Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (55767)	7/13/1999 5:11:00 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

>I do not think that the finer points of local vs. federal will matter in a controversy like this...< Well you see the point is to send education to the states or lower to eliminate federal constitutional problems. >...Attempting a degree of neutrality is not the same as forcing atheism.< In our case it most certainly is. True neutrality is seen in the Constitution, where we see the government will not establish any particular religion, but will not prohibit the free exercise thereof. We have exactly the opposite of what is in the Constitution. We have a government that establishes Atheism as our national religion, and that destroys the voice of all other religions. True neutrality allows parties to engage at will, while itself staying the heck out of such engagements. >Since I think that too strict a separation is both unrealistic and undesirable, since it creates too much ill- feeling and fractures the cultural milieu, I would only try for the kind of neutrality implied in the concept "civic religion"...< Well this is good for you, but other folk may want to try for the kind of neutrality implied in the concept of Hinduism. Merely allowing folk freedom to express themselves in their communities will not fracture the milieu any more than it already is. >...I agree that if there were too much offense, the minority ought to be at liberty to "catch a smoke", but I think that few would bother under the regimen that prevailed until recently, where there was a rotation of ministers, and non-sectarian prayers were employed...< (see comment above) >...I agree that there ought to be more parental control, and that the schools should avoid teaching certain things which are offensive to the religious background of the family. However, since my standard was "when does it come too close to being establishment or proselytizing, and thus violate a constitutional principle?"< I submit to you that teaching girls how to use condoms by having them roll them onto cucumbers is proselytising. >If there is an issue in a particular school, therefore, I suggested that the various constituencies have the opportunity to have brief texts from their scriptures, with the same general purpose (admonition to decency), posted alongside the commandments. I think that this is a reasonable solution...< Perhaps, and I might agree with you. Nevertheless others will vehemently disagree and for good reason. Many folk will see the underlying philosophies behind certain moral commandments and vigorously reject them. Others will not enjoy having their commandments extracted from their philosophy and taught as some milquetoast belief. No. Let them fund their own dang commandments. >...On the issue of moving: no one should be forced to sell property because of such things.< And no one would be forced. No dang body got a right to happiness in this dang country. We only have a right to pursue happiness. Folks should have to consider the value of their dang religion. If they find themselves in a community with a certain religious identity, and their personal religion is so dang important to them that they cannot truck living within the community, then they should be free to move in search of happiness. If they desire to live in the community, then they should be free to do so. If they cannot afford to move, then their religion must not mean that much to them. Heck. If I was in a community and I just could not stand its religion, then I would leave no matter the dang personal cost. If religion is that dang important to folk, then they should be willing to pay for it, doggonit. Under the current system, they make every dang body else pay, and they just sit there believing nothing. One person should not have this kinda power. Today, no dang body is free to move to an area where he can be comprehensively himself. No body, that is, but the dang Atheist. >I think that if some want to retreat, like the Amish or Hasidim, and establish communities where the exclusive character is explicit from the beginning, that is fine…< Sure you say this, but those folk still must fund National Atheism from their hard-earned money. >…but no one should be able to gain political strength in an ordinary municipality and do anything he wants on a "like it or leave" basis....< What? Neocon, this is exactly what has happened in America, and is exactly what is happening currently. You think the parties involved got together and came to an agreeable solution? Hehe.