On The Pledge Of Allegience

[JoeyKnothead]

Why is it so necessary to include the words "under God" in the pledge? The addition of these words into the pledge force many people to be unable to pledge their allegience to their own nation. Why is it more important to have a devisive term in a pledge that declares we are indivisible?

[cnorman18]

As I've said before here, the Constitution says nothing about prayer in schools, Congress, or the Supreme Court. Two of the three do so regularly.

Argumentum ad populum. That others violate the Constitution is no reason to continue the practice.

It's also just plain silly. Whatever Congress and the Court do or have done, it's ridiculous to claim that something is Constitutional when the Supreme Court has explicitly ruled that it isn't. "As I've said before here."

You won't answer pertinent questions, you keep repeating points that have been conclusively refuted, and you delete and duck points that others have made.

What are you doing here? This is a debate forum.

[East of Eden]

Argumentum ad populum. That others violate the Constitution is no reason to continue the practice.

Just pointing out the inconsistency of the SCOTUS that has an invocation saying it is unconstitutional in schools.

t's also just plain silly. Whatever Congress and the Court do or have done, it's ridiculous to claim that something is Constitutional when the Supreme Court has explicitly ruled that it isn't. "As I've said before here."

No kidding, my point is it was a wrong decision, like you think of the CA court decision on gay marriage.

You won't answer pertinent questions,

Why don't you list points I've allegedly avoided? I've asked this of you before with no luck.

you keep repeating points that have been conclusively refuted,

As I could say of your arguments.

[micatala]

Argumentum ad populum. That others violate the Constitution is no reason to continue the practice.

Just pointing out the inconsistency of the SCOTUS that has an invocation saying it is unconstitutional in schools.

Perhaps my memory is faulty, but it seems to me one difference between how these two situations are viewed is that in schools we have a population that is not adult and is thus viewed as less able to stand up for themselves or discern subtleties while in the SCOTUS we have adults who are not. Certainly in a school setting, the children are much more likely to see a mandatory or even pro forma prayer as something they must go along with and agree to as it is being led by an authority figure.

Having said that, my overall view is that, while I dont support mandatory prayer in public school, I do think that both proponents and opponents often tend to be oversensitive to the issue and overstate the harms. I think one could certainly, for example, have a "moment of silence" period for those who wish to pray if it were handled appropriately. Especially in a setting where diversity was respected and where there were students of multiple faiths and of no faith, this would not have to be perceived as coercive or imposing.

The problem is that at least some of the proponents of school prayer are not respectful of other views and would tend to promote "their kind" of prayer. I am reminded of the Scopes trial, where the conservative and religious judge allowed daily prayers, at first only by fundamentalists, which were pointedly against the defense (Scopes and his lawyers). Eventually, he allowed prayers to alternate between fundamentalists and "modernist" ministers.

I guarantee you some kid today was taught something in public school that he or his parents would find objectionable.

Which makes forcing kids to pray who don't want to OK?

I certainly agree with East of Eden that many children are taught things their parents might find objectionable. To me, the key issue is why are these things being taught?

In my mind, the principle purpose of public education is to provide students with the knowledge and skills they need to understand the world and live in todays society. Knowledge of science certainly fits in with this mission. The knowledge should, as much as possible, be as accurate and up to date as possible while also being at a level that the given students (in whatever grade they are in) can understand.

School prayer does not fit into this purpose so it is not really appropriate to compare school prayer with, say, evolution.

Now, one might say that school should also be promoting the development of certain values. Things like citizenship, respect for others, an appreciation for diversity, and even basic moral values (like honesty, respect for others property, etc.). One might make the case (and many have certainly attempted to do so) that school prayer supports this kind of mission. I would not disagree with this.

On the other hand, one can support the "values mission" without bringing in a particular form of religion, or religion at all. Given that the constitution does have an establishment clause, I think we need to tread very, VERY carefully in considering whether and how to bring religion, including school prayer, into public schools. Saying it is "non-sectarian" in my view is not enough.


It is worth noting that schools (at least in my area) absolutely do allow prayer in school, especially before school hours. My children have participated, for example, in "prayer at the flag pole" days where they meet before school for a time of prayer.

I guess my question for those who wish to push for mandatory prayer is why isn't the allowing of voluntary prayer suffiicient?

[cnorman18]

You won't answer pertinent questions,

Why don't you list points I've allegedly avoided? I've asked this of you before with no luck.

Okay. You may find that it was unwise to insist on this.

In the interest of brevity, I am including only the points of MINE that you have avoided answering. I feel sure that McCulloch, JoeyK, Goat, Micatala, and Palmera have noted at least as many of their points being ignored by you as I have, but they can speak for themselves.

Most of these have been presented to you more than once; in fact, much of our conversation has consisted of my repeating my points only to see you duck them again.

I have tried to avoid duplications, but there may be be a few - unavoidable when one has to keep approaching the same issue from different directions in hopes of finally getting an answer.

