I took it that you were objecting to things that were part of the official curriculum,
No. When my kids were in public schools, there were very few official curriculum issues I had problems with, and the ones I did were nothing major.
One thing that ticked me off was when they were using kids to try to get a levy passed. But the biggest thing that pissed me off was when they told my son he couldn't draw a picture of a cross in art class. Now mind you, this is after he had come home once with a Dreidel he had gotten, and a picture of a Menorha the kids had made during Hanukkah.
Now, I don't have an issue with the Dreidel or the Menorha, I have an issue that some things are allowed but others are not.
I could have thrown a fit, and filed a lawsuit, but we already planned to put the kids in private school starting in the first grade. So it wasn't a fight worth my time and effort.
I wrote: The machines that counted the votes was the best method as they have no bias and those machines worked just fine.
Pieter wrote: If you put a dollar bill in a vending machine and it spits it back out at you, do you throw it away? The punch-card voting machines have an error rate of close to 4%, according to their manufacturers.
The COUNTING machines worked just fine. I am sorry that stupid people didn't complete their ballots in the proper manner to be counted that was the voters fault. The fact is the "manual recount" wasn't a recount but a casting of votes.
I wrote: just what were those "entanglements?" Or are you referencing more lies?
Pieter's response: Scalia's sons are lawyers; Eugene Scalia worked for the same firm as Ted Olsen, who twice represented GW Bush before the SCOTUS and is now Solicitor General of the US; John Scalia worked for a Florida firm that represented GW Bush. Justice Thomas's wife worked for the Heritage Foundation and was vetting job applicants for the Bush transition.
Doesn't sound like any conflict to me.
By the way, Texas election law specifically allows the counting of dimpled-chad ballots in recounts, and George Walker Bush signed that into Texas law in 1977.
As pointed out that isn't true. But that was Texas law. And bad law at that.
Those who do believe in "Sky Pixies" are the ones left out, because we must maintain the "Separation of Church and State".
crabs response: you aren't left out..only asked to leave the pixies at home when making laws that affect the non-pixies among us.
I see you believe in the nonsense that people can separte their moral beliefs from their civic duty. What utter nonsense. Maybe you should consider leaving your atheism and immoral standards at home when you are involved in making laws and voting. See if it can be done.
But the biggest thing that pissed me off was when they told my son he couldn't draw a picture of a cross in art class.
If it was because of the religious aspect, you were right to be pissed off. If it was because the teacher wanted him to pick a more challenging subject, that's different. I'm reminded of a case a decade or so back where an assignment was given to do a report on an important historical figure. One girl said she wanted to do her report on Jesus; the teacher told her to pick another subject because the purpose of the assignment was to learn about research resources, and that the young lady would essentially be doing it from memory. The kid turned in a paper on Jesus and flunked the assignment, after which a great deal of noise was made about anti-Christian discrimination.
I am sorry that stupid people didn't complete their ballots in the proper manner to be counted that was the voters fault.
Yet people in the military who "didn't complete their ballots in the proper manner" were entitled to have them counted no matter what? Try to maintain al least a façade of consistency, will you? By the way, there's a punctuation mark called a "comma." I suggest you research its use.
The fact is the "manual recount" wasn't a recount but a casting of votes.
"Fact." You keep using that word; I do not thin' you know what it meanss.
</Inigo Montoya>
But that was Texas law. And bad law at that.
Yet when other parts of the election code were amended under GWB, it was let stand. "Clear intent of the voter" seems like a reasonable standard to me.
I see you believe in the nonsense that people can separte their moral beliefs from their civic duty. What utter nonsense. Maybe you should consider leaving your atheism and immoral standards at home when you are involved in making laws and voting. See if it can be done.
No one is asking you to abandon your moral beliefs. You are merely being asked not to cram them down the throats of those who do not share them. Otherwise we might see things like a county or a atate with a large Jewish majority outlawing the selling of pork, shellfish and other non-kosher foods.
Doesn't sound like any conflict to me.
Unlike THX1138, the man cannot be reasoned with.
