Warp wrote:
> Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hence the "winter break" party, rather than Christmas.
> 
>   I really think that is completely ridiculous, completely regardless of
> what one's world view is. The event called "Christmas" is a traditional
> festivity. It's called that because of tradition. Anyone who gets offended
> by an event being called in a certain way is being a huge bigot.

But, it's stuff like this that likely prompted schools to eliminate any 
such holidays:

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:KAepVWjg_rUJ:www.stormfront.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-255554.html+why+christmas+was+eliminated+from+schools&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:
> I actually miss the days when we could reference certain holidays in 
> school. When I was a kid, our public school had a Christmas show every 
> year, and we liked it!

Yeah, but you had to walk, barefoot, five miles through six feet of 
snow, uphill, to get to it.

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

On 08/14/09 11:48, Tim Cook wrote:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
>> I actually miss the days when we could reference certain holidays in
>> school. When I was a kid, our public school had a Christmas show every
>> year, and we liked it!
>
> Yeah, but you had to walk, barefoot, five miles through six feet of
> snow, uphill, to get to it.

	Both ways.

-- 
I don't suffer from insanity, i enjoy every waking moment of it.

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:

> 
> Yeah, but you had to walk, barefoot, five miles through six feet of 
> snow, uphill, to get to it.
> 

Nah, I only stood in the freezing cold at a bus stop for 15 minutes (on 
a good day...) ;)


-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
> I actually miss the days when we could reference certain holidays in 
> school. When I was a kid, our public school had a Christmas show every 
> year, and we liked it!

  I'm going to sound like an anti-multiculturalist bigot, but I really hate
the multiculturalist dogma that "all cultures are valuable, except our own".
This dogma has gotten so far that it feels like we should be ashamed of our
own culture and our own traidions, while at the same time respecting others'.

  Western multiculturalism is heavily based on self-shame. We should be
ashamed of our own heritage, of our own culture, of our own traidions. We
should hide them from others, while respecting and embracing theirs. It's
heavily based on the ideology that we must never offend others in any way.
The same demand is, naturally, not imposed on those others: They have all
the rights to keep and proclaim their own culture and their own traditions,
and if we raise any objections on them, we are punished with shame (eg. by
being called "racist" and other such denigrating words), and in some cases
even legally.

  It would be absolutely unthinkable for me to go to another country and
start demanding that they rename their festivities and traditions because
I don't agree with their religion and I find it offensive. That would be
complete idiocy. Yet the multiculturalist ideology is preaching that others
who come here have full rights to get offended by our traditions, which is
why we must hide them and change all the "offensive" names.

  Well, I refuse to be ashamed of my heritage and my culture. Not because
I would be especially proud of them, but because I find this self-shame
dogma to be absolutely idiotic.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 14-8-2009 2:33, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 00:16:41 +0200, andrel wrote:
>> Is it promoting sexuality if you don't lie about your private life?
> 
> There really is no reason to bring your private life into the classroom, 
> and if you're a public school teacher, paid for by taxpayer dollars, than 
> it's part of the job to ensure that that doesn't happen in the US.

Eeek. This feels like an roundabout way of saying yes.

> It's like deciding to take a job at a place that serves pork ribs and 
> then refusing to work because the kitchen doesn't meet Halal standards.  
> You can't take a job where you are likely to run into a conflict like 
> that and then claim that the job discriminates because you're "forced" to 
> cook pork.

I don't think this is a relevant comparison. Unless there is a don't ask 
don't tell rule in public schools. Which I would find shocking.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 22:04:37 -0500, Neeum Zawan wrote:

> On 08/13/09 19:43, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Other people's family relationships are generally not a good idea to
>> get into the middle of.  If parents are "oppressing" (do you really
>> know what oppression is?  Because while many teenagers *think* they're
>> oppressed, they're not) a kid, and I mean *really* oppressing them,
>> then it's time for the family court to get involved, not for nosy
>> neighbors to get involved.
> 
> 	Aren't "nosy neighbors" one of the primary reasons courts do get
> 	involved?

