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 (56167)	7/13/1999 7:02:00 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

>Citizenship is citizenship...< As it would be even should we send abortion back to the states, as you support. The issue here does not concern citizenship, but rather the right of folks to live out their lives as they choose, without forcing others to live as they choose them to live. >...I modified my stand when it became reasonable to regard the posting of the commandments alone as putting pressure on non- monotheists under government auspices, and suggested a way to undercut that implication....< Very well then, and if your solution is repugnant to many others we must implement it without regard for their sensibilities. This is nothing more than what is happening currently. My solution eliminates this problem to a far greater extent than yours. In the case of people who find they must move, at least they have the choice to find a place where they are most comfortable. Currently, no one has a choice. All are forced to Atheist religion. There is no neutrality here. >...People can express themselves to their hearts content on their own property. The question is how we deal with things on public property...< Indeed. I suggest we not force everyone to act like Atheists. I suggest education return to the local community. The folk therein can determine for themselves how religion will play out. >...I am against the practice you describe. I am consistent<g>....< Very well. Nevertheless I speak of the federal system. It is inconsistent. You may speak of your "standard" as much as you wish, but the federal education system yet proselytises young folk with the amorality that comes with "Civic Religion." >...I am not sure that one should be so defiant when talking about public money...< (grin)People ain' giving their money to the government as rent. They give it because they agree with the proposed use of that money. If local public money is given by a group, the vast majority of whom agree how it is to be used, and if one person should somehow obtain power to completely thwart the will of this majority, then any member of that majority sure as heck has the moral authority to be defiant. The outsider should be free to move to a place where he feels his public dollar helps a system in which he believes. >...In essence, you are trying to establish a regime that would drive some people out, inappropriately, I think...< No, that is the current system. Indeed, the current system is far worse than this. Under the current system, no one can be driven out at all. It would be great if the current system would just allow folk to be driven out so that they can go elsewhere to make their place. But even this is disallowed. Under the current system, everyone is forced to Atheism, and even if they do not participate directly in the system, they must yet pay for it. Under your system, everyone would be forced to the religion of everyone else, and in the end this will be quite messy. I encourage a system that gives folks latitude to make choices. If religion is so dang important to a person, he will literally have the ability to move to an area where folk practise his religion as he would. If he whines about the cost of moving, then religion is obviously not that important to him. People should be willing to live and pay for their own convictions instead of forcing other folk to pay for them. >...People pay taxes. They do not get to determine the appropriation of every cent...< Very well then. You should have no problem with funding National Christianity as opposed to National Atheism. >...Again, I am on your side on certain issues, or up to a point, and am therefore consistent in deploring the trend you mention. I want to go back to a more generally acceptable regime, such as prevailed in the '50s...< Protestant Christianity was the underlying religious frame of reference for most folks during the fifties. People roundly sang "Silent Night", "God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen", "What Child is This?" and had Christmas pagents in the public schools. Demographics and sentiments have changed radically since then. I do not think your idea here will fly. I of course would like it, and perhaps even many Catholics and Jews could accept it, but I do not think all those Asians and Indians Michelle keeps running on about will enjoy it very much. And Atheists will not enjoy it either. The schools should be de-federalised. The federal government ain't got no dang business forcing religion on anyone. (Ooh. Gotta run...)