<plonk>
Yet people in the military who "didn't complete their ballots in the proper manner" were entitled to have them counted no matter what? Try to maintain al least a façade of consistency, will you?
Typical nonsense. I said nothing about military ballots. Oh but you bring them up and through some twisted logic accuse me of being inconsistent. f-off.
But that was Texas law. And bad law at that. Yet when other parts of the election code were amended under GWB, it was let stand. "Clear intent of the voter" seems like a reasonable standard to me. Well that is a fine standard if you knew what it meant. The only clear intent of the voter is if he punches his card correctly.
No one is asking you to abandon your moral beliefs. You are merely being asked not to cram them down the throats of those who do not share them. Law is a form of morality. Sometimes it is warped when it is put in place by atheists and agnostics but that is their morality.
Otherwise we might see things like a county or a atate with a large Jewish majority outlawing the selling of pork, shellfish and other non-kosher foods.
In a democratic society it can be done. You might not like it but if you were able to voice your opinion, well tough.
If it was because of the religious aspect, you were right to be pissed off.
It was, and that's what made me angry. I can abide by no religion in public schools, if they enforced it for everyone. I just wish it weren't like that. I have no problem with my kids learning about Ramadan or Hanukkah....
I see you believe in the nonsense that says the religion and morality are the same thing.
I don't believe it to be the same. My father is an athiest, and yet he's a highly moral person. I do see many people who's moral beliefs are very much a religion though, and that's where I have trouble with separation of church and state. Many groups push their morals (religion) in our schools and can get away with it, because it's technically not considered religion. But it's just as much a set of moral beliefs as is Islam or Christianity....
I don't believe it to be the same. My father is an athiest, and yet he's a highly moral person.
But where did he get his morality? Thin air? Obviously he got his morality somewhere. If you look you might find that in some manner it came from religion.
And where did religion get it? From what works best when people live together in societies. Don't kill, don't steal, don't lie and we'll all get along.
one can be (and often is) highly moral and not be religious.
Maybe but one is moral based on religious principles whether it is acquired directly or indirectly. One might be moral without knowing how they developed it.
one can also be highly religious and have no morals at all...
No. they may fake religion but that doesn't make them religious.
religion can be defined as: any specific system of belief, worship, conduct etc. often involving a code of ethics and philosophy. At least in Christianity the code of ethics and philosophy is their morality. Tell me how you can differentiate between the two. Is it because you see religious ritual as religion?
jethro, I'd take a stab at answering your question if I knew what you were asking. Also, religion might be defined as what you wrote, but dictionaries are generally a bit more precise, e.g.
Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
I think your inquiry might be referring to those cited above who talk the talk but don't walk the walk, as it were, and if I were to answer that query, I'd say that observing and performing the rituals of any specific Christian sect does not in any way guarantee that someone will act in a manner that other believers would describe as "Christian."
In other words, don't tell me you're a Christian, let me figure it out myself.
jethro, are you playing dumb here? It's not very becoming.
"Don't tell me you're a Christian, let me figure it out myself" was not directed to you specifically. It means that actions are a more accurate indicator of a person's morality than his words.
If you're prefer not to talk to me at all, fine -- but I'm not going anywhere on your account.
THX, if you're out there, I hope you had a good Thanksgiving.
I think I know where you're going with that question, and it's true that deities usually represent moral perfection. But that wasn't my point. You don't need to believe in a deity to live a moral life or believe in a moral code.
You don't need to believe in a deity to live a moral life or believe in a moral code.
But where do these people that don't believe in a deity get their moral code? I believe they borrow it from religion and often don't know that is its source.
I assume that this statement is made because you don't believe in a supreme being. For those that do the chicken-and-egg question has no meaning. Because for those that believe in a supreme being the moral code comes from that supreme being. Nevertheless, those that claim to have a moral code got it from somewhere, unless of course they live in a vacuum.
so, you think it's not possible to have morals without a belief in a supreme being?
Obviously you are not an acute reader. I said nothing like that. In fact, for someone with a sixth grade reading level or better, it is obvious that I said the opposite. I said people that do not believe in a supreme being but have a moral code have borrowed that code from religion although they may be not be aware of its source.