In many cases, yes, and that's not what I mean.  I mean nosy neighbors 
trying to actually be the referee.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 21:37:09 -0400, Daniel Bastos wrote:

> In article <4a84b31f@news.povray.org>, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 20:29:09 -0400, Daniel Bastos wrote:
>>
>>> I myself wouldn't really, in this context, distinguish private from
>>> public, though.
>>
>> The private/public distinction is an important one.  In a private
>> Catholic school, such behaviour might be encouraged, and people
>> bringing in fliers promoting Judaism would probably be a bad idea - not
>> from an educational standpoint, but from a religious standpoint.  As a
>> religious institution, a Catholic school should have the right to
>> dictate (within certain limits, perhaps) what is and isn't appropriate.
> 
> You're talking about policy. I shifted to education.

If you're going to shift, you should use an indicator (ie, turn 
signal). ;-)

> Surely, Catholic schools people are humans too. The distinction here is
> important in this context. I see no problem with them having a class
> about Jesus' values in between mathematics and physics. It's their
> lives.

Sure, but again, as a private institution, they can make their own rules, 
as long as they don't violate the law or basic human rights.

> Now, surely they can veto a Jew flier or whatever. It would be silly of
> me to oppose such a formal rule, because in fact they don't need a
> formal rule to veto that.

You might be surprised (as might I, I don't have any data on this 
hypothetical).

>> Other people's family relationships are generally not a good idea to
>> get into the middle of.  If parents are "oppressing" (do you really
>> know what oppression is?  Because while many teenagers *think* they're
>> oppressed, they're not) a kid, and I mean *really* oppressing them,
>> then it's time for the family court to get involved, not for nosy
>> neighbors to get involved.
> 
> That's a good question. What's oppression? I don't think I can give you
> a formula in the world, even because the world has no easy grammar, if
> any. I look at oppresion as a pattern of actions that deny one's
> humanity[*], in any age.

Dictionary definition time:

"the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust 
manner."

That's a matter of judgment, of course, because "unjust" is in the eye of 
the beholder, but I'd wager that the truly oppressed in the world are 
those like the Tamil Tigers, not my stepsons buddy who lives on the other 
side of town whose parents won't let him stay out after 10 PM.

> Some people seem to be raised to be a soldier, or a religious leader, or
> follower. I think that's clear oppression. These are pretty easy, I
> think. There are difficult ones. Some people are raised to be thinkers,
> others to be stupid, others to be drunk, et cetera. I consider all of
> these cases of oppression as well. Of course, now it is times for me to
> present the facts on that. This wouldn't be easy on a newsgroup. The
> material I have seen are condensed in hundreds-of-pages books, and even
> then they fail the rigor of physics, chemistry, and even medicine ---
> not to mention mathematics.

You're not using any traditional definition of "oppression", then.

> But anyway, there are these weaker forms of oppression which tend to be
> so overlooked; specially in schools. What's that song by Rush?
> Subdivisions.
> 
> In the high school halls
> In the shopping malls
> Conform or be cast out
> 
> In the basement bars
> In the backs of cars
> Be cool or be cast out

I don't disagree that weaker forms of oppression tend to be overlooked, 
but it's important as well to not overstate something.  ZT (ie, Zero 
Tolerance) policies are oppressive because they require those in 
authority to stop thinking and apply rules blindly, regardless of whether 
it makes sense to do so or not.  "Sense" isn't part of that equation.

> [*] I don't think anybody knows what are the fundamental properties of
> ``human nature.''

All of them?  Probably not.  Some of them, you betcha there are some who 
do.  There are people who study this for a lifetime.

>> Sure, but that's not "oppression" - that's abuse.  And there are
>> specific laws in the US that cover what must be done when abuse is
>> suspected, especially by teachers and people in a position of
>> authority.
> 
> I think my definition up there would cover abuse.

Then don't sugarcoat it as "oppression", which is a pretty flimsy word in 
this instance.  Call it what it is.  If a kid is being physically beaten 
by their parents, it's not "oppression", it's *abuse*.

