folks the wrong way, because of how he says things as much as because of the content. SamF is obviously a very literate and well-educated guy.... but literacy and education don't matter, when someone takes all opposing perspectives as being some sort of personal affront... as SamF seems to do.

[peb]

Originally posted by TomF:
Peb, sorry but I think you're putting 2 and 2 together, and getting 5. Post something about the original thread topic, from your perspective as a faithful Catholic, and see whether or not Tolstoy ensues. My money's on "not."

Sam rubs some folks the wrong way, because of how he says things as much as because of the content. You reap what you sow. Goes for Joe too ...Explain to me how. Joe admitly wants to drown out SamF and Joe says that SamF only posts a Roman Catholic Adgenda. If Joe is not trying to drown out a Roman Catholic Adgenda, let him clarify.

[Ian McColgin]

Golly this thread has wandered. In my happier world, waterboarding is a sport and sodomizing is consensual pleasure. But, as I equivocate toward certitude, allow me to inject a couple of observations:

Diversity is a pain but it really is essential to the democratic process. In the material life processes - production, distribution and all that - no one way has a grip on perfection. Even in simplified systems, like the military, there is a profound need to varieties of perspective and experience to put together a winning strategy.

For choosing any team, there are many good criteria including:

Relevant performance like a track record in that activity;

Quasi-relevant performance like academic test scores; and

The broadening of perspective brought by ethnic, sexual and religious diversity.

How you balance these things depends upon a clear view of what you want the organization to be able to do, but in general the larger the outfit, the more likely it is to need the diversity of society at large to work well.

Tolerance has a lovely theological aspect. If God was content to endow us with free will, if God lets us choose damnation rather than be like the angles pretty much forced (some mytho-non-cannonical exceptions aside) to be good, who are we to impose more than the bare minimum on our fellow citizens.

Religious and other values inform social and political behavior, but religious creeds in our democratic experiment are not to dictate policy or law. In the democracy, I must be tolerant of the money-grubbing materialist and frozensnot motorboater to the extent that their depraved life choices does not directly harm my own choices.

OK - there's a big ground for argument here. I do not accept that religious tolerance means that I should tolerate child cliterectomies.

On the abortion front:

Those who call themselves pro-choice include some mysoginistic creeps but most really are motivated by a deep sense of the sacredness of life and when they fancy that life should be protected. I don't see how the salvation of the fetal soul gets worked out, but perhaps God is more powerful than the sacrament of baptism.

At any rate, those who support a woman's perhaps mildly time-limited right to choose whether or not to complete a pregnancy also include a few shallow convenience seeking idiots - though most such are not in fact motivated to help defend reproductive rights, content merely to take selfish benefit - but most of us are motivated by a very deep sense of the painful choices that go into seeking a right life.

In the realm of tolerance, it's easy for the pro-choice people to be more than tolerant of, quite supportive of, women who choose to have babies. Given the prior belief, the pro-life crowd cannot be tolerant on this matter.

Back to Alito: He has tried to hide the fact that he already has a strategy to reverse Roe v. Wade and will bend any cases to steps in that direction.

By the way, I don't think that Joe is a bully but I don't find off-point posts from anyone especially useful. Thank Gaia for the fast scroll down function.

[peb]

Originally posted by Norman Bernstein:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Sam rubs some folks the wrong way, because of how he says things as much as because of the content. SamF is obviously a very literate and well-educated guy.... but literacy and education don't matter, when someone takes all opposing perspectives as being some sort of personal affront... as SamF seems to do.</font>[/QUOTE]Norman, I do not believe this is true. Although some may not like SamF's style of argument(which would perhaps fit better in a time when argument was looked upon positively), he does not take opposing perspectives as a personal affront.

Please back up this accuasation with a specific examples. It is easy to make statements such as this, and if it can be defended, it is even proper to do so. But when one does so, one should be prepared to back it up with facts.

[Keith Wilson]

I think he's trying to drown out Sam, not specifically because he's Catholic, but because he's Sam. Peb, he hasn't tried to drown you out, and IIRC you're almost as Catholic as Sam.

That said, GODDDAMMIT JOE, CUT IT OUT!

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

Bwaaaaaa ha ha :D

IAAJ

[TomF]

C'mon Peb, Joe wanted to shut down someone whose presence he has found offensive. Who has belittled him and other folks on the forum, has consistently written in a self-righteous and sarcastic style, and in well over 4000 posts, has yet to modify ANY of his opinions in response to WBF discussions. It is only incidental that Sam's content is Catholic - it's about his history here, and his personality.

If you're convinced that Joe wants to drown out Catholic voices, then show us where he's drowned out you, or George Jung, other unabashedly Catholic folks. I've certainly seen none of it ... even though Joe's no shrinking violet. So what's the logical conclusion to draw?

My last post on this.

t.

[Norman Bernstein]

Please back up this accuasation with a specific examples. It is easy to make statements such as this, and if it can be defended, it is even proper to do so. But when one does so, one should be prepared to back it up with facts. It's a subjective impression, peb, which means 'opinion', and not something provable conclusively. I'd have to trace back through countless threads to pick out examples... something which I'm not really inclined to do at the moment. However, I can be wrong.... I've been wrong in the past... and if I am, I'll apologize.... and I plan to keep my 'sensors' tuned to see if it happens again.