Okay; in reverse order from this thread and one other:



1. "And, once again - why isn't the fact that students who wish to pray CAN pray enough?"

("You can have both" is not an answer to that question.)

2. "Why does the right to freely practice one's religion entail the right to force others to participate who don't want to..."

3. "...including teachers who would be required to lead prayer, the nonsectarian nature of which is irrelevant to those who do not believe at all?"

4. Why isn't this just another RED HERRING? "I guarantee you some kid today was taught something in public school that he or his parents would find objectionable."

5. Also, why isn't this also a red herring? "I would be much more concerned with all that is on TV I find objectionable."

(Those are just from the last few posts. Hold on; this will be a long post, but you DID ask for it.)

From the "Gay Social Goals" thread:

6. "As it stands, those who desire to pray, can pray. Those who don't, don't have to deal with the subject at all. That's fair, and that's legal."

7. "No government official has to try to concoct a contentless prayer that will keep everybody happy..."

8. "...and those who want to pray to Jesus or the Trinity or Allah or Krishna can do so as explicitly as they like - and don't have to feel that their God is being neglected or disrespected by not being mentioned, which of course would be the next area of concern."

9. "...there's more real, i.e., sincere and truly voluntary, prayer going on [in public school] now than there was in the 50s."

10. "Since voluntary prayer is already legal and available for every student who wishes to participate, what possible point is there to compulsory prayer for ALL students other than compelling the participation of students who do NOT want to participate?"

11. "Previous practices are irrelevant; when I was in elementary school, it was a common and accepted practice to paddle students with a board in front of the whole class - and there were no black students. Those have been abandoned, too."

12. "Religion is established, as opposed to non-religious unbelief, the profession of which is a Constitutionally protected freedom as well. The government may not favor generic religion over unbelief any more than it may favor Catholicism over Southern Baptist beliefs." (In other words, it is just as unconstitutional for the Government to establish religion as is is to establish A religion, a point which you have consistently refused to address, as opposed to merely ignoring and repeating your contention that it isn't.)

You actually had the nerve to claim that the above was an example of MY "ducking a point"!!!

13. "...imposing religious (or non-religious) beliefs upon those who do not share them. If it's wrong for non-Christians, as you said, why is it not wrong for you?"

14. (My personal favorite)

Me: "The passage cited was patently not about "slave-trading," and that is a plain mistranslation. As I said, the vast majority of English translations have it correct; the Greek says, literally, "man-stealing."

You: "Yes, slavetrading."

15. Me: "I'm asking why, if slavery is sinful, why the Bible didn't say so instead of give rules for how it was to be properly engaged in."

You: "You can ask God on Judgement Day."

16. You: "Why would they be offended by a non-sectarian prayer?"

Me: "Blatantly dodging the question, which was: Would you be OK with a Christian child being required to publicly refuse to participate in a Muslim prayer if he were surrounded by Muslim children?"

17. "Would you support compulsory discussions of, say, Islam (which has happened) or atheism, where a student who does not wish to participate is required to stand up before his peers and announce that?"

("This is not a majority Muslim nation" is not an answer to that question.)

18. "Imposing your religious beliefs upon all, and justifying it because you are in the majority, as you have been advocating, IS tyranny of the majority."

19. "You advocate imposing your religious beliefs on everyone, while protesting that it's wrong to have others impose theirs on you;"

20. "you can't even admit, let alone deal with, the fact that school prayer is already legal and common;"

21. "you can't show how gay marriage being legal affects you in any way;"

22. "and you can't even acknowledge a simple translation issue from the New Testament."

23. "You have consistently refused to call your advocacy what it is - an effort to impose your own sectarian beliefs on everyone by the force of secular law."

24. Me: "I already oppose "hate crime" legislation being used to suppress free speech, and I also think that the application of such laws in that way is as clearly unconstitutional and wrong as enforcing anyone's religious beliefs by law."

You: "Glad to hear it."

Me: "Then why don't you apply that same standard to enforcing your own beliefs by law?"

25. You: "It is ridiculous to compare sexual behavior with race. How about a special category for guys who like blonds?"

Me: "Non sequitur again. Since we're talking about denying civil rights to a particular group, the comparison is entirely apt."

26: "Private organizations, like churches, are unaffected by the legalization of gay marriage. Public organizations (and neither the Supreme Court nor the Congress are that; they are elected or appointed offices) are not."

27. "No one is being forced into same-sex marriages;"

28: "...no churches are being forced to perform or sanctify such marriages;"

29. "...no one is even being forced to stop saying that they think homosexuality is sinful."

(Showing that some people would like to infringe upon free speech in that manner doesn't contradict or answer the above.)

30. "The fundamentalists who opposed civil rights were just as convinced as you that their views were Biblical and correct. The point is made; Christians ought not have the right or the power to enforce their religious beliefs upon the general public, even if the majority of Christians agree that they should."