Call the cops and report it as oppression and they may not take it as 
seriously as they should.  Call it "abuse", though, and that triggers a 
very specific set of rules they need to follow.  Law is like that - very 
precise.

I had a conversation with our local community liason from the Salt Lake 
City Police Department a couple months ago about a problem with a house 
in the neighborhood having loud parties at random times during the week/
month, and he advised me that when I call in, I should specify (assuming 
that I've seen it) that there are more than 3 people, that there is 
alcohol, and that there is loud noise.  Why?  Because that triggers a 
specific police response:  They send out their summer "party car" which 
in SLC can cause (a) the owner to be arrested if circumstances are right 
(ie the cops get called out more than 'x' times in 'y' period of time - I 
forget the exact specifics), and (b) the property owner can be billed for 
the police officer's time as "event crowd control" or somesuch.  If those 
three elements aren't specified, then the cops might drive by and tell 
the partygoers to keep the noise down, but that's about it, and the 
result is the party might break up for a little bit (people tend to 
disperse when the cops show up), and then 30 minutes after the cops 
leave, the party comes back, the music gets turned up, and things haven't 
changed.

But slap a bill on it for the police department's time and potentially a 
night's stay in a holding cell, people will change their behaviour if 
they're smart.

>>>>> Now I want to question the framework of the discussion. Why is a
>>>>> (six year old?) kid interested in Jesus? Suppose you find an answer
>>>>> here by talking to his family. Then you go ``aha.'' And that is why
>>>>> I don't allow adults doing propaganda in my school. Home is just
>>>>> another school; only more important.
>>>>
>>>> Where he got his interest is irrelevant.  We all learn from our
>>>> families and our friends.  So what?  The reason the kid is exercising
>>>> his free speech is not important.  He should be allowed to do so, as
>>>> long as he's not disruptive or inciting people to harm others.
>>> 
>>> The paragraph I wrote has nothing to do with free speech, actually. I
>>> changed the subject. ``Now I want to question the framework...'' This
>>> sometimes falls outside the scope.
>>
>> Perhaps, but as I said, the reason for his interest isn't really
>> relevant.  It's an interest of his, for whatever reason.  You tied it
>> back to free speech by at least implying that the right to exercise
>> free speech shouldn't be allowed if it's done by proxy.  I don't think
>> that matters.
> 
> I don't think I implied that. But if my words did, I would fix them. I
> can't think of any speech, regardless of context, that should be
> prohibited.

I inferred it from "Suppose you find an answer here by talking to his 
family. Then you go ``aha.'' And that is why I don't allow adults doing 
propaganda in my school." - I don't see how that isn't saying something 
about the kid being a proxy for the adult....

> By not allowing adults doing propaganda in my school, it's not that I
> forbid the adult's speech. I think he can do that on the streets, in the
> public buses where the kids go to go school, et cetera. In fact, if
> there are people doing that, I'd say great: here's a real world case to
> be discussed. But I'm not sure kids would be interested. They might just
> wish to play.

Very likely, but a school is public property, and as such, first 
amendment rights should (IMHO) be protected there, regardless of whether 
we agree with the ideas of people engaging in free speech or not.  As 
long as they don't incite or disrupt, there should be no problem.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 22:01:57 -0500, Neeum Zawan wrote:

> 	"Presenting the facts/speaking your mind" and persuasion are not
> mutually exclusive.

Indeed this is what most good lawyers are paid to do - present the facts 
and persuade a judge or jury that the defendant is innocent or guilty.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 07:18:16 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:

> or is swearing in a school free speech? If not, why not?

It depends on the venue.  On the playground, probably not.  Swearing at a 
teacher, though, might be disruptive to the class, so would be 
disallowed.  Schools are one venue where kids should be taught the 
community standards and norms of social interaction, and while swearing 
now is more common than when I was a kid, it's still not considered very 
socially acceptable (one just has to look at most business' rules of 
conduct to see that).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 19:56:22 +0200, andrel wrote:

> On 14-8-2009 2:33, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 00:16:41 +0200, andrel wrote:
>>> Is it promoting sexuality if you don't lie about your private life?
>> 
>> There really is no reason to bring your private life into the
>> classroom, and if you're a public school teacher, paid for by taxpayer
>> dollars, than it's part of the job to ensure that that doesn't happen
>> in the US.
> 
> Eeek. This feels like an roundabout way of saying yes.