[salty hoosier]

As posted by Wild Dingo,

Firstly... you profess your beliefs? YOU BELIEVE THEM??? Then bloody well stand on your two bloody legs and defend those beliefs! shyte! be a bloody man "salty"... you say were not tolerant or accepting of diverse beliefs? sorry mate its you who doesnt have the conviction of their beliefs to stand up and defend them

Sadly that is just ruddy typical
Sir, I am not required by my faith to defend it to some arbitrary point. I offered a different viewpoint than what I personally witnessed on the WBF bilge. I shared my view by attempting to explain the gospel--"the good news". You are not required to accept my views. By sharing this knowledge I have done my part. There is very little point in going around and around over the same material.
If I could back up my faith with acts of personal attention on this forum, I would. But, alas we can only talk and not act.

Others on this forum who share my general viewpoint seem to do a fine job, much better than myself so I will let them continue and only add something where it seems appropriate.

Regards,
Steve

[Rick Tyler]

Originally posted by Ian McColgin:
Back to Alito: He has tried to hide the fact that he already has a strategy to reverse Roe v. Wade and will bend any cases to steps in that direction.Objection: assuming facts not in evidence. Cite, please? Or perhaps your long-distance truth-detector is working now?

[peb]

Norman Berstein wrote:

when someone takes all opposing perspectives as being some sort of personal affront (bold added)

Norman Bernstein wrote:


It's a subjective impression, peb, which means 'opinion', and not something provable conclusively. I'd have to trace back through countless threads to pick out examples... something which I'm not really inclined to do at the moment. Norman, your original post was not written as an opinion and your use oif the word ALL would imply it would be quite easy to find examples.

Why am I being so picky and precise? Now the issue has become SamF's style of argument. In TimF's words SamF has "consistently written in a self-righteous and sarcastic ".

If it is consistently, provide examples!!!

No, the problem is SamF is precise and relentless in his style of argument. If someone bases an opinion on a questionable fact, SamF attackes the questionable fact and until it is defended, he does not back off. It is a very proper mode of argument.

[Norman Bernstein]

OK, if you insist on picking the flys#%t out of the pepper, how about this:

It is MY subjective impression that SamF takes all opposing viewpoints as some sort of personal affront...

Am I entitled to a subjective impression that I don't have to prove objectively?

[TomF]

Mmmph! Maybe 1 more post ...

Peb, I have no intention of scrolling through archival threads to show Sam's sarcasm. But if you choose to scroll through, you'll see that he's (unapologetically) acknowledged it on occasion. Relevant search keywords might include "Nazi" and "Judas." While searching, keep an eye out for instances of Sam changing his mind, even on irrelevant details ...

"Relentlessness" in a discussion can be a virtue, as can precision. But if the folks involved aren't open to having their positions move, however slightly, there is only a simulation of a discussion. While Sam famously experienced a personal tectonic shift moving from Atheism to Catholicism, in my time here I've seen no aftershocks, however small. Nobody is *always* right in every detail. Except Sam.

[ 12-07-2005, 11:24 AM: Message edited by: TomF ]

[peb]

Originally posted by Norman Bernstein:
OK, if you insist on picking the flys#%t out of the pepper, how about this:

It is MY subjective impression that SamF takes all opposing viewpoints as some sort of personal affront...

Am I entitled to a subjective impression that I don't have to prove objectively?Thankyou for the clarification. And yes you are entitled to subjective impressions, but you should state them that way.

I was kind of picking on you to make my point. You see, when arguing, the precise use of words matters. It matters a lot. Starting in the middle ages, when the first universities were developed, this was well accepted. But recently people have gotten "sloppy" in their style of argument. And not only that, the words rhetoric and argument have taken on a negative connotation. But forums such as this allows many "common" people to take part in the type of arguments that were once the domain of these universities. So I think we should start appreciating more classic styles of argument.

[peb]

But if the folks involved aren't open to having their positions move, however slightly, there is only a simulation of a discussion This is not right at all. Everyone's purpose in these arguments is to move the position of others. We all enter the debates with our minds set (or so we think). This is how it was in the old days of debate. But the debate itself can influence listeners and occasionally influence participants. That is why it is more than a "simulation of discussion".

[Osborne Russel]

Tolerance and diversity are virtues, but government neutrality is expedient. Maybe virtuous as well, but that's beside the point.

Sam, Jefferson was not a prophet. His words and example are persuasive but not binding. Otherwise we'd have to wear powdered wigs.

[PatCox]

It was my subjective impression that SamF took all opposing opinions and viewpoints not as a personal affront to SamF, but rather as a personal affront to God, for whom SamF beleived himself to be speaking.

SamF regarded any opinion other than his own as categorical proof that the individual holding that opinion was either evil, stupid, or both.

[George.]

Originally posted by peb:
No, the problem is SamF is precise and relentless in his style of argument. If someone bases an opinion on a questionable fact, SamF attackes the questionable fact and until it is defended, he does not back off. It is a very proper mode of argument.
Originally posted by Sam F:
I insulted you and have continued to do so and have not the slightest regrets about it.

That I insulted Tom F is quite apparent. It doesn’t bother me one bit.

I am not nice. That’s because nice, as far as I can tell, has no value.
Proper indeed...

Hopefully, he's come back kinder and gentler. But one has to understand his history before dismissing those who say they object to his form, rather to his substance.

[PatCox]

And when one of SamF's premises was attacked effectively, SamF evaded, slipped, slid, and otherwise oozed about like an eel, dodging, weaving, and changing the subject. Is that also a fine mode of arguing?

[TomF]

Peb, a formal debate and a discussion have different aims. While both are intended to be persuasive, the former is directed to the listeners, the latter to the participants. It is rare in debates for anyone to change their minds ... in discussions, it's common for positions to shift somewhat. They're different beasts. Where we get into trouble, is when one person thinks we're having a discussion, and another thinks we're having a debate.