("They were wrong" does not answer this point, either.)

31. You: "All laws are an imposition of morality, with consequent winners and losers."

Me: "They are not impositions of religiously-determined morality, and the rights of the "losers" are protected under the American system. American law is not a zero-sum game where the majority is permitted to run roughshod over the rights of minorities. It has never been that, and it isn't now."

32. "In any case, Christians who do not oppose gay marriage and do oppose discrimination against gays do not necessarily "disregard the Bible's commandments about homosexual activity, or sexual sin in general"; it is much more likely that they do not think religious beliefs and/or practices ought to be mandated and enforced by secular law."

33. "...since the majority does NOT support discrimination against gays, shouldn't you be willing to accept that?"

34. Me: " Is it okay with God to make up lies and exaggerations to support your point of view?"

You: "An example of an idiotic statement I have no obligation to recognize."

35. "You're pretending that that evil 1-1/2% is our biggest moral problem, and are blatantly dismissing other, and much worse and more damaging to society, sins in favor of casting stones at people who have done and wish to do you no harm."

36. You: "As I already said, if there was a major push to make legitimate those sins, I would. There isn't, which makes your question moot."

Me: "Really? Corporations paying bonuses to dishonest and greedy executives? How about greed being sanctified by the "Prosperity Gospel"?"

37. Me: "Are you, in fact, for prohibiting proven adulterers, embezzlers, and frauds, e.g., from raising children as well?"

You: "The old trick of digging up the scummiest heterosexual parent examples you can find to try to make gay marriage look attractive."

Me: "The old trick of trying to distract readers from the fact that you're ducking the question. Are you in favor of prohibiting other egregious sinners from raising children, or not? If not, why not?"

And, finally:

Me: "For example? What "secular dogma" has been forced upon Christians in American law that interferes with the practice of your religion?"

You: "Off the top of my head, the ridiculuous 1962 ruling against prayer in schools interfered with the free excercise of religion of children whose parents pay for those schools."

(This is not included as an unanswered point, but as proof that YOU did indeed introduce the subject of school prayer, which you claimed was a "red herring" introduced by me.)

These are from two (2) threads. Would you like to see more, or is this enough to make my point?

Don't bother to claim that you have answered all these points. If I can go back and find them, you can go back and find your supposed answers - if there were any.

"I don't have time" won't cut it, either. Take two weeks if you have to. Take a month. They aren't going away.

I have proven, right here, that you dodge and duck and leave points unanswered. The only way to prove me wrong is to show that you didn't.

Ever.

Good luck. And remember - you DID ask.

[East of Eden]

You won't answer pertinent questions,

Why don't you list points I've allegedly avoided? I've asked this of you before with no luck.

Okay. You may find that it was unwise to insist on this.

In the interest of brevity, I am including only the points of MINE that you have avoided answering. I feel sure that McCulloch, JoeyK, Goat, Micatala, and Palmera have noted at least as many of their points being ignored by you as I have, but they can speak for themselves.

Most of these have been presented to you more than once; in fact, much of our conversation has consisted of my repeating my points only to see you duck them again.

I have tried to avoid duplications, but there may be be a few - unavoidable when one has to keep approaching the same issue from different directions in hopes of finally getting an answer.

Okay; in reverse order from this thread and one other:



1. "And, once again - why isn't the fact that students who wish to pray CAN pray enough?"

("You can have both" is not an answer to that question.)

2. "Why does the right to freely practice one's religion entail the right to force others to participate who don't want to..."

3. "...including teachers who would be required to lead prayer, the nonsectarian nature of which is irrelevant to those who do not believe at all?"

4. Why isn't this just another RED HERRING? "I guarantee you some kid today was taught something in public school that he or his parents would find objectionable."

5. Also, why isn't this also a red herring? "I would be much more concerned with all that is on TV I find objectionable."

(Those are just from the last few posts. Hold on; this will be a long post, but you DID ask for it.)

From the "Gay Social Goals" thread:

6. "As it stands, those who desire to pray, can pray. Those who don't, don't have to deal with the subject at all. That's fair, and that's legal."

7. "No government official has to try to concoct a contentless prayer that will keep everybody happy..."

8. "...and those who want to pray to Jesus or the Trinity or Allah or Krishna can do so as explicitly as they like - and don't have to feel that their God is being neglected or disrespected by not being mentioned, which of course would be the next area of concern."

9. "...there's more real, i.e., sincere and truly voluntary, prayer going on [in public school] now than there was in the 50s."

10. "Since voluntary prayer is already legal and available for every student who wishes to participate, what possible point is there to compulsory prayer for ALL students other than compelling the participation of students who do NOT want to participate?"

11. "Previous practices are irrelevant; when I was in elementary school, it was a common and accepted practice to paddle students with a board in front of the whole class - and there were no black students. Those have been abandoned, too."

