Darren New wrote:

> I've always thought a good test would be to replace "god" with "satan". 
> Are people still going to say it's not about religion if people start 
> putting "In Satan We Trust" on government buildings? Handing out "Praise 
> Satan" flyers in class?

That's the thing, I don't thing anyone would sue the school over not 
allowing them to hand out "Praise Satan" fliers.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:

> 
> That's like saying I political canvassing doesn't fall under free speech.
> 
> Of course they have the right to talk to you, just as you have the right 
> to ignore them.
> 
> ...Chambers

But there are laws regarding political canvassing. They cannot do so 
within a certain distance from the polling place, for example.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Well, "here" in the USA we have lots of religions that aren't Christian. 
> If it offends them to imply that Christians are the only ones that 
> celebrate the winter solstice I can certainly avoid offense in 
> circumstances where I know not everyone is Christian. (If you're 
> atheist, being offended by the holiday being called Christmas would seem 
> to me to be rather silly, mind.)
> 

I am sure the radicals think we are offended. Mostly, we consider it 
funnier than hell. May be the wrong day, even if you argue for the 
existence of the dude its based on, celebrated using pagan trees the 
Bible itself says its a sin to put up each year, and dedicated, except 
among the really obsessed, to a fat man in a red suit, for yet another 
pagan mythology, and only, by a much tinier amount, to the ideals, but 
not necessarily the person, its "supposedly" named after. And don't even 
get me started on the cobbled together manger stuff, which is based some 
  European nonsense, and gets both what a manger is (usually a cave, but 
sometimes a two level structure), and that they where, and still are, 
*commonly* used in the ME as places to stay (animals below, on the 
ground keep the people up top warm).

Oh, and every year I greatly enjoy using Xmas, and setting off the 
endless number of morons that don't know that X is the Roman Chi, first 
letter in their gods name, and are all horrified that I am "attacking 
Christmas!". lol

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:
> I'm of the opinion that attempts to "convert" someone to your religion 
> does not fall under protected speech, and further, it infringes on 
> others rights of freedom of religion.

So two guys, who are members of a given religion, are discussing their 
faith's holy writ (whether the Bible, the Quran, Origin of Species, 
etc.) during their lunch break at work.  Someone who does not share 
their ideas is sitting at the next table.

Let us also say that the local government is hostile to the religion of 
the two fellows holding the discussion.  So the third fellow can shut 
them up by accusing them of attempting to convert him.

Your position is a recipe for systematic oppression.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle wrote:

> So two guys, who are members of a given religion, are discussing their 
> faith's holy writ (whether the Bible, the Quran, Origin of Species, 
> etc.) during their lunch break at work.  Someone who does not share 
> their ideas is sitting at the next table.

That's not a comparable situation at all. The student handing out the 
candy canes was not merely discussing religion, they were overtly 
attempting to proselytize. The school and the school's staff wanted none 
of it, and asked that they not directly hand the notes to other students.

> Let us also say that the local government is hostile to the religion of 
> the two fellows holding the discussion.  So the third fellow can shut 
> them up by accusing them of attempting to convert him.

Doesn't this sort of thing happen when, say, Muslims even so much as try 
to discuss their religion. They're immediately branded terrorists.

> Your position is a recipe for systematic oppression.
> 




-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 13:52:42 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:

> Doesn't this sort of thing happen when, say, Muslims even so much as try
> to discuss their religion. They're immediately branded terrorists.

I call BS.  :-)

They're immediately branded "terrorists" by people too lazy (or dumb) to 
know the difference between extremists and mainstream Muslims.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:

> 
> I call BS.  :-)
> 
> They're immediately branded "terrorists" by people too lazy (or dumb) to 
> know the difference between extremists and mainstream Muslims.
> 

My wife had a very long argument with someone who considered all Muslims 
terrorists. It does happen, unfortunately.


-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 07:32:57 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
> 
>> I call BS.  :-)
>> 
>> They're immediately branded "terrorists" by people too lazy (or dumb)
>> to know the difference between extremists and mainstream Muslims.
>> 
>> 
> My wife had a very long argument with someone who considered all Muslims
> terrorists. It does happen, unfortunately.

I think that falls in my "lazy (or dumb)" category....I wasn't saying it 
didn't happen, but that there are people who don't actually apply their 
brain or attempt to understand that there are differences in the Muslim 
world that are as varied (if not more so) than the differences between, 
say, a Lutheran and Pat Robertson's particular brand of Christianity.  
(And yes, I do consider PR to be an "extremist").

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
> My wife had a very long argument with someone who considered all Muslims 
> terrorists. It does happen, unfortunately.

  The opposite happens too (although this claim is often considered
politically incorrect, islamophobic, if not even "racist"). In other
words, details of Islam and islamic cultures are often greatly downplayed
and wrongly attributed to only "very small extremist minorities". And this
regardless of all the widely published news about inhuman treatment of
people by islamic governments and officials in many countries.

  IMO downplaying these things is an insult to the victims of this inhuman
treatment.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 10:37:24 -0400, Warp wrote:

>   IMO downplaying these things is an insult to the victims of this
>   inhuman
> treatment.

I can't dispute that, very good point, Warp.

It's amazing what the "civilised" world will put up with in the name of 
oil/products/"stuff".

Jim

Post a reply to this message