[Keith Wilson]

Precision in language and argument is an excellent virtue, and Sam possesses it sometimes. However, I think the reason that people get irritated with him is not the precision of his language or the adroitness of his arguments, but several other characteristics that sometimes afflict his posts:

- A dismissive and sneering tone, sometimes becoming insulting. He has said several times (dismissively) that being "nice" (always in quotes) has no value.

- Cherry-picking attempts at refutation. If one makes five points, he'll pick one of them, then pick one of the pieces of evidence supporting one of the points, dispute that evidence, and then act as if he has refuted the entire argument.

- Shifting the target: "Show me just one example of . . ." and when we do, the target bobs and weaves and recedes into the distance.

[ 12-07-2005, 12:13 PM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[Meerkat]

My issue with Sam is that he's generally disrespectful and derisive of other viewpoints and that he distorts other people's points to make his.

It leaves me with the desire to bait him more than debate him. :rolleyes:

[Donn]

:rolleyes:

[Ian McColgin]

Just a side note on the thread topic before returning the ever-fascinating question of the meaning of Sam:

At 1036 this morning Rick Tyler wondered if my “long-distance truth-detector is working now?”

Nothing so sophisticated. I was simply referring to last week’s news from the US Senate which was also reported on this board at:
http://www.woodenboat-ubb.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=027846;p=1

And especially my 12-02-2005 08:30 AM post recapitulating that:

“. . . the Senate questionnaire asked him to describe the more significant litigation matters he's handled. He tried to conceal his work for the Reagan administration on Thornburgh v. American College of Obstretricians and Gynecologists, in which he examined ". . . this opportunity to advance the goals of bringing about the eventual overruling of Roe v. Wade and, in the meanthime [sic] of mitigating its effects . . ."

I'd thought Alito's commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade such well known old news that I'd not recognised the need to do any more than reference it. Sorry.

[Tealsmith]

Originally posted by Donn:
Meerkat...Will you stop with the vernacular anecdotal BS? There is nothing in Christianity that requires a Christian to "go to church." You can't really be that lame, can you?Hebrews 10:24-26 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain



24And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:

25Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

26For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

[peb]

Originally posted by TomF:
Peb, a formal debate and a discussion have different aims. While both are intended to be persuasive, the former is directed to the listeners, the latter to the participants. It is rare in debates for anyone to change their minds ... in discussions, it's common for positions to shift somewhat. They're different beasts. Where we get into trouble, is when one person thinks we're having a discussion, and another thinks we're having a debate.TomF, your distinction makes very little sense in the context of the bilge.

The first dictionary definition of the noun debate (from dictionary.com) :

debate - A discussion involving opposing points; an argument It is obvious to all concerned when our discussions contain opposing points and when they are arguments.

[ 12-07-2005, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: peb ]

[peb]

So SamF at times has been dismissive, insulting, shifts the target of debat, cherry picks points for refutation, etc.

Ok, I'll accept that. But JCSOH, merrkat, Norman, ACB, lbj5, George. and others have done the same, to varying degrees. Why the double standard?

[ 12-07-2005, 04:02 PM: Message edited by: peb ]

[TomF]

Peb, ever change your mind on something due to a tussle here in the bilge? Me too - modified my position on everything from guns, to abortion, to economics, to Iraq, to the proper role of the military. Thanks in no small part to the cogent points made by folks who (still) disagree with me. I'd be surprised not to hear murmurs of recognition from many of the conservatives here, who've likely experienced something similar themselves.

Can you find me one instance where Sam's similarly modified one of his opinions? Does that mean that unlike the rest of us, no part of Sam's opinions are ever in error?

Maybe my distinction between debate/discussion is misplaced - but I still prefer open-ended participatory discussions to recitations of immovable opinions. When I find I'm talking to someone who's doing the latter, I get irate ... particularly when it's not acknowledged.

[Keith Wilson]

I was speaking about why some folks get really irritated with Sam, not anyone else. Others have been targets for a lot of irritation as well.

AFAIK, George is only insulting in retaliation, and will be quite amiable if dealt with respectfully. Norman and ACB are two of the most civil people here, and have considerably more patience than I do (although I'm working on it). ljb5 gets mountains of abuse for his many political posts, and rarely responds in kind, and never to the same degree. Joe hasn't got a mean bone in his body, but he's a New Yorker, you've got to understand the type. ;) Meerkat is sui generis; perhaps I cut him more slack than he deserves.

[High C]

Keith, you're wearing blinders. :rolleyes:

[Osborne Russel]

Originally posted by Donn:
Why don't you stop the silly games, and just ask me what I think the federal government's policy on religion should be?As a preface, what is the federal government's policy on religion currently ?

Freedom from religion isn't a policy, it's a human right. To preserve these rights, governments are instituted among men.

[ 12-07-2005, 05:04 PM: Message edited by: Osborne Russel ]

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

Originally posted by High C:
Keith, you're wearing blinders. :rolleyes: This from a guy that KNEW the innocent man shot dead in London was a terrist.
The same HiC who KNEW Sadam was dead
The same HiC who KNEW there was WMD in Iraq
The same HiC who KNOWS OSB is dead.

If Keith is wearing blinders what are you HiC, deaf , dumb and blind ??

Bwaaaaaaa Ha Ha :D :D :D

[ 12-07-2005, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ) ]

[Norman Bernstein]

"Norman and ACB are two of the most civil people here..." I'm thinking of abandoning civility completely... it doesn't seem to work, and it evidently isn't contagious! :D :D :D

[Keith Wilson]

Please don't.