12. "Religion is established, as opposed to non-religious unbelief, the profession of which is a Constitutionally protected freedom as well. The government may not favor generic religion over unbelief any more than it may favor Catholicism over Southern Baptist beliefs." (In other words, it is just as unconstitutional for the Government to establish religion as is is to establish A religion, a point which you have consistently refused to address, as opposed to merely ignoring and repeating your contention that it isn't.)

You actually had the nerve to claim that the above was an example of MY "ducking a point"!!!

13. "...imposing religious (or non-religious) beliefs upon those who do not share them. If it's wrong for non-Christians, as you said, why is it not wrong for you?"

14. (My personal favorite)

Me: "The passage cited was patently not about "slave-trading," and that is a plain mistranslation. As I said, the vast majority of English translations have it correct; the Greek says, literally, "man-stealing."

You: "Yes, slavetrading."

15. Me: "I'm asking why, if slavery is sinful, why the Bible didn't say so instead of give rules for how it was to be properly engaged in."

You: "You can ask God on Judgement Day."

16. You: "Why would they be offended by a non-sectarian prayer?"

Me: "Blatantly dodging the question, which was: Would you be OK with a Christian child being required to publicly refuse to participate in a Muslim prayer if he were surrounded by Muslim children?"

17. "Would you support compulsory discussions of, say, Islam (which has happened) or atheism, where a student who does not wish to participate is required to stand up before his peers and announce that?"

("This is not a majority Muslim nation" is not an answer to that question.)

18. "Imposing your religious beliefs upon all, and justifying it because you are in the majority, as you have been advocating, IS tyranny of the majority."

19. "You advocate imposing your religious beliefs on everyone, while protesting that it's wrong to have others impose theirs on you;"

20. "you can't even admit, let alone deal with, the fact that school prayer is already legal and common;"

21. "you can't show how gay marriage being legal affects you in any way;"

22. "and you can't even acknowledge a simple translation issue from the New Testament."

23. "You have consistently refused to call your advocacy what it is - an effort to impose your own sectarian beliefs on everyone by the force of secular law."

24. Me: "I already oppose "hate crime" legislation being used to suppress free speech, and I also think that the application of such laws in that way is as clearly unconstitutional and wrong as enforcing anyone's religious beliefs by law."

You: "Glad to hear it."

Me: "Then why don't you apply that same standard to enforcing your own beliefs by law?"

25. You: "It is ridiculous to compare sexual behavior with race. How about a special category for guys who like blonds?"

Me: "Non sequitur again. Since we're talking about denying civil rights to a particular group, the comparison is entirely apt."

26: "Private organizations, like churches, are unaffected by the legalization of gay marriage. Public organizations (and neither the Supreme Court nor the Congress are that; they are elected or appointed offices) are not."

27. "No one is being forced into same-sex marriages;"

28: "...no churches are being forced to perform or sanctify such marriages;"

29. "...no one is even being forced to stop saying that they think homosexuality is sinful."

(Showing that some people would like to infringe upon free speech in that manner doesn't contradict or answer the above.)

30. "The fundamentalists who opposed civil rights were just as convinced as you that their views were Biblical and correct. The point is made; Christians ought not have the right or the power to enforce their religious beliefs upon the general public, even if the majority of Christians agree that they should."

("They were wrong" does not answer this point, either.)

31. You: "All laws are an imposition of morality, with consequent winners and losers."

Me: "They are not impositions of religiously-determined morality, and the rights of the "losers" are protected under the American system. American law is not a zero-sum game where the majority is permitted to run roughshod over the rights of minorities. It has never been that, and it isn't now."

32. "In any case, Christians who do not oppose gay marriage and do oppose discrimination against gays do not necessarily "disregard the Bible's commandments about homosexual activity, or sexual sin in general"; it is much more likely that they do not think religious beliefs and/or practices ought to be mandated and enforced by secular law."

33. "...since the majority does NOT support discrimination against gays, shouldn't you be willing to accept that?"

34. Me: " Is it okay with God to make up lies and exaggerations to support your point of view?"

You: "An example of an idiotic statement I have no obligation to recognize."

35. "You're pretending that that evil 1-1/2% is our biggest moral problem, and are blatantly dismissing other, and much worse and more damaging to society, sins in favor of casting stones at people who have done and wish to do you no harm."

36. You: "As I already said, if there was a major push to make legitimate those sins, I would. There isn't, which makes your question moot."

Me: "Really? Corporations paying bonuses to dishonest and greedy executives? How about greed being sanctified by the "Prosperity Gospel"?"

37. Me: "Are you, in fact, for prohibiting proven adulterers, embezzlers, and frauds, e.g., from raising children as well?"

You: "The old trick of digging up the scummiest heterosexual parent examples you can find to try to make gay marriage look attractive."

Me: "The old trick of trying to distract readers from the fact that you're ducking the question. Are you in favor of prohibiting other egregious sinners from raising children, or not? If not, why not?"

