Beth: I provide as much evidence as you do. I view this as a fairly informal discussion, so I see no need to cite cases, etc., unless I know the cites off the top of my head. Many times, I just know the stuff because I've read but I can't remember the case name, even on stuff I read yesterday. I've cited the constitution verbatim where necessary. When called upon to provide proofs or references, I have. If I have to start footnoting my every post, I'll probably just drop out of the discussions, because I spend way too much time in these debates already. I do have a life, and a fairly fun and entertaining one at that.
Unfortunately, I do not save CF Community posts, so I can't quote back anything that's more than 12 to 24 hours old. As for why I said what I said: on one hand you say, "use should be denied to all religions" but on the other you say, "well, it's only Christians asking." Furthermore, I see no difference between the hypothetical religious uses we've discussed and the specific Christian group we've discussed. Denying a group their rights is denying rights, no matter reality or hypothetical nature. You seem to recognize that in most communities, most of the time, it's going to be Christians that request use of public facilities (for no other reason than they are a majority classification in most communities), but it appears to me that you (and others on your side here) want to cloud the issue by saying "no religions." Maybe that's an unfair assumption on my part. But would it be any better if I said you were "hostile to religious people"? I don't see any ethical or moral difference between being hostile to religious people in general or being hostile to Christianity in particular (and I view wanting to deny people their rights as evidence of hostility). (Another possible unfairness, but not illogical, I don't think, is that I take your use of "xtian" or "christian" (lower case) as a further slight against the religion. I've restrained any comment on this because I realize some people don't like to use the shift key, and that "x" was a Christian first-century abbreviation for Christ (to help hide belief from Roman persecutors), but in modern times it's been used more often as an atheistic substitute for Christ -- so I take offense at this spelling. But my offense is my own problem and please feel free to do as you please. This is really a minor issue. I only say anything now to add context to my view.) I've never said that anybody has suggested that anybody has said: "THAT CHRISTIANS BE DENIED USE OF PUBLIC FACILITIES WHILE OTHER RELIGIONS BE ABLE TO USE THEM." What I've said is that you and others have said, "Christians should not be able to use public facilities while other GROUPS (meaning secular, or non-religious) be allowed to use them." This is plain prejudice against religious people, denying them their equal rights based on discrimination against their religiosity. (BTW: I find it interesting that you accuse me of not reading what people wrote while misrepresenting what I've said). And while we're on the issue of misrepresenting -- I've never accused anybody of hatred. I've accused people of hostility. Those emotions/motivations are not necessarily synonymous. Nor do I believe I have ever made a bigoted statement in this forum, or any place else that I'm aware of, for that matter. As I near my conclusion, I wish to say that while my view of you is of a person diametrically opposed to just about every view point I hold dear -- that while I view myself as primarily a conservative and you as a very left liberal -- I hold no personal animosity toward you. I doubt that if we were neighbors, we would be friends, but at the same time I would never wish you ill will. I would like to reserve the right to confront you on a point or issue when I feel it necessary, but I also respect your intelligence and consider you a worthy debate foe. And I wish to emphasize the word "debate," because I do not view you as a foe in any other way. As I've said before, I enjoy CF community just for the chance to debate weighty topics with intelligent people. It is rare to find such a large group of smart, opinionated people, who are able to debate very sensitive issues without much rancor or flaming or pure stupid behavior. I'm sorry that our personal exchange has become so emotional, but I felt pushed. You may not see that, and that's fine, but that's my feeling. As for my name, this probably just one more example of how we are different. I'm fairly traditional and don't believe people should take liberties with informality. If I signed my name, "Howie," then I would have granted permission to use that name. But since my e-mail "from" field shows my name as Howard, and because I sign it H, I've pretty much said, "Please call me Howard or H." At least, that's how I see it. (I prefer Howard, fwiw -- "H" just means I get lazy as I sign off<g>). H. -----Original Message----- From: BethF [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 9:18 AM To: CF-Community Subject: Re: Church and State I apologize for using an informal version of your name - but its difficult to know what you like when you sign your name H. However, I would love to see evidence of my hostility towards christians. I would love to see one example where I "pursued a course of reasoning that wants an absolute ban on Christians using public facilities" You make alot of accusations and claims and you NEVER have any evidence or examples to back them up. How DARE you accuse me of bigotry without a specific example. If you are unable to see that my discussion of the christian group was specifically related to that group and not to some hypothetical bigotry on my part, I have to wonder about YOUR bigotry and prejudices. I would like to see you SHOW ME WHERE ONE PERSON HAS SUGGESTED THAT CHRISTIANS BE DENIED USE OF PUBLIC FACILITIES WHILE OTHER RELIGIONS