[High C]

Originally posted by Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ):
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by High C:
Keith, you're wearing blinders. :rolleyes: This from a guy that KNEW the innocent man shot dead in London was a terrist.
The same HiC who KNEW Sadam was dead
The same HiC who KNEW there was WMD in Iraq
The same HiC who KNOWS OSB is dead.

If Keith is wearing blinders what are you HiC, deaf , dumb and blind ??

Bwaaaaaaa Ha Ha :D :D :D </font>[/QUOTE]See, Keith?

(psst, Joe, there were WMDs in Iraq)

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

Originally posted by High C:
(psst, Joe, there were WMDs in Iraq)Where? How much, more than I have in my barn? ( I think I have a can of kerosene ) But most important was there ENOUGH WMD's found to justify the PREEMPTIVE strike Colin Powel explained to the UN?

Or do you just have your Bush Blinders™ on firmly staying the course ?

Oh and yea Keith I'm ALL NY ALL The time :D HiC forgetaboutit :D

[Ian McColgin]

To all attempting to maintain civility:

It's like the respect for one's opponent in Akido.

The more civility of argument is maintained by self-discipline and right action, the more the other side uses its own violence to harm itself.

This, of course, does not mean letting demagogues, tyrants or dogmatists get away with any level of falsehood whether in fact or logic. Also, in our civility we sometimes may be arguing not so much for the mind of the visible opponent as for the minds of those he or she might otherwise influence.

Worst emotional case, one can feel ever so snearingly superior in a well hidden and therefore more powerfully ironic way if one remains both civil and articulate under all provocations. This will not degrade the arguement because the uncivil so lack the ironic dimension that they will not notice the insult.

And we'll all have another sip of brie.

[peb]

Originally posted by Keith Wilson:
I was speaking about why some folks get really irritated with Sam, not anyone else. Others have been targets for a lot of irritation as well.

AFAIK, George is only insulting in retaliation, and will be quite amiable if dealt with respectfully. Norman and ACB are two of the most civil people here, and have considerably more patience than I do (although I'm working on it). ljb5 gets mountains of abuse for his many political posts, and rarely responds in kind, and never to the same degree. Joe hasn't got a mean bone in his body, but he's a New Yorker, you've got to understand the type. ;) Meerkat is sui generis; perhaps I cut him more slack than he deserves.I am not disagreeing with your assessment of these people (well, I do know New Yorkers who are better behaved), I was not trying to disparage the people I listed. But even with ACB and Norman, I know of a specific instance (which I don't want to rehash) were they were either insulting or offensive.

No, with SamF, it is that he when he gets started, he doesn't shut up and go away. Earlier you mentioned that my Roman Catholic views have not been drowned out, that is true. That is because after making my point, I eventually go away. SamF and some of the conservatives who do not, are not treated near as civilly.

SamF was gone for a couple of months. Many of you missed the debates that you had with him. I suspect that some of you on the left were glad to see him return. Yet when he was immediately attacked (maybe a strong word), you all were silent. Tolerance and diversity???

[Norman Bernstein]

Yet when he was immediately attacked (maybe a strong word), you all were silent. Tolerance and diversity??? Not true.

A number of us castigated joe for his rather infantile flood of 'war and peace' postings.

[Keith Wilson]

peb, you will note that as soon as I saw it, I asked Joe to stop posting War and Peace. True enough about New Yorkers ; I'm married to a New Yorker, so I'd better use discretion. ;)

I kind of enjoyed arguing with Sam for the first 40,000 pages; after that it got tedious.

[ 12-08-2005, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[peb]

Norman, B#$%S#$&

Keith, only after I was force to reiterate my points a couple of times about SamF's treatment.

Here is the timeline:

12/6 8:12pm. SamF posts on RvW thread
9:00PM Joe is making his first disparaging remarks. Banter back and forth goes on throughout the evening of 12/6 about Joe's posts.

12/7 8:53am. I make my first post about SamF being drowned out. Norman, you immediately responded. Not by castigating Joe, but by denying SamF is being drowned out. TomF admits to SamF being drowned out, but doesn't really say anything negative about it.

9:32 Keith, as an afterthought, asks Joe to stop his posting (in pretty strong language)

9:38am Norman, almost 45 minutes after his first post defending Joe's actions, does a copy-cat move of Keith and tells Joe to quit.

I will repeat, the even after I pointed out the Sam was being drowned out, I had to almost prove it to be the case. Keith, it is possible that you responded as soon as you saw any of this. Norman, you most clearly did not. Here is your initial post on the subject:

Orinially posted by Norman Bernstein:


Interesting.

I reviewed this thread... and haven't found a single instance of SamF being 'attacked' (although he was indeed disagreed with, which is something that is quite ordinary and common and quite purposeful, here in the bilge)

Neither did I see any evidence of any effort to 'drown him out'.... how in hell would you 'drown' anyone out, anyhow, here on the WBF?

[Norman Bernstein]

I will repeat, the even after I pointed out the Sam was being drowned out, I had to almost prove it to be the case. Keith, it is possible that you responded as soon as you saw any of this. Norman, you most clearly did not. I appreciate your efforts to be accurate, peb, but you are indeed missing something, which I pointed out in a later post.

When I made the comment that you quoted, I had not been to the Roe v. Wade thread, and had NOT seen joe's imbecilic and juvenile flooding of the thread... when I said I hadn't seen any evidence of 'drowning', I was referring to a DIFFERENT THREAD... I hadn't yet SEEN the flooding!