And, finally:

Me: "For example? What "secular dogma" has been forced upon Christians in American law that interferes with the practice of your religion?"

You: "Off the top of my head, the ridiculuous 1962 ruling against prayer in schools interfered with the free excercise of religion of children whose parents pay for those schools."

(This is not included as an unanswered point, but as proof that YOU did indeed introduce the subject of school prayer, which you claimed was a "red herring" introduced by me.)

These are from two (2) threads. Would you like to see more, or is this enough to make my point?

Don't bother to claim that you have answered all these points. If I can go back and find them, you can go back and find your supposed answers - if there were any.

"I don't have time" won't cut it, either. Take two weeks if you have to. Take a month. They aren't going away.

I have proven, right here, that you dodge and duck and leave points unanswered. The only way to prove me wrong is to show that you didn't.

Ever.

Good luck. And remember - you DID ask.

I'll take a closer look when I have more time. What I CAN see from scanning it is you simply aren't getting the answer you want. You seem to project your opinions as definitive proof, and when others don't agree with you, that is called by you 'ducking the issue'. Most of your 'points' you claim I am ducking are simply your opinion that I disagree with.

[Bio-logical]

You won't answer pertinent questions,

Why don't you list points I've allegedly avoided? I've asked this of you before with no luck.

Okay. You may find that it was unwise to insist on this.

In the interest of brevity, I am including only the points of MINE that you have avoided answering. I feel sure that McCulloch, JoeyK, Goat, Micatala, and Palmera have noted at least as many of their points being ignored by you as I have, but they can speak for themselves.
...

Bravo for the time and effort put forth in this post. I personally have only been on this site less than a week and I too have a fair amount of ignored points by both East of Eden and Carico, but I will offer them a quick defense.

I would have difficulty trying to keep coming up with ludicrous, roundabout answers to the deluge of strong points that they have been hit with as well. It is very difficult to answer logic with dogma and not come off sounding like a child, which I am sure takes them significant time and effort to do(even if not always successful).

I am working tonight and I will go ahead and dig up some of my old posts that have been ignored as well, I have not been on here long so it shouldn't take too long.

[cnorman18]

I'll take a closer look when I have more time. What I CAN see from scanning it is you simply aren't getting the answer you want. You seem to project your opinions as definitive proof, and when others don't agree with you, that is called by you 'ducking the issue'. Most of your 'points' you claim I am ducking are simply your opinion that I disagree with.

Good luck with that, too. Most of these were simply left unanswered and/or unacknowledged entirely, and the rest were "answered" with a change of subject or a distractor. Feel free to make your case, but it's all on the record.

EDITED TO ADD:

Let me offer, as an alternative, a small olive branch here.

Since you have said on the other thread that you understand where I'm coming from on this issue as well as others, and since it's clear that we are not going to come to agreement on this issue, I propose that we leave it here. (Without prejudice to the other members you're boxing with, of course.)

I disagree with your ideas on this issue, but as I've said elsewhere, I would give my life to defend your right to express them. My objections to some of your tactics and approaches to debate remain as well, but as I've also said elsewhere - hey, this is just an Internet debate. It's not like this conversation is going to have any real impact on public policy. I doubt very much that any Congressmen or Supreme Court justices read this forum, and if any do, it's probably abundantly clear that neither of us are lawyers (!).

I also doubt very much that we're going to resolve this issue, even between (or among) ourselves. I respect your point of view, even as I disagree with it. If you feel the same way, for my money, we can leave this here, agree to disagree, and go on to argue about other things.

Or not. The Second Amendment question, for one, would appear to find us on the same side....

Anyway. Let's move on. Whaddya say?

Or continue. I leave it up to you.

[East of Eden]

Okay. You may find that it was unwise to insist on this.

In the interest of brevity, I am including only the points of MINE that you have avoided answering. I feel sure that McCulloch, JoeyK, Goat, Micatala, and Palmera have noted at least as many of their points being ignored by you as I have, but they can speak for themselves.

Most of these have been presented to you more than once; in fact, much of our conversation has consisted of my repeating my points only to see you duck them again.

I have tried to avoid duplications, but there may be be a few - unavoidable when one has to keep approaching the same issue from different directions in hopes of finally getting an answer.

Okay; in reverse order from this thread and one other:



1. "And, once again - why isn't the fact that students who wish to pray CAN pray enough?"

("You can have both" is not an answer to that question.)

Why isn't this a red herring? You're changing subjects from the appropriateness of school led non-sectarian prayer to something else. If the majority opinion of a local school district is that flagpole prayer isn't enough, that's their business.

2. "Why does the right to freely practice one's religion entail the right to force others to participate who don't want to..."

It wouldn't be forced, those opposed could not participate.

3. "...including teachers who would be required to lead prayer, the nonsectarian nature of which is irrelevant to those who do not believe at all?"