I'm saying that historically we don't know which came first -- the recognition of behaviours that allow human society to exist with a minimum of friction, or the belief in a deity who commands certain behaviours that allow human society to exist with a minimum of friction.
I know you are. I'm not arguing with you. I'm glad people have moral values and I don't care where they came from. I just don't want anyone saying that you can't be moral if you don't believe in a deity, which I don't think you are saying, Jethro.
I'm reminded of when I was in college and belonged to the student Objectivist group, which is what libertarians called themselves then. At one of the meetings someone actually wanted to debate whether Christians -- or anyone who believed in a deity -- could be truly happy.
Nobody was interested in debating such a stupid question.
I'm glad people have moral values and I don't care where they came from. I just don't want anyone saying that you can't be moral if you don't believe in a deity, which I don't think you are saying, Jethro.
I do think that's what jethro's saying -- or if not, he's saying that all morality is based in religion, preferably the Christian religion, even if those who follow an atheistic or agnostic morality won't admit it. Personally, I believe that ethics can be based in pragmatism -- what makes society run smoothly and evenly is the ethical way to go, whether or not one believes in a supernatural Enforcer.
I'll go out on a limb here and answer the question. If someone has NO contact with religion they cannot have morals. I say that this is true. What is right or wrong is learned from the community and the majority of the community belongs to a religion of some form or another.
December 2, 2003 -- "CURB Your Enthusiasm" star Larry David's wife Laurie created an enviable buzz for tonight's political powwow of liberal Hollywood activists after she dubbed it the "Hate Bush" event.
While the strategy session at the Beverly Hilton actually has the considerably less-inflammatory title, "A Mandatory Meeting to Change the Leadership in America in 2004," Laurie, an avid environmentalist, caused a stir when she forwarded invites with the e-mail heading, "Hate Bush 12/2 Event."...
As dumb as it is to make the name of the event "Hate Bush," it's a joke, reacting to the Official RNC Position™that any criticism of the current administration, no matter how well-founded, is "political hate speech," a bit of rhetorical overkill that comes straight from the lips of Ed Gillespie.
As dumb as it is to make the name of the event "Hate Bush," it's a joke, reacting to the Official RNC Position™ that any criticism of the current administration, no matter how well-founded, is "political hate speech," a bit of rhetorical overkill that comes straight from the lips of Ed Gillespie.
It is amazing how much liberals can deceive themselves. Some liberals HATE Bush.
" it's a joke, reacting to the Official RNC Position™
I think this is a valid position.
From your link: In a memo to GOP leaders Monday, Gillespie urged them to depict Democrats as a party of "protest, pessimism and political hate speech."
It seems to me the Democrat candidates are focusing all their energy on criticism of Bush.
Well, it's what's called a "target-rich environment," THX. How was your holiday?
It is amazing how much liberals can deceive themselves. Some liberals HATE Bush.
"Some" being the operative word. A favorite tactic of the Right is to pick out one leftist lunatic and proclaim that anyone to the left of Trent Lott thinks the same. I see far more diversity of opinion and nuance on the liberal side of the aisle than on the other, and far more tolerance for that diversity.
Question for jethro and THX: can you honestly say that the description "hate speech" does not apply to the writings of Ann Coulter? According to her latest book, all Democrats are guilty of treason, which last I checked was a crime carrying the death penalty. Do you think it would be a good idea for her to ratchet down the rhetoric a bit?
I took it that you were objecting to things that were part of the official curriculum,
No. When my kids were in public schools, there were very few official curriculum issues I had problems with, and the ones I did were nothing major.
One thing that ticked me off was when they were using kids to try to get a levy passed. But the biggest thing that pissed me off was when they told my son he couldn't draw a picture of a cross in art class. Now mind you, this is after he had come home once with a Dreidel he had gotten, and a picture of a Menorha the kids had made during Hanukkah.
Now, I don't have an issue with the Dreidel or the Menorha, I have an issue that some things are allowed but others are not.
I could have thrown a fit, and filed a lawsuit, but we already planned to put the kids in private school starting in the first grade. So it wasn't a fight worth my time and effort.