The instant I was finally made aware of joe's flooding the thread, I came back with a castigation of his behavior.

I DID indeed INSTANTLY respond... as soon as I was made aware of the behavior.

[ 12-08-2005, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: Norman Bernstein ]

[peb]

Norman, that may be the case, but you were responding to my post and I referred to the Row V Wade thread and you clearly said you had reviewed the thread. If that is the case, you should read the posts you respond to a little closer before starting to type.

Edited to add:

Norman, sorry, I am not buying it. I went back and read your initial post. You quoted my statement about the Roe v Wade thread. And after that when you finally told Joe to stop, you never said you made a mistake about which thread you reviewed.

[ 12-08-2005, 11:59 AM: Message edited by: peb ]

[George.]

Peb, would you be so concerned with defending Sam if he were defending some other agenda, rather than a Catholic one?

Would you apply such selective vision to his posts, praising his persistence while ignoring his rudeness?

Joe's Tolstoy C&Ps are annoying, to be sure. But if you look at the history, they started as a protest/parody. Sam consistently posts enormously long C&Ps, some of which are only preipherally relevant to the subject under discussion. It is a thinly-veiled attempt to win through fatigue - since few read through them and try to sift out the point, assuming there is one, it makes him look like he has a point.

If a handful of people did that here, instead of just Sam, soon the bilge would be clogged, and there would be no meaningful discussion - just a war to see who can post the longest C&P.

Joe was parodying this approach. He overdid it, yes. But it was not wholly gratuitous or undeserved. Perhaps if he had quoted from Origin of the Species or The Blind Watchmaker, instead of War and Peace, you would find it justified?

[TomF]

Peb, we all reap what we sow. I haven't stood up against drowning out Sam ... perhaps to my cost. FWIW, Sam has asked me in the past not to apologize to him when I feel I've been out of line, or defend him if others are. So I've stopped.

For all of me, he's welcome to post - I've often found him to be very thought provoking. But he's not immune to the same forces that afflict the rest of us: actively get under someone's skin, and they'll react. Most of us reconsider our approach when the reaction gets really hot - for his own reasons, Sam hasn't tended to. So the reaction gets hotter, sooner.

[peb]

George. Of course I would not. There are plenty of people to defend those with different adgenda's than Sam. Furthermore, I happen to like Sam.

I don't agree with him on everything, but we have much the same way of thinking.
I don't always agree with his way of argueing, but most of the time he is very good at argueing.

[Norman Bernstein]

Norman, sorry, I am not buying it. I went back and read your initial post. You quoted my statement about the Roe v Wade thread. And after that when you finally told Joe to stop, you never said you made a mistake about which thread you reviewed.
I'm sorry you don't believe me... but I think I've made myself VERY clear, in over 2,000 posts to this forum, that I'm fanatical about civility... and that alone ought to prove my sincerity.

I was indeed confused about the posts. I made my statements discounting the 'drowning out' of SamF based on reviewing the WRONG damn thread. If I had seen joe's flooding, do you think, based on MY history, that I would have made the absurdly false claim that no one was trying to drown him out?

I came down hard on joe the instant I realized the truth of the allegation. I did not wait, and I did NOT claim something that wasn't true.

I'm often wrong, and don't mind a bit being corrected.... but what you're accusing me of is simply totally false.

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

:D Im being Catholic watched and timed :D :D :D

Bwaaaaa Ha Ha :D

Ooooh I'm a bad boy I better go to confession ;)

[Rick Clark]

[ 12-11-2005, 10:51 PM: Message edited by: Rick Clark ]

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ):
:D Im being Catholic watched and timed :D :D :D

Bwaaaaa Ha Ha :D
Gee, I thought that's what you used the WBF for? ;)
Ooooh I'm a bad boy I better go to confession ;)

[Meerkat]

Christians do not believe in equality, diversity or tolerance. A common failing of most religions.

[TomF]

Originally posted by Meerkat:
Christians do not believe in equality, diversity or tolerance. A common failing of most religions.Ahem ...

[Meerkat]

Hmmm?

[TomF]

Nothing Meer ... just had the impression that too broad a generalization had stuck in someone's throat. :D

[Meerkat]

I'll rephrase:

Christianity does not believe in/teach equality, diversity or tolerance. A common failing of most religions.

[Rick Clark]

[ 12-11-2005, 10:52 PM: Message edited by: Rick Clark ]

[P.I. Stazzer-Newt]

Last night I heard a really nice line from a song - Civil Rights Movement era.

Two, Four, Six, Eight.
Who Do We Tol-Er-Ate....

[TomF]

Better, Meer. But there's Christianity, and then there's Christianity.

I've mentioned once before how Pauline Webb, former director of religious broadcasting for the BBC, was a visiting lecturer in communications when I was in theological school.

Pauline said that without exception, the folks she had the hardest time with in inter-faith dialogue were Christians. But she herself, and the Christianity she taught and expressed, was paradigmatic of tolerance, respect for diversity, and equality.

That brand of Christianity is out there, but it's not the usual stock-in-trade.

[ 12-08-2005, 12:35 PM: Message edited by: TomF ]

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by TomF:

That brand of Christianity is out there, but it's not the usual stock-in-trade.Kind of hard to overlook what's in the bible when denying the way Christianity is...

[TomF]

True. That leads to a rather involved discussion about what it means to read the bible faithfully. It would hijack this thread, and probably bore most folks to tears.

As our OT professor (a rabbi) said, "Love God, Love your neighbour. The rest is midrash*."