I'm sure there are teachers every day who teach things they do not believe. For example, naturalistic evolution which many violate their religious beliefs.

4. Why isn't this just another RED HERRING? "I guarantee you some kid today was taught something in public school that he or his parents would find objectionable."

Why don't you address the point and tell me why other examples of kids being taught what they or their parents don't believe are equally objectionable to you.?

5. Also, why isn't this also a red herring? "I would be much more concerned with all that is on TV I find objectionable."

It is directly related to the point being discussed.

(Those are just from the last few posts. Hold on; this will be a long post, but you DID ask for it.)

From the "Gay Social Goals" thread:

6. "As it stands, those who desire to pray, can pray. Those who don't, don't have to deal with the subject at all. That's fair, and that's legal."

7. "No government official has to try to concoct a contentless prayer that will keep everybody happy..."

8. "...and those who want to pray to Jesus or the Trinity or Allah or Krishna can do so as explicitly as they like - and don't have to feel that their God is being neglected or disrespected by not being mentioned, which of course would be the next area of concern."

9. "...there's more real, i.e., sincere and truly voluntary, prayer going on [in public school] now than there was in the 50s."

10. "Since voluntary prayer is already legal and available for every student who wishes to participate, what possible point is there to compulsory prayer for ALL students other than compelling the participation of students who do NOT want to participate?"

Your first question in the above list, students who don't want to participate shouldn't have to. We've discussed this before.

11. "Previous practices are irrelevant; when I was in elementary school, it was a common and accepted practice to paddle students with a board in front of the whole class - and there were no black students. Those have been abandoned, too."

If I were you I would ask why this isn't a red herring. Racial segregation was decided to be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Constitution says nothing about corporal punishment or prayer in schools, IMHO.

12. "Religion is established, as opposed to non-religious unbelief, the profession of which is a Constitutionally protected freedom as well. The government may not favor generic religion over unbelief any more than it may favor Catholicism over Southern Baptist beliefs." (In other words, it is just as unconstitutional for the Government to establish religion as is is to establish A religion, a point which you have consistently refused to address, as opposed to merely ignoring and repeating your contention that it isn't.)

I haven't refussed to address this, I thought I've made it clear I completely reject your point here. You won't find the idea of separation of belief and state in the Constitution. The Founders assumed a Christian nation, they just didn't want a specific Christian denomination to be favored. If I were you I might say you have consistently refused to address this point.

You actually had the nerve to claim that the above was an example of MY "ducking a point"!!!

13. "...imposing religious (or non-religious) beliefs upon those who do not share them. If it's wrong for non-Christians, as you said, why is it not wrong for you?"

Two different issues here. You're comparing a non-sectarian prayer with a sectarian prayer which I believe is what you said I said was wrong.

14. (My personal favorite)

Me: "The passage cited was patently not about "slave-trading," and that is a plain mistranslation. As I said, the vast majority of English translations have it correct; the Greek says, literally, "man-stealing."

You: "Yes, slavetrading."

I disagree with your allegation that you are right and the Bible translators are wrong.

15. Me: "I'm asking why, if slavery is sinful, why the Bible didn't say so instead of give rules for how it was to be properly engaged in."

You: "You can ask God on Judgement Day."

You may not have liked it, but I already answered this. At the time of Christ's coming one-third of the population of the Roman Empire were slaves. Christ's mission was to offer himself as a sacrifical atonement to reconcile man to God, not to change an entrenched social system. The Bible does talk about making the institution more humane and specifically condemned slave-trading. BTW, how is this not a red herring?

16. You: "Why would they be offended by a non-sectarian prayer?"

Me: "Blatantly dodging the question, which was: Would you be OK with a Christian child being required to publicly refuse to participate in a Muslim prayer if he were surrounded by Muslim children?"

No. I've said many times on this thread I'm for a non-sectarian prayer, so why are you asking me if I'm for a sectarian prayer?

17. "Would you support compulsory discussions of, say, Islam (which has happened) or atheism, where a student who does not wish to participate is required to stand up before his peers and announce that?"

Yes.

("This is not a majority Muslim nation" is not an answer to that question.)

18. "Imposing your religious beliefs upon all, and justifying it because you are in the majority, as you have been advocating, IS tyranny of the majority."

Is this a question? I disagree with your opinion here, and below.

19. "You advocate imposing your religious beliefs on everyone, while protesting that it's wrong to have others impose theirs on you;"

20. "you can't even admit, let alone deal with, the fact that school prayer is already legal and common;"

21. "you can't show how gay marriage being legal affects you in any way;"

22. "and you can't even acknowledge a simple translation issue from the New Testament."

23. "You have consistently refused to call your advocacy what it is - an effort to impose your own sectarian beliefs on everyone by the force of secular law."

These aren't questions, just opinions I disagree with.