Perhaps, but my teachers' private life (regardless of if it's sexual 
orientation or where they went to dinner the previous night) are not part 
of the lesson plan or the reason why the students are there.

For the same reason, it's not appropriate to ask coworkers in a workplace 
about deeply personal medical matters (for example) or to disclose 
details of medical procedures you've undergone to coworkers - most 
workplaces that I've worked at in the US have rules about this sort of 
thing.

I have a coworker whom I've gotten to know quite well over the past few 
years (after the death of her grandson in a car accident a few years 
ago), and we leave those conversations for when we go out to have lunch 
together, about twice a month.  That way we don't risk causing problems 
for others we work with who perhaps don't want to know (or might be 
distracted by) the details of our personal lives.  Details like that can 
cause people to not work well together, just as in a classroom where a 
teacher disclosing their sexual orientation may distract students from 
the activity of learning.  Then the students go home and say "my teacher 
is gay!", causing the parents to further disrupt the activity of teaching.

>> It's like deciding to take a job at a place that serves pork ribs and
>> then refusing to work because the kitchen doesn't meet Halal standards.
>> You can't take a job where you are likely to run into a conflict like
>> that and then claim that the job discriminates because you're "forced"
>> to cook pork.
> 
> I don't think this is a relevant comparison. Unless there is a don't ask
> don't tell rule in public schools. Which I would find shocking.

There isn't generally a "don't ask/don't tell" rule that I'm aware of, 
but it is a generally accepted code of conduct that personal stuff 
doesn't really belong in a business setting (unless it's relevant to the 
business, and in school, it'd be hard to make a case for what a teacher 
gets up to outside the classroom being related to class, unless it's a 
personal experience that ties directly into the lesson).  Taking that as 
a generally accepted practice, the comparison is valid, I think, because 
going against a generally accepted practice that's for the benefit of 
keeping students focused on the material in the class is an important 
part of the learning process.

I guess to put it more simply:  Learning is about the *student*, not 
about the *teacher*.  So if the teacher is focusing attention on 
themselves rather than on the students' education, then the teacher isn't 
doing their job, which is to *teach* about the subject or subjects they 
were hired to teach.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 11:14:52 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:

> I actually miss the days when we could reference certain holidays in
> school. When I was a kid, our public school had a Christmas show every
> year, and we liked it!
> 
> But it was a mostly secular view of the holiday season, elves, Santa
> Claus, trees and bells and such. All of the typical symbols of the
> season.
> 
> It was all very harmless, or so it seemed.

I concur.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 08/14/09 18:38, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 22:01:57 -0500, Neeum Zawan wrote:
>
>> 	"Presenting the facts/speaking your mind" and persuasion are not
>> mutually exclusive.
>
> Indeed this is what most good lawyers are paid to do - present the facts

	Good lawyer? Surely you blaspheme.

-- 
When a toast with butter falls from your hand, it always falls on the 
butter side.

When a cat falls from a height, it always lands on her feet.

If you tie a buttertoast over a cat with the butterside to the top, and 
let both fall, what will face the floor, the butter or the feet?

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 23:38:20 -0500, Neeum Zawan wrote:

> On 08/14/09 18:38, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 22:01:57 -0500, Neeum Zawan wrote:
>>
>>> 	"Presenting the facts/speaking your mind" and persuasion are not
>>> mutually exclusive.
>>
>> Indeed this is what most good lawyers are paid to do - present the
>> facts
> 
> 	Good lawyer? Surely you blaspheme.