I wrote: The machines that counted the votes was the best method as they have no bias and those machines worked just fine.
Pieter wrote: If you put a dollar bill in a vending machine and it spits it back out at you, do you throw it away? The punch-card voting machines have an error rate of close to 4%, according to their manufacturers.
The COUNTING machines worked just fine. I am sorry that stupid people didn't complete their ballots in the proper manner to be counted that was the voters fault. The fact is the "manual recount" wasn't a recount but a casting of votes.
I wrote: just what were those "entanglements?" Or are you referencing more lies?
Pieter's response: Scalia's sons are lawyers; Eugene Scalia worked for the same firm as Ted Olsen, who twice represented GW Bush before the SCOTUS and is now Solicitor General of the US; John Scalia worked for a Florida firm that represented GW Bush. Justice Thomas's wife worked for the Heritage Foundation and was vetting job applicants for the Bush transition.
Doesn't sound like any conflict to me.
By the way, Texas election law specifically allows the counting of dimpled-chad ballots in recounts, and George Walker Bush signed that into Texas law in 1977.
As pointed out that isn't true. But that was Texas law. And bad law at that.
Those who do believe in "Sky Pixies" are the ones left out, because we must maintain the "Separation of Church and State".
crabs response: you aren't left out..only asked to leave the pixies at home when making laws that affect the non-pixies among us.
I see you believe in the nonsense that people can separte their moral beliefs from their civic duty. What utter nonsense. Maybe you should consider leaving your atheism and immoral standards at home when you are involved in making laws and voting. See if it can be done.
If it was because of the religious aspect, you were right to be pissed off. If it was because the teacher wanted him to pick a more challenging subject, that's different. I'm reminded of a case a decade or so back where an assignment was given to do a report on an important historical figure. One girl said she wanted to do her report on Jesus; the teacher told her to pick another subject because the purpose of the assignment was to learn about research resources, and that the young lady would essentially be doing it from memory. The kid turned in a paper on Jesus and flunked the assignment, after which a great deal of noise was made about anti-Christian discrimination.
Yet people in the military who "didn't complete their ballots in the proper manner" were entitled to have them counted no matter what? Try to maintain al least a façade of consistency, will you? By the way, there's a punctuation mark called a "comma." I suggest you research its use.
"Fact." You keep using that word; I do not thin' you know what it meanss.
</Inigo Montoya>
Yet when other parts of the election code were amended under GWB, it was let stand. "Clear intent of the voter" seems like a reasonable standard to me.
No one is asking you to abandon your moral beliefs. You are merely being asked not to cram them down the throats of those who do not share them. Otherwise we might see things like a county or a atate with a large Jewish majority outlawing the selling of pork, shellfish and other non-kosher foods.
Unlike THX1138, the man cannot be reasoned with.
<plonk>
Yet people in the military who "didn't complete their ballots in the proper manner" were entitled to have them counted no matter what? Try to maintain al least a façade of consistency, will you?
Typical nonsense. I said nothing about military ballots. Oh but you bring them up and through some twisted logic accuse me of being inconsistent. f-off.
But that was Texas law. And bad law at that.
Yet when other parts of the election code were amended under GWB, it was let stand. "Clear intent of the voter" seems like a reasonable standard to me. Well that is a fine standard if you knew what it meant. The only clear intent of the voter is if he punches his card correctly.
No one is asking you to abandon your moral beliefs. You are merely being asked not to cram them down the throats of those who do not share them. Law is a form of morality. Sometimes it is warped when it is put in place by atheists and agnostics but that is their morality.
Otherwise we might see things like a county or a atate with a large Jewish majority outlawing the selling of pork, shellfish and other non-kosher foods.
In a democratic society it can be done. You might not like it but if you were able to voice your opinion, well tough.
I see you believe in the nonsense that says the religion and morality are the same thing.
If it was because of the religious aspect, you were right to be pissed off.
It was, and that's what made me angry. I can abide by no religion in public schools, if they enforced it for everyone. I just wish it weren't like that. I have no problem with my kids learning about Ramadan or Hanukkah....