24. Me: "I already oppose "hate crime" legislation being used to suppress free speech, and I also think that the application of such laws in that way is as clearly unconstitutional and wrong as enforcing anyone's religious beliefs by law."

You: "Glad to hear it."

Me: "Then why don't you apply that same standard to enforcing your own beliefs by law?"

I disagree with your proposition above that misuse of 'hate crime' laws has anything to do with a non-sectarian, voluntary school prayer.

25. You: "It is ridiculous to compare sexual behavior with race. How about a special category for guys who like blonds?"

Me: "Non sequitur again. Since we're talking about denying civil rights to a particular group, the comparison is entirely apt."

As is my comparison of civil rights for the particular group of guys who like blonds. No doubt there will someday be a special name and category some day for three people who want to marry.

26: "Private organizations, like churches, are unaffected by the legalization of gay marriage. Public organizations (and neither the Supreme Court nor the Congress are that; they are elected or appointed offices) are not."

Agreed.

27. "No one is being forced into same-sex marriages;"

Never said they were.

28: "...no churches are being forced to perform or sanctify such marriages;"

Never said they were.

29. "...no one is even being forced to stop saying that they think homosexuality is sinful."

Generally true, I did give you an example of a woman who was charged with a felony for doing so.

(Showing that some people would like to infringe upon free speech in that manner doesn't contradict or answer the above.)

Uh, it does somewhat contradict your statement that "no one" is being forced to stop saying they think homosexuality is sinful.

30. "The fundamentalists who opposed civil rights were just as convinced as you that their views were Biblical and correct. The point is made; Christians ought not have the right or the power to enforce their religious beliefs upon the general public, even if the majority of Christians agree that they should."

("They were wrong" does not answer this point, either.)

You seem to be advocating Christians should not be allowed to participate in the democratic process. Your statement would have disallowed the works of ML King and Wilberforce.

31. You: "All laws are an imposition of morality, with consequent winners and losers."

Me: "They are not impositions of religiously-determined morality,

So what? Only atheistic morality is allowed?

and the rights of the "losers" are protected under the American system. American law is not a zero-sum game where the majority is permitted to run roughshod over the rights of minorities. It has never been that, and it isn't now."

AKA, the Tyranny of the Minority.

32. "In any case, Christians who do not oppose gay marriage and do oppose discrimination against gays do not necessarily "disregard the Bible's commandments about homosexual activity, or sexual sin in general"; it is much more likely that they do not think religious beliefs and/or practices ought to be mandated and enforced by secular law."

33. "...since the majority does NOT support discrimination against gays, shouldn't you be willing to accept that?"

Already addressed. Again, you just didn't like my answer.

34. Me: " Is it okay with God to make up lies and exaggerations to support your point of view?"

You mean like saying most Christians would disagree with me on the gay issue? BTW, I'm not doing that.

You: "An example of an idiotic statement I have no obligation to recognize."

OK, that was a rude response, albeit to a rude question.

35. "You're pretending that that evil 1-1/2% is our biggest moral problem, and are blatantly dismissing other, and much worse and more damaging to society, sins in favor of casting stones at people who have done and wish to do you no harm."

36. You: "As I already said, if there was a major push to make legitimate those sins, I would. There isn't, which makes your question moot."

Me: "Really? Corporations paying bonuses to dishonest and greedy executives? How about greed being sanctified by the "Prosperity Gospel"?"

If I were you, I would be saying red herring now.

37. Me: "Are you, in fact, for prohibiting proven adulterers, embezzlers, and frauds, e.g., from raising children as well?"

You: "The old trick of digging up the scummiest heterosexual parent examples you can find to try to make gay marriage look attractive."

Me: "The old trick of trying to distract readers from the fact that you're ducking the question. Are you in favor of prohibiting other egregious sinners from raising children, or not? If not, why not?"

No. All parents are sinners, what I do insist on is giving children a mother and a father.

And, finally:

Me: "For example? What "secular dogma" has been forced upon Christians in American law that interferes with the practice of your religion?"

You: "Off the top of my head, the ridiculuous 1962 ruling against prayer in schools interfered with the free excercise of religion of children whose parents pay for those schools."

(This is not included as an unanswered point, but as proof that YOU did indeed introduce the subject of school prayer, which you claimed was a "red herring" introduced by me.)

It wasn't brought up out of the blue, but as a response to a question by you. I guess I'm damned if I answer, and damned if I don't.

These are from two (2) threads. Would you like to see more, or is this enough to make my point?

Ask as many as you like. I suspect we both have better things to do.

Don't bother to claim that you have answered all these points. If I can go back and find them, you can go back and find your supposed answers - if there were any.

Many of them I have, you just didn't like the answer.

"I don't have time" won't cut it, either. Take two weeks if you have to. Take a month. They aren't going away.

I have proven, right here, that you dodge and duck and leave points unanswered.

I again disagree.

The only way to prove me wrong is to show that you didn't.

Ever.

Good luck. And remember - you DID ask.