BE ABLE TO USE THEM. You can't show it because it doesn't exist. You are seeing prejudice that isn't there, and it must be very sad to feel persecuted like that. READ WHAT PEOPLE WROTE. Some of us argued that no religious group be able to use public facilities. I argued that a school club shouldn't be religious. No one argued that we allow all the religions to use the school, except for the Christians. I am really sick and tired of your accusions of peoples motives and hatred - --Beth, Pseudo usenet cop Merlin MTB, BikeE AT, RANS gliss, Trek R200, Kickbike Owned by Kavik (Samoyed Boy) and Toklat (Keeshond Boy) Anchorage, Alaska ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 6:51 PM Subject: RE: Church and State > Beth: > > It's hard not to laugh out loud when you say "No one has argued that > christians (sic) shouldn't have equal access to public facilities" when you > personally have been the worst offender. You have blatantly pursued a course > of reasoning that wants an absolute ban on Christians using public > facilities. > > And if you can't see how that line of thinking isn't hostile to Christians, > I can't help you. > > Furthermore, I think you show your stripes when you publicly disrespect me, > a person you have never up to this point agreed with on anything, by using a > form of my name that is overly familiar and which I have never granted you > permission to us. With all due respect to another Howie we all know and whom > I admire, I don't like people outside of my family using that name for me. > > H. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: BethF [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 9:13 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Church and State > > > > No, it's hostility because nobody in this forum, in this discussion has > > advocated "forcing" religion on any other person. What we have said is > > "equal access, equal protection," which are constitutionally guaranteed > > rights and fundamental rights. But what a number of people have argued is > > that Christians should not have equal access to public facilities. In > other > > words, the rights of Christians should be abridged based on personal > > prejudice against Christians. That is hostility, plain and simple. It is > > unjust and intolerant. > > > Actually, howie, the reason we are discussing Christians is because the > scenario we are discussing was a Christian group of students. We haven't > said "all christians want to...blah blah". > > No one has argued that christians shouldn't ahve equal access to public > facilities. Where did you see this sentiment? Please give an example > instead of telling me to search the archives. The discussion was about a > particular group of students - based on a real life scenario. If the group > was jewish I would have the exact same issue with it and so would all of us > who argued against it to begin with. > > I am afraid you are seeing prejudice and hostility where it isn't there. > > --Beth, Pseudo usenet cop > Merlin MTB, BikeE AT, RANS gliss, Trek R200, Kickbike > Owned by Kavik (Samoyed Boy) and Toklat (Keeshond Boy) > Anchorage, Alaska > > > > > H. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Braver, Ben [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 8:18 AM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: RE: Church and State > > > > > > Howard- > > > > I strongly disagree with you about the "hostility" issue. > > Sorry you feel that way. > > > > Neither Mo nor I are expressing hostility towards Christianity. > > Please re-read our posts more carefully, sir. > > > > What we are saying is that evangelistic / fundamentalist Christian sect (a > > minority of all Christians) are the *only* group which is demanding the > > introduction of prayer and *their* beliefs into the schools. > > > > (Now, I'm just speaking for myself.) I have NEVER seen Catholics, > > Presbyterians, Lutherans, Methodists, or other "mainstream" Christians do > > any of the things we are criticizing. Only the "fringe" groups. But they > are > > very vocal and gaining political power in ways that frighten me. > > > > Nor have I ever seen Muslim, Buddhist, Taoist, Hindu, Shinto etc. etc. > > groups trying to do what they do. > > > > Please get it through your head sir that this is not "hostility", it is a > > defense against an attack by a group that is undermining the equal access > > and equal protection. They think that their particular stripe of > > Christianity is the only way, and are attempting to force it on other > > Christians as well as non-Christians. > > > > -Ben > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 8:38 PM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: RE: Church and State > > > > > > I think you prove my point on the hostility issue -- hostility toward > > Christianity, because no where have I supported using schools to push > dogma > > or Christianity. > > > > I have said -- equal access -- equal protection. It's constitutional. And > as > > much as you might like to wish it away because of your hostility toward > > Christianity, you can't. > > > > H. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Maureen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 10:08 AM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: Church and State > > > > > > At 04:59 PM 1/27/02, Howard wrote: > > > > >5) What you are preaching is not government neutrality in respect to > > >religion, but government hostility to religion. > > > > > > No, what is being said is that no one religion has the right to force > their > > presence on others in a forum funded by taxpayer money, i.e. by the > > government. > > > > And again, you are mixing religion and Christianity, because no other > > religion is demanding the right to pray or teach their dogma in public > > schools. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