I see you believe in the nonsense that says the religion and morality are the same thing.
I don't believe it to be the same. My father is an athiest, and yet he's a highly moral person. I do see many people who's moral beliefs are very much a religion though, and that's where I have trouble with separation of church and state. Many groups push their morals (religion) in our schools and can get away with it, because it's technically not considered religion. But it's just as much a set of moral beliefs as is Islam or Christianity....
I see you believe in the nonsense that says the religion and morality are the same thing.
I see that you have such muddy thinking that you think they aren't.
I don't believe it to be the same. My father is an athiest, and yet he's a highly moral person.
But where did he get his morality? Thin air? Obviously he got his morality somewhere. If you look you might find that in some manner it came from religion.
And where did religion get it? From what works best when people live together in societies. Don't kill, don't steal, don't lie and we'll all get along.
that's religion
But where did he get his morality? Thin air?
that's religion
That's what someone without a moral compass would believe.
morality and religion are two separate things.
I have a very strong sense of morality.
one can be (and often is) highly moral and not be religious.
one can also be highly religious and have no morals at all...
"forgive me father, for I have no morals"
morality and religion are two separate things.
I know you think that but it is not true.
I have a very strong sense of morality.
Based on what I know I disagree.
one can be (and often is) highly moral and not be religious.
Maybe but one is moral based on religious principles whether it is acquired directly or indirectly. One might be moral without knowing how they developed it.
one can also be highly religious and have no morals at all...
No. they may fake religion but that doesn't make them religious.
I think religion is based on moral principles, not the other way around.
I just don't think that morality has to have a deity attached to it. And behaviour is what counts, not just belief.
Then there's Bill Clinton, who didn't know a sex act when he saw one, nor one that he didn't like, but carried his Bible to Church, every Sunday.
How do you know this, fold?
religion can be defined as: any specific system of belief, worship, conduct etc. often involving a code of ethics and philosophy. At least in Christianity the code of ethics and philosophy is their morality. Tell me how you can differentiate between the two. Is it because you see religious ritual as religion?
Religion CAN be defined that way but isn't. Religion involves belief in one or more deities.
jethro, I'd take a stab at answering your question if I knew what you were asking. Also, religion might be defined as what you wrote, but dictionaries are generally a bit more precise, e.g.
I think your inquiry might be referring to those cited above who talk the talk but don't walk the walk, as it were, and if I were to answer that query, I'd say that observing and performing the rituals of any specific Christian sect does not in any way guarantee that someone will act in a manner that other believers would describe as "Christian."
In other words, don't tell me you're a Christian, let me figure it out myself.
Religion CAN be defined that way but isn't. Religion involves belief in one or more deities.
And what do those deities represent?
don't tell me you're a Christian, let me figure it out myself.
I prefer not to tell you anything because I would prefer not to talk to you at all.
jethro, are you playing dumb here? It's not very becoming.
"Don't tell me you're a Christian, let me figure it out myself" was not directed to you specifically. It means that actions are a more accurate indicator of a person's morality than his words.
If you're prefer not to talk to me at all, fine -- but I'm not going anywhere on your account.
THX, if you're out there, I hope you had a good Thanksgiving.
And what do those deities represent?
I think I know where you're going with that question, and it's true that deities usually represent moral perfection. But that wasn't my point. You don't need to believe in a deity to live a moral life or believe in a moral code.
jethro, are you playing dumb here? It's not very becoming.
"Don't tell me you're a Christian, let me figure it out myself" was not directed to you specifically.
Yeah, I knew that. I guess you just don't want to play. Damn.
You don't need to believe in a deity to live a moral life or believe in a moral code.
But where do these people that don't believe in a deity get their moral code? I believe they borrow it from religion and often don't know that is its source.
Well, we're doing a chicken-and-egg thing here.
Well, we're doing a chicken-and-egg thing here.
I assume that this statement is made because you don't believe in a supreme being. For those that do the chicken-and-egg question has no meaning. Because for those that believe in a supreme being the moral code comes from that supreme being. Nevertheless, those that claim to have a moral code got it from somewhere, unless of course they live in a vacuum.
so, you think it's not possible to have morals without a belief in a supreme being?
so, you think it's not possible to have morals without a belief in a supreme being?