LOL, yeah, I know it's a common belief that that's an oxymoron, but I 
know a few who actually know what they're doing and do a good job.  :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 15-8-2009 1:49, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 19:56:22 +0200, andrel wrote:
> 
>> On 14-8-2009 2:33, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 00:16:41 +0200, andrel wrote:
>>>> Is it promoting sexuality if you don't lie about your private life?
>>> There really is no reason to bring your private life into the
>>> classroom, and if you're a public school teacher, paid for by taxpayer
>>> dollars, than it's part of the job to ensure that that doesn't happen
>>> in the US.
>> Eeek. This feels like an roundabout way of saying yes.
> 
> Perhaps, but my teachers' private life (regardless of if it's sexual 
> orientation or where they went to dinner the previous night) are not part 
> of the lesson plan or the reason why the students are there.
> 
> For the same reason, it's not appropriate to ask coworkers in a workplace 
> about deeply personal medical matters (for example) or to disclose 
> details of medical procedures you've undergone to coworkers - most 
> workplaces that I've worked at in the US have rules about this sort of 
> thing.

I understand your point. I was actually thinking more about how to act 
if a student asks. At a certain age (4-8?) they will bluntly do so and I 
can imagine that later on they may too. I can also imagine that it comes 
  by in passing.
Starting middle of September I'll be teaching digital technology in the 
first year of the University of Applied Science in Amsterdam. I'll be 
watching myself on this point. That course incidentally is for a part 
about the 7400 series, the course our mascot didn't take ;)

I do know what kind of relation most of my coworkers have, I know many 
of the spouses and we do have a fine selection of gays. For some I know 
a bit of their medical history and in one case I was even present during 
an ECG test of a coworker (her boyfriend couldn't come and she wanted 
someone to go with her. I was a likely victim because we had a good 
relation and I know a bit about ECGs). Perhaps things are a little 
different in the Netherlands/science (choose your own most important 
factor).

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 21:38:29 +0200, andrel wrote:

> I understand your point. I was actually thinking more about how to act
> if a student asks. 

Go from something specific (about the teacher) to something generic 
(about people), or, depending on the age group, tell them that that's 
something they should talk to their parents about.

> At a certain age (4-8?) they will bluntly do so and I
> can imagine that later on they may too. I can also imagine that it comes
>   by in passing.

Sure, but the mark of a good teacher is that they know when it's 
appropriate to express an opinion about something and when it's not.  
Schools are there for two reasons:  To teach kids how to think, and to 
transfer factual information to them.  Well, and a third would be to 
foster social development, too, by giving them an environment to interact 
in.

> Starting middle of September I'll be teaching digital technology in the
> first year of the University of Applied Science in Amsterdam. I'll be
> watching myself on this point. That course incidentally is for a part
> about the 7400 series, the course our mascot didn't take ;)
> 
> I do know what kind of relation most of my coworkers have, I know many
> of the spouses and we do have a fine selection of gays. For some I know
> a bit of their medical history and in one case I was even present during
> an ECG test of a coworker (her boyfriend couldn't come and she wanted
> someone to go with her. I was a likely victim because we had a good
> relation and I know a bit about ECGs). Perhaps things are a little
> different in the Netherlands/science (choose your own most important
> factor).

It is perhaps different both in the Netherlands and in that field; there 
is a huge cultural aspect as well, so what applies in the US may not 
apply (and probably doesn't) in the Netherlands.  From a vocation 
standpoint, people in a scientific vocation I think tend to be more 
socially liberal, so within the confines of that field, sure, it might be 
more "open" because there's generally a greater level of acceptance.  But 
when talking about school-age children, we're talking about an entirely 
different set of circumstances.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> I agree *as long as* this applies to all religions, and not just one 
> "special" group of religions.

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?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   I really think that is completely ridiculous, completely regardless of
> what one's world view is. The event called "Christmas" is a traditional
> festivity. It's called that because of tradition.

Actually, I think you'll find it was Saturnalia before Christmas, and Yule 
before that. That said, I agree that calling it something other than 
"Christmas Vacation" in the USA at least is kind of pointless.

On the other hand, I can see where calling a woman a "broad" or a "dame" or 
some other such derogatory name could offend, so I can see where calling the 
holiday "Christmas" even when speaking to Pagans could perhaps offend.