[East of Eden]

Good luck with that, too. Most of these were simply left unanswered and/or unacknowledged entirely, and the rest were "answered" with a change of subject or a distractor. Feel free to make your case, but it's all on the record.

EDITED TO ADD:

Let me offer, as an alternative, a small olive branch here.

Since you have said on the other thread that you understand where I'm coming from on this issue as well as others, and since it's clear that we are not going to come to agreement on this issue, I propose that we leave it here. (Without prejudice to the other members you're boxing with, of course.)

I disagree with your ideas on this issue, but as I've said elsewhere, I would give my life to defend your right to express them. My objections to some of your tactics and approaches to debate remain as well, but as I've also said elsewhere - hey, this is just an Internet debate. It's not like this conversation is going to have any real impact on public policy. I doubt very much that any Congressmen or Supreme Court justices read this forum, and if any do, it's probably abundantly clear that neither of us are lawyers (!).

I also doubt very much that we're going to resolve this issue, even between (or among) ourselves. I respect your point of view, even as I disagree with it. If you feel the same way, for my money, we can leave this here, agree to disagree, and go on to argue about other things.

Or not. The Second Amendment question, for one, would appear to find us on the same side....

Anyway. Let's move on. Whaddya say?

Or continue. I leave it up to you.

I agree completely, even though I answered your list of questions in respone to the somewhat personal attack of not answering. Respond to that post or not, either is fine with me. We've both said all we have to say, we disagree. Any future posts would just be a restatement.

Often with these threads after everyone has had their say, they just degenerate into personal attacks.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 7 Post 68:

>quote mining for brevity<

... If the majority opinion of a local school district is that flagpole prayer isn't enough, that's their business.

When is forcing unproven beliefs on another enough?

2. "Why does the right to freely practice one's religion entail the right to force others to participate who don't want to..."

It wouldn't be forced, those opposed could not participate.

Yeah, ask a kid to go against the grain and watch the abuse start.

I'm sure there are teachers every day who teach things they do not believe. For example, naturalistic evolution which many violate their religious beliefs.

This is specifically why we must keep religion out of schools - the reality of the world around us conflicts with so many religious beliefs.

Your first question in the above list, students who don't want to participate shouldn't have to. We've discussed this before.

The problem here is the verifiable cases where students are forced to hear a religious message (Dover vs. Kitzmiller).

You won't find the idea of separation of belief and state in the Constitution.

I find it interesting that pretty much the entire rest of the US would say "Church and State", but East of Eden has on more than one occassion used the phrase "belief and State". I contend this is a rhetorical tactic designed to avoid the issue of religious belief, as opposed to a belief in general.

We also don't allow teaching a "belief" that fairies are in the bottom of our gardens.

The Founders assumed a Christian nation, they just didn't want a specific Christian denomination to be favored. If I were you I might say you have consistently refused to address this point.

I would contend we should base our laws and policies on the here and now, as oppossed to two hundred (or two thousand) year old ideas that don't accurately reflect the present.

You're comparing a non-sectarian prayer with a sectarian prayer which I believe is what you said I said was wrong.

I've asked before, what separates a 'sectarian' prayer from a 'non-sectarian' prayer? Aren't prayers to gods religious by nature, if not definition?

17. "Would you support compulsory discussions of, say, Islam (which has happened) or atheism, where a student who does not wish to participate is required to stand up before his peers and announce that?"

Yes.

I don't believe this at all. I can't help but think this response is from the comfort of knowing the Christian majority would not allow it as a matter of school policies.

As is my comparison of civil rights for the particular group of guys who like blonds. No doubt there will someday be a special name and category some day for three people who want to marry.

Humans?
Polygamists?
I personally have no objections to polygamy, and have actually practiced it from time to time (though not as a government sanctioned event).

I see no reason to restrict consenting adults who wish to declare their love for one another.

29. "...no one is even being forced to stop saying that they think homosexuality is sinful."

Generally true, I did give you an example of a woman who was charged with a felony for doing so.

Could you please offer references for this. I looked through this thread and didn't notice it, and I don't want to assume a link from a different thread is your reference here.

So what? Only atheistic morality is allowed?

Yes.

Just funning, I think here the idea is that a moral issue should not be reflected in law merely "because God said so", but is based instead on ideas that can be shown to be sound regardless of whose god or "not god" claims such.

If I were to say such as, "We should allow X to make God mad/happy", well there's little there to consider other than a/religious based opinion.

and the rights of the "losers" are protected under the American system. American law is not a zero-sum game where the majority is permitted to run roughshod over the rights of minorities. It has never been that, and it isn't now."

AKA, the Tyranny of the Minority.

Obviously rationality and moderation should rule the day. This is why it is so important that we base our laws on the greater good, regardless of which side is promoting it.

No. All parents are sinners, what I do insist on is giving children a mother and a father.

Insist on? What if one of those parents is a known abuser?