Obviously you are not an acute reader. I said nothing like that. In fact, for someone with a sixth grade reading level or better, it is obvious that I said the opposite. I said people that do not believe in a supreme being but have a moral code have borrowed that code from religion although they may be not be aware of its source.
I'm saying that historically we don't know which came first -- the recognition of behaviours that allow human society to exist with a minimum of friction, or the belief in a deity who commands certain behaviours that allow human society to exist with a minimum of friction.
I am saying the supreme being (God) began it all.
I know you are. I'm not arguing with you. I'm glad people have moral values and I don't care where they came from. I just don't want anyone saying that you can't be moral if you don't believe in a deity, which I don't think you are saying, Jethro.
I'm reminded of when I was in college and belonged to the student Objectivist group, which is what libertarians called themselves then. At one of the meetings someone actually wanted to debate whether Christians -- or anyone who believed in a deity -- could be truly happy.
Nobody was interested in debating such a stupid question.
I do think that's what jethro's saying -- or if not, he's saying that all morality is based in religion, preferably the Christian religion, even if those who follow an atheistic or agnostic morality won't admit it. Personally, I believe that ethics can be based in pragmatism -- what makes society run smoothly and evenly is the ethical way to go, whether or not one believes in a supernatural Enforcer.
so...if someone has NO contact with religion, they cannot be moral?
Hey JT,
Maybe we need to start a religion thread? Looks like some people are into discussing/arguing it. Just a thought.
I'll go out on a limb here and answer the question. If someone has NO contact with religion they cannot have morals. I say that this is true. What is right or wrong is learned from the community and the majority of the community belongs to a religion of some form or another.
That settles that, then.
then I take it that you don't accept the idea that someone can be simply "evil"
You mean like the devil?
then I take it that you don't accept the idea that someone can be simply "evil"
Do you believe that there are simply evil people?
I do.
BIG NIGHT FOR DUBYA DETESTERS
December 2, 2003 -- "CURB Your Enthusiasm" star Larry David's wife Laurie created an enviable buzz for tonight's political powwow of liberal Hollywood activists after she dubbed it the "Hate Bush" event.
While the strategy session at the Beverly Hilton actually has the considerably less-inflammatory title, "A Mandatory Meeting to Change the Leadership in America in 2004," Laurie, an avid environmentalist, caused a stir when she forwarded invites with the e-mail heading, "Hate Bush 12/2 Event."...
Why is there so much hate on the liberal side?
According to some, there is no hate.
As dumb as it is to make the name of the event "Hate Bush," it's a joke, reacting to the Official RNC Position™that any criticism of the current administration, no matter how well-founded, is "political hate speech," a bit of rhetorical overkill that comes straight from the lips of Ed Gillespie.
As dumb as it is to make the name of the event "Hate Bush," it's a joke, reacting to the Official RNC Position™ that any criticism of the current administration, no matter how well-founded, is "political hate speech," a bit of rhetorical overkill that comes straight from the lips of Ed Gillespie.
It is amazing how much liberals can deceive themselves. Some liberals HATE Bush.
" it's a joke, reacting to the Official RNC Position™
I think this is a valid position.
It seems to me the Democrat candidates are focusing all their energy on criticism of Bush.
Well, it's what's called a "target-rich environment," THX. How was your holiday?
"Some" being the operative word. A favorite tactic of the Right is to pick out one leftist lunatic and proclaim that anyone to the left of Trent Lott thinks the same. I see far more diversity of opinion and nuance on the liberal side of the aisle than on the other, and far more tolerance for that diversity.
Question for jethro and THX: can you honestly say that the description "hate speech" does not apply to the writings of Ann Coulter? According to her latest book, all Democrats are guilty of treason, which last I checked was a crime carrying the death penalty. Do you think it would be a good idea for her to ratchet down the rhetoric a bit?
I see far more diversity of opinion and nuance on the liberal side of the aisle than on the other, and far more tolerance for that diversity.
You need to get your eyes checked because you don't see too good.