*elaboration

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

Originally posted by TomF:
True. That leads to a rather involved discussion about what it means to read the bible faithfully. It would hijack this thread, and probably bore most folks to tears.No more so that Chapter V Book 2 of W&P :D :D :D

Heaven forbid a thread gets hijacked :eek: Oh my has that ever happened ? :eek: :eek: Burn in the fire pits of hell if you ever do that ;)

Shhhh the Catholics are watching every word ( and counting them )

Bwaaaaaaa Ha Ha :D

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ):

Bwaaaaaaa Ha Ha :D It's begining to remind me of a hyena with flatulance... :D ;) :D

[peb]

Originally posted by Meerkat:
Christians do not believe in equality, diversity or tolerance. A common failing of most religions.Well, I cannot speak for all Christians, but as far as the Catholic church, i would respond with:

diversity - perhaps the most diverse religion in the world, always has been. In my parish, which is predominantly hispanic, we have blacks, asians, whites. Everyone gets along quite well.

equality - we all all equal. We may have different roles to play in God's plan, but we are all equal. And people are pretty much treated that way in the RC church.

tolerance - a term with different meanings and often misused, so it is very difficult to respond. But, we are a church of sinners. The church has always been about forgivness. So I would say the church tolerates many bad behaviors.

[Meerkat]

And you welcome gays and women in the clergy? What's your stance on non-christians?

[Keith Wilson]

Actually, one reason that Christianity initially became popular in parts of Asia was the unthinkably radical notion (at least in the Confucian tradition) that we are all equal before God. That's important. Christianity hasn't always lived up to it, of course, but it's pretty central, and provided a foundation for a lot of good things that came later.

[peb]

Originally posted by Meerkat:
And you welcome gays and women in the clergy? What's your stance on non-christians?Active homosexuals and active heterosexuals (with some exceptions for married priests who converted from other religions).are excluded with from the clergy. It requires celebacy.

Women are also excluded from the clergy. But they are totally equal to us. I might add that the Catholic Church has a longer history of equal treatment of women than any other institution I know of. One example, my great aunt died in 1992 and the age of 92. She was a hospital administrator way back in the 40s and 50s. A position that it would have been very hard for a woman to hold if it was not a Catholic hospital.

As for non-christians, what is your point? The church sees all salvation comes through the church. That does not mean only Catholics are saved. God has revealed to us a means of salvation (ie baptism into the Church). God is not limited to that revelation. We can hope that anyone is saved. That does not mean it is realistic to hope that all are saved. Hell does exist. Notice that the Church will declare some to be saints, it does not declare anyone to be damned.

[ 12-08-2005, 01:27 PM: Message edited by: peb ]

[Norman Bernstein]

Hell does exist. I require empirical proof! :D

[peb]

Originally posted by Keith Wilson:
Actually, one reason that Christianity initially became popular in parts of Asia was the unthinkably radical notion (at least in the Confucian tradition) that we are all equal before God. That's important. Christianity hasn't always lived up to it, of course, but it's pretty central, and provided a foundation for a lot of good things that came later.Thank you Keith. That is a very good post. Of course we Christians have not always lived up to our ideals, we are humans with a fallen nature. But the Christian ideal that we are all God's children and equal before God was not only radical when it was introduced in Asia. It has been radical when Christianity was introduced anywhere in the world.

[Rick Tyler]

Originally posted by Norman Bernstein:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Hell does exist. I require empirical proof! :D </font>[/QUOTE]Have you been to Newark?

[TomF]

It depends on the denomination, Meer. Gays and lesbians in the clergy? Welcome in some denominations ("practising" or not), and not in others. Both the World Council of Churches and the Catholic church recognize that God is and always has been active in other faith traditions. Whether that constitutes "salvation" or not depends on the denomination, but respectful interfaith dialogue (with Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists, and native NA traditions) has been huge in mainstream Christian theological circles for decades.

The Christian groups that get the most press are frequently the least tolerant and welcoming. And within any denomination, the range of belief is staggering. But faithful yet tolerant denominations and individual Christians exist.

[salty hoosier]

I can't let this go along any further without comment. I wish my brothers and sisters in Christ would have pointed this out beforehand.

Christianity is not, NOT a religion!!!!!!!!

It is a personal relationship with God, the creator, made possible through the death and resurection of Jesus.

This is not merely splitting hairs or semantics.
This concept is of the utmost importance.

Religion is man's attempt to reconcile himself to god, the force, nature, allah, nirvana, whatever.

That is were Christianity differs from anything else.

Christian principles are not made up by man. Sure a man physically wrote it down but what was written was devinely inspired.

Christianity is not a bunch of rules and regulations set down to make your life a bummer.
People have made it that way so they can earn their way to salvation. That is not the original plan. Grace by faith you are saved.
It is this way so no man can boast. Over the years christianity (small case for distinction) has been twisted and polluted with so many whacked ideas that it does not resemble the original version. Men have a problem with accepting the fact that there absolutely no way you can do anything good enough to save yourself.

Salvation is a free gift.
No praying to Mecca 5 times a day. No living multiple lives until you get it right. No going door to door harassing people.

"You don't drink, don't smoke, what do you do??"
--Adam Ant

These "rules" have nothing to do with Christianity. "Love your neighbor as yourself" does.

Steve

[PatCox]

Women are equal in the catholic church? How can they be, if they are excluded from the church? They can only attend, they cannot be priests, that means they are excluded from any position of authority in the church (sure, there are nuns, the ladies auxiliary, a ghetto). What woman votes on the pope? What voice do women have? None. They are expected to obey the all-male church authorities, who tell them what to wear, what to believe, and how to behave, down to "submitting" to their husband's sexual attentions. Husband beats and rapes you, too bad, no divorce for you. Pregnant from a rape, poor, hopeless, unable to raise a child? Too bad, the men say you have to bear the child.