>   Why shouldn't this work in reverse? Why should anyone have the right to
> come here and start complaining about some festivity or its naming?

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.)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 17:04:25 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I agree *as long as* this applies to all religions, and not just one
>> "special" group of religions.
> 
> 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 does seem like a good test, at least to root out those who say it's 
about "freedom of religion" but who really mean it's about "freedom of 
THEIR religion".

Jim

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.

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

Post a reply to this message

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

Warp wrote:
> details of Islam and islamic cultures are often greatly downplayed
> and wrongly attributed to only "very small extremist minorities". 

I think the same is true of most religions based on proselytizing, including 
christianity. "Oh, very few christians worry about gays."  "Yes, but most of 
them voted to treat them as subhuman and take away their rights, didn't they?"

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> 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.
> 
We still have some states that consider rape inside a marriage to be a 
"lesser" crime than rape of someone outside it, and there where still 
states that didn't even *class* it as rape, until 1993. Britain is 
slightly more progressive, they outlawed it in 1991. There is now a case 
in the Bahamas where they are trying to make it illegal, and the same 
objections come up, "But the Bible says we are now of one flesh. How can 
you rape yourself!", and variations there of.

Yes, its a small minority in the ME that are mad enough to promote 
terrorism. There are many more willing to follow them, but who wouldn't, 
if those people had less power, and a much larger number that, like in 
the US when it comes to so called "domestic disputes", are willing to 
allow that there is some "special case" in place, when it comes to 
certain actions, and they therefor won't actively 
appose/challenge/prevent them.

So, no, its not as small a minority doing the terror acts as some claim, 
but it is still a small number pushing it as a solution, and, much like 
in most social problems, like the similar "war on drugs", its not the 
people buying it, or the ones selling it on the street, but the ones 
shipping and manufacturing it that are the *key* problem. Without them, 
terrorism would be reduced to a few groups of kooks, that are more 
likely to get themselves arrested, than successfully pull anything off, 
or a scattering of Timothy McVay style "lone gunman" types, that can't 
give up the idea.

-- 
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

Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> details of Islam and islamic cultures are often greatly downplayed
>> and wrongly attributed to only "very small extremist minorities". 
> 
> I think the same is true of most religions based on proselytizing, 
> including christianity. "Oh, very few christians worry about gays."  
> "Yes, but most of them voted to treat them as subhuman and take away 
> their rights, didn't they?"

Let's not exaggerate.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> details of Islam and islamic cultures are often greatly downplayed
>>> and wrongly attributed to only "very small extremist minorities". 
>>
>> I think the same is true of most religions based on proselytizing, 
>> including christianity. "Oh, very few christians worry about gays."  
>> "Yes, but most of them voted to treat them as subhuman and take away 
>> their rights, didn't they?"
> 
> Let's not exaggerate.

In what way is that an exageration?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> John VanSickle wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>> Warp wrote:
>>>> details of Islam and islamic cultures are often greatly downplayed
>>>> and wrongly attributed to only "very small extremist minorities". 
>>>
>>> I think the same is true of most religions based on proselytizing, 
>>> including christianity. "Oh, very few christians worry about gays."  
>>> "Yes, but most of them voted to treat them as subhuman and take away 
>>> their rights, didn't they?"
>>
>> Let's not exaggerate.
> 
> In what way is that an exageration?

What rights were taken away as a result of whatever vote you are 
referencing?

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle wrote:
> What rights were taken away as a result of whatever vote you are 
> referencing?

The right to get married, and all the other rights (visitation, adoption, 
etc) that come with it.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 08:36:29 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> John VanSickle wrote:
>> What rights were taken away as a result of whatever vote you are
>> referencing?
> 
> The right to get married, and all the other rights (visitation,
> adoption, etc) that come with it.

Yep, as a single person, someone who is gay can legally adopt in some 
states (got a friend here in Utah who is/was trying to, and she had to go 
to Oregon in order to file the paperwork), but not all.

But a straight single person - that's not a problem here in Utah.

Jim

Post a reply to this message