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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (26562)	12/6/1998 7:32:00 PM
From: E	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

<<If I wanted to help Amnesty International by writing and sending cards my cards and letters would be censored. You posted that fact yourself. I like the mission of AI and have thought about them before. But how could a christian who is interested in human rights fit into an organization that endorses censorship of christian speech. Isn't that a profound contradiction for AI being a beacon for human rights to censor specific speech? >> No, no, no! Maybe I should have explained the reason Amnesty requests those who sends cards to chose secular ones, to avoid a confusion about that fact and my atheism. (By the way, it is a suggestion only; AI does not see the messages sent on the cards, and people can chose their own; AI only hopes that when one understands the reason, one will cooperate.) The reason AI requests that non-denominational, or secular, cards, be selected is simply that cards are more likely to pass through the screening of the authorities, if they don't bear a specific religious message. It isn't always true-- a Christian card would be fine sent to Guatamala, no doubt; but sent to Pakistan or Communist China, might be offensive to those who have power over the prisoner. For the same reason, one would suggest that a Hannukah card and message not be sent to a prisoner in an Arab country or a Buddhist message not be sent to a Tibetan prisoner held in China. It is a matter of sensitivity to the helpless circumstances the prisoner is in, and of trying not to anger or offend those who have the power over the prisoner of life or death, of a meal or hunger, of a beating or a night's sleep, to pass on messages of hope or toss them in the trash. For exactly the same reason, AI asks, one might say begs, that letter writers not insult the individual to whom a letter of complaint is addressed, however brutal the human being addressed, or brutal the regime the individual represents. Amnesty always requests, "Write a courteous letter to General so and so." Not being censors, AI can only hope people see the reason for this, and comply. I hope that now that you understand this, you will become involved in Amnesty International. I would trust you not to send cards with messages, either printed or written by you, that might cause difficulties for the prisoner you are trying to inspire with hope.

To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (26562)	12/6/1998 8:15:00 PM
From: Dayuhan	Respond to of 108807

Bob, I think you may be missing an important point. The principle of separation of church and state - including the notion that public money or facilities may not be used to promote religious objectives - did not originate from an effort to curtail religious freedom. It came from a desire to assure religious freedom. The people who fled to America to achieve religious freedom were not fleeing persecution by atheists, they were fleeing persecution by state-supported churches. They knew very well that the greatest risk of curtailment of religious freedom comes from an alliance between the state and an exclusivist religion. One of the great challenges in defining religious freedom is dealing with religions like Christianity and Islam, which require their members to violate the religious freedom of others. If "testimony" is permitted in schools, doesn't this violate the right of my family to worship - or not - as we choose, without having to be bombarded with prosletyzing from those with a misplaced urge to "save" us? How would you suggest balancing the principle of freedom for all religions with the obsession that some religions have with converting others? Private prayer, as I believe Del has already pointed out, is between you and whatever God you choose to worship. It cannot be constrained because nobody else knows it is taking place. Public prayer is a very different thing. It is, and has always been, a way of enforcing religious conformity and identifying nonconformists. There are many, many, schoolchildren who belong to religious traditions other than Christianity, or to non-religious traditions. Imposing Christian prayer forces them to either deny their own beliefs or to proclaim them, exposing them to ridicule and persecution by conformists. No child should be forced into that position. School should be a place where people of varying traditions can gather to learn on neutral ground, where potentially divisive issues are temporarily set aside for the good of the group, not a place where the majority is allowed to impose its beliefs on the minority. This does not mean ordering children to abandon their beliefs. It means asking children to keep their beliefs private while in school, out of respect and consideration for the beliefs of others. This is something all civilized people should be capable of doing. There are times when it is simply inappropriate to discuss religion, just as there are times when it is inappropriate to discuss politics. Teaching evolution is not an attack on God or Jesus, it is simply acknowledgment that the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion and evidence points in this direction. If you want to believe otherwise you are welcome to do so, but I don't think you can reasonably ask the community to subsidize the teaching of your beliefs. I don't think that any American is agitating to curtail the right of Christians to gather and worship as they choose outside of publicly funded institutions. But those institutions simply cannot be used as platforms for any faith, Christian or otherwise. Doing so would be a clear violation of the religious freedoms of other faiths. Steve

To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (26562)	12/6/1998 9:08:00 PM
From: Rambi	Respond to of 108807