Saying women are "equal" in the Catholic church is like saying blacks were equal under slavery.

[PatCox]

And peb, the catholic church does not treat homosexual priests equally. They ban any homosexual who has been active any time within some measure of years prior to wanting to be a priest. There is no such "pre-priesthood celibacy" waiting period for heterosexuals who wish to be priests.

Hey, its a faith, why gloss over it, be proud. My church things homosexual acts are sins, and thinks women should be excluded from important things like being preists. There's worse things out there, like the savage and primitive beliefs of the muslims. But don't be in denial about it.

[peb]

Steve,

Sorry, but as I said before, words matter. ANd the precise use of words is very important.


re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

1 a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
1 b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2 The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3 A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4 A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion Okay, we all agree that we can leave out defitions 2 and 4 in this context. The definitions 1 and 3 seem pretty applicable. And all denominations of Christianity would fit these definition.

Christianity is a religion.

I think what you are trying to say is that those definitions do not capture everything that Christianity means to you. ANd I can buy that. For example, my religion gives me an entire philosophy. It gives me teachings in every area of life. But most religions would say there are aspects that is not captured in the definition above.

It is semantics. And we need to realize that semantics are critical for conveying our thoughts accurately.

[peb]

Originally posted by PatCox:
And peb, the catholic church does not treat homosexual priests equally. They ban any homosexual who has been active any time within some measure of years prior to wanting to be a priest. There is no such "pre-priesthood celibacy" waiting period for heterosexuals who wish to be priests.

Hey, its a faith, why gloss over it, be proud. My church things homosexual acts are sins, and thinks women should be excluded from important things like being preists. There's worse things out there, like the savage and primitive beliefs of the muslims. But don't be in denial about it.I did not say that the Church treats homosexuals equally. I said that everony is equal in the eyes of God. Not even God does not treats everyone equally. What institutino treats everyone equally???

[Norman Bernstein]

I can't see why anyone would want to split hairs about Catholicism, who isn't a Catholic. The notion of 'equality' or 'inequality' in the Catholic church seems an oxymoron to me... religions define their own rules, and the 'faithful' submit to those teachings (or accept those teachings, or however you want to say it).... those of us who do not share the faith really don't have anything meaningful to say about the beliefs of the faithful...nor SHOULD we.

There are loads of religions, including Catholicism, with arcane beliefs and rules, etc.... but trying to 'judge' them for merit on the basis of contemporary secular social standards strikes me as an excercise in utter futility. That's why they are religions...

...and it's also the primary reason why religion and government are a really BAD mix.... excepting in religiously monolithic nations, which ours is NOT.

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by PatCox:
There's worse things out there, like the savage and primitive beliefs of the muslims. But don't be in denial about it.I'd bet that fundamentalist Ismlam bears the same relationship to it's teachings as Pat Robertson's Dominionists does to mainstream Christianity. Perhaps your brush stroke is a bit broad?

Hoosie; Yer faith (generally speaking: Christianity) does not have an exhortation to prosteletize? Coulda fooled me!

Confucianism is not Buddhism. In Buddhism (generally speaking: some sects may vary) everyone is equal before everything. ;)

[Meerkat]

re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

1 a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
1 b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2 The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3 A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4 A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion I can buy into 3 and 4, as long as "zeal" is left out. Zealots are endlessly annoying no matter what their belief.

Conscientious devotion is a good thing and there ought to be more of it.

[salty hoosier]

Peb,
I must most respectfully disagree.
Religions are a means devised by the minds of men to gain enlightenment or knowledge or peace through the actions of men.

I am aware of the wonderful acts performed by Catholics in their service to God. I try to serve God every day by doing things that will please him. I am talking about salvation.

The religious view of salvation is to be a good person and God will judge accordingly.

This is not a bible based principle.
It is what separates Christianity from the religions.

As a side note. I really don't like to use the terms Catholic or Protestant or denominational labels to describe Christ's followers. It divides us. We are all God's children, brothers and sisters. All of us.

Steve

[Norman Bernstein]

Originally posted by Rick Tyler:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Norman Bernstein:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Hell does exist. I require empirical proof! :D </font>[/QUOTE]Have you been to Newark?</font>[/QUOTE]Yes. I grew up just 10-15 miles south of Newark. I gotta admit, it's a powerful case for the existence of hell on earth, at least :D

[Keith Wilson]

Men have a problem with accepting the fact that there absolutely no way you can do anything good enough to save yourself.
I hear on the wind the the unquiet spirits of Martin Luther and John Calvin speaking of the utter deparavity of man . . . 500 years later, and we're still not free of those guys.


Christian principles are not made up by man. Sez you. There are other opinions.

[ 12-08-2005, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[Keith Wilson]

Hey Norm, Newark's a lot better than it used to be, although that's not saying much. Camden, now . . . BTW I lived in Cranford for a while when I was in my early teens.

[peb]

Originally posted by salty hoosier:
Peb,
I must most respectfully disagree.
Religions are a means devised by the minds of men to gain enlightenment or knowledge or peace through the actions of men.

....

As a side note. I really don't like to use the terms Catholic or Protestant or denominational labels to describe Christ's followers. It divides us. We are all God's children, brothers and sisters. All of us.

SteveSteve,

You have created your own definition for the word religion. This is the problem. No dictionary would have your definition (which I italicized above) of religion. I may seem like a broken record, but precise use of words is important. You are trying to express how much more Christianity means to us than that definition would imply. Wonderful, but it is still a religion by the accepted definitions of the word.