It seems to me that you are confusing an "anti-Jesus" force with a "Jesus-free" zone. I'm confused about what you want in the public schools,which are supposedly bound by separation of church and state, but which are still very heavily influenced by Christianity. Personally I think it's silly NOT to have Bibles in schools. Or the Book of Mormons and the Torah. When I volunteered in the library a few years ago, the librarians were forced to take down any pictures of jack-o-lanterns on display. Pumpkins were ok; It was those nasty devil-worship jack-o'lanterns that had to go! A couple of Christian parents had made a big stink about this and the school leaped to pacify them. We attended the Athletic banquet last year. A football player got up and prayed--and it was most definitely of the Christian persuasion. (Have you ever noticed that the Christian prayers of youth all go--"I just wanna thank you, Jesus... " I can't tell you how many times a coach got up and talked about his faith- preceding it with the words--"Wayalllll, I know I shouldn't say this but...." Normally a very easy-going person, I was actually beginning to get a little incensed. Like I wanted to stand up and say, "I just wanna thank the goddess Diana...." Why, Bob , is it so important that your child be allowed to pray in school (which, I hasten to add, she may certainly do privately in the spirit) so that everyone has to KNOW she is? Many Christians accept evolution as a scientific feasibility---why do you find this an atheistic teaching? Do you honestly believe that the creation of the world in seven days by a supreme being can be taught as fact any more than the Sanskrit version or the Greek? I have a brilliant son who has been confronted several times by teachers in our public school about his atheism. If he were defenseless, I'd be up there and in their faces. They are way out of line questioning his character or his strength or his values because he's not a Christian. This is ignorance and intolerance at its most frightening, yet they are good people, not malicious or cruel. I think you are Good People; I hate to think that you judge people first and foremost on a public profession of faith, but if you do, you contribute to the problem.

To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (26562)	12/6/1998 10:06:00 PM
From: Craig Richards	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Bob writes: As a christian myself can I apologize to you, your sister and your friend for the way you were treated by your class mates. It was wrong and very painful for you and I am sorry that it happened. And he earlier wrote: I think that homosexuals are very self-destructive personalities for the most part, and it has less to do with sex than it does with a personality that has totally gone haywire. Well, Bob, statements like that are painful for me. How would you feel if I called all Christians self-destructive with haywire personalities? Would that cause you pain? So you can apologize when others cause pain, but can you do it when you cause pain?

To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (26562)	12/8/1998 9:00:00 PM
From: Emile Vidrine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

"There is a difference with E's experience, those children were deliberately mean." How do you know they were mean? E gave her side of the story, but the anonymous Christian children she condemns in her anecdotes have no chance of defending themselves. They can never present their perspective in E's well tailored tales. She puts dark words in their mouths and subtly gives them evil Christian motives. For the reader, they are secret imaginary villains to be enlarged or diminished as the need arises. The reader could, of course, accept her tale as infallible truth, but I'm a sceptic when it comes to pagan tales. I was once one, and know about their comprehensive license when it comes to dressing up a point for argument. It's easy to take the moral high ground when the opponents can never speak for themselves. It is also easy to win an argument when the opponent can only speak the words you put in their mouth. Her settings are always arranged to exalt the pagan heroine of the story, herself, as the innocent suffering victim, while her antagonists are evil cruel Christians who lack all moral and ethical values. Even the parents of the Christian children make brief appearances as evil demons driving the children. She is simply writing fictitious stories from an anti-christian perspective. Fact and truth are irrelevant in her mission. Her stories are designed to defame Christ and heap calumny upon his followers. Look at their religious, historical and political perspectives. They make a big show of being opposed to religion, but their criticisms are always directed against only one religion, Christianity. When they speak of modern Judaism, they are almost always positive and supportive of every aspect of that religion and history. They can do no wrong, and the glaring atrocities committed by Judaism under Communism, during the first three centuries of Christianity and currently being committed against Palestinians are quickly glossed over with psychobabel or victim psychology. The ethical tumors of Judaism are reduced to pimples and they are always understandable and justifiable when viewed in the context of innately evil Palestinians and Christians. They are inordinate apologists for Judaism, and are willing to twist every historical and social event to fit their pro-Jewish perspective. They refect the spirit of Hollywood and TV networks. When you look at their writings carefully, one dominant moral theme suffocates all others: what's good for modern Judaism and Zionism is good, and what's bad for modern Judaism is bad; what's good for Christ and Christianity is bad, and what's bad for Christ and Christianity, is good. This is the essence of their ethical vision and the depth of their intellect; Zionist apologists weaving the myths and fables of the Babylonian Talmud into a shining tapestry reflecting their dark vision. Emile