As to your side note on protestant,catholic, or denominational labels, I would also disagree. We can all be God's children, but to pretend we do not have divisions is silly and in I believe misquided. Jesus created one Church. We have divided it. That is not good and needs to be rectified. But it cannot be rectified by ignoring our differences.

[ 12-08-2005, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: peb ]

[Meerkat]

Men are faliable and the bible was written by men, but it's divinely inspired and thus without error...

That's an awefully glaring contradiction to wrap one's mind around...

That's ignoring the contradictions within the text itself, not to mention the endless translation errors and redactions.

[George.]

Picking on Catholics for being male dominated is ridiculous, if not hypocritical. Until very very recently, just about every human institution was male dominated, including all religions. Who ever heard of a female lama, or imam? ;)

Granted that nowadays, thanks to the secular concept of women's equality having trickled down to religions, some religions are more progressive than others in that regard. The Catholic church, being a more primitive religion ("primitive" in the evolutionary sense), tends to be more conservative than some later, "derived" sects. But the later sects also tend to be more zealous, radical, and exclusionist than the Catholic church, so it all evens out, in my opinion.

[Norman Bernstein]

Hey Norm, Newark's a lot better than it used to be, although that's not saying much. Camden, now . . . BTW I lived in Cranford for a while when I was in my early teens. I haven't been there in ages... but I HAVE been to Hoboken, and the city that was indeed the armpit of the earth 20 years ago has undergone a renaissance... it's been yuppified!

Cranford, huh? Damn, I knew A LOT of people from Cranford... starting with my cousin, Joey Bernstein, and his brother Bruce.... continuing on to Debbie Goldberg, Laurie Schloff, Margie Fox, Linda Weinguss.... any of these names ring a bell? You DO know I grew up in Linden, right?

[Keith Wilson]

Excellent point about male domination. Social equality of women in the west is another Enlightenment idea. What we had after 1500 was more akin to adaptive radiation - protestant groups evolving in all directions. Some became more inclusive and liberal, some less. The more liberal tend to the least male-dominated. Slightly more than half of Unitarian-Universalist ministers are now women.

No Norm, I didn’t know you grew up in Linden. Small world (to coin a phrase ;) ). I lived in Cranford for only three years, 1967-1970 and left when I was fourteen, so I don’t remember much.

[ 12-08-2005, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[salty hoosier]

peb,
How 'bout we concentrate on the important stuff and not worry about the minor differences. I would rather we set aside our differences and work together for the glory of His kingdom.

Steve

[Norman Bernstein]

No Norm, I didn’t know you grew up in Linden. Small world (to coin a phrase ). I lived in Cranford for only three years, 1967-1970 and left when I was fourteen, so I don’t remember much.
Ahh, OK... I, and the names I mentioned, are all about 5-7 yrs older than you, so I guess it would be unlikely you'd have known them.

[salty hoosier]

I lived in Philly from 89-94, so I can vouch for Camden. Parts of fluff-ya aren't too desirable either.

I suppose the same can be said for rust belt cities is Indiana.

Steve

[George.]

Originally posted by salty hoosier:
I would rather we set aside our differences and work together for the glory of His kingdom.

If "He" is omnipotent, why does he need poor little impotent us to work for the glory of His kingdom?

[peb]

Originally posted by salty hoosier:
peb,
How 'bout we concentrate on the important stuff and not worry about the minor differences. I would rather we set aside our differences and work together for the glory of His kingdom.

SteveBut our differences are important. Jesus created one Church. It is now divided. The glory of His kingdom would be better served if it was united. Pretending it is not divided will probably not be satisfactory to Him (just guessing).

And I am not trying to attack or disparage you. You have an obvious evangelical zeal that I quite admire.

Let me give you an example, and I am by no means implying you would fall into the protestant category described below, but they do exists.

Today I went to mass. For Catholics, today is the Feast of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. Many think this feast day celebrates the virgin conception of Jesus. Not true. It celebrates the fact that Mary was concieved without original sin. So, we had the mass to honor Mary. This celebration was a mass, which to Catholics is a sacrifice. And we worshipped the Eucharist, Christ's body and blood.

Now I know of many protestants who would find this entire thing repugnant. They are true believers in Jesus Christ. Some of them are my very good friends. But honoring Mary? Honoring for her immaculate conception? With a sacrifice? And worshiping a "piece of bread"?

These are significant differences. What is central to my Christian faith, the mass, is anathema to them.

[ 12-08-2005, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: peb ]

[salty hoosier]

I must go peb, but I will be happy to discuss this later.

God Bless

Steve

[Osborne Russel]

Originally posted by George.:
Who ever heard of a female lama, or imam? I don't know about the rest, but there were female Zen nuns in Japan in medieval times.

[Osborne Russel]

Originally posted by peb:
It celebrates the fact that Mary was concieved without original sin.You're right, I didn't know that.

[Meerkat]

Well, by that time in history, sexual intercourse was hardly an original sin! :D :D :D ROTFL!!!!!

[ 12-08-2005, 06:56 PM: Message edited by: Meerkat ]

[emichaels]

Originally posted by Meerkat:
And you welcome gays and women in the clergy? What's your stance on non-christians?You still trying to get into the clergy ?

[emichaels]

Originally posted by Meerkat:
I'll rephrase:

Christianity does not believe in/teach equality, diversity or tolerance. A common failing of most religions.I don't think I have ever read anything on WBF that is so far from the truth. And there have been some stretches.

Eric