Evidence? The evidence was right in the initial post I responded to. Did you read it? The first time I used the word hostile, the evidence was right in that post, why else would I throw out that term.
And now I'm a bigot because I'm insisting on equal rights for everyone? You're the one that wants to curtail rights. If you want evidence of why I believe that, just read your own damn posts -- including this one, which drips of curtailing the rights of religious people to use public facilities. Unlike you, contrary to your claims, I believe in freedom and equality, especially equal protection under the law, for every person, regardless of race, creed or sexual orientation. As you have made abundantly clear, creed is a barrier to you, that you take offense to and therefore should be banned from every place where people who are not in 100 percent agreement gather. How bigoted is that? I whole heartedly support separation of church and state, as I have made very clear. What I find objectionable is when zealots like you want to push all religion out of the public square. That is clearly unconstitutional, as well as sanctimonious. I find it the height of arrogance for you to say that "I took offense at the grace someone led at our holiday party - I felt it should non-denominational." This is perfect evidence that you want to deny people their rights to practice their religion freely. If I said a public prayer, there is only one way I could pray -- as a Christian, otherwise why pray? To me, if I don't pray in the name of Jesus, the prayer is meaningless. That is the very meaning of freedom of religion, that we can believe our own doctrines and practice them. But, oh, we must not offend Beth, because she's terribly sensitive about these things -- if we're going to offend Beth, we better water down our beliefs -- because, gosh darn it, offending someone is the worst sin of all!!! This thing about evidence really gets my goat -- are you absolutely denying that you haven't said that religious people should not be able to use public facilities? Are you denying you ever said that? I mean, if you're denying it, then, well, I'm wrong, you're not hostile to religious people. But if you are, then the evidence is in your own words. Because to deny anybody their fundamental, constitutionally protected rights is to treat them as second class citizens, which is a form of hostility. If you can't see that, sorry, I can't help you any further. Furthermore, I haven't made any assumptions. I have your own words to go on. The evidence is plain and clear. Just read your own posts. Just read this post. Furthermore, I'm also irritated because I posted a rather conciliatory note -- as conciliatory as possible without retracting my opinions -- and I expected that to be the end of it. Instead of taking the olive branch, you have chosen to continue this emotionally-charged debate with more angry words, words that are not substantiated by the plain evidence and only further enflame the situation. You're not going to bully me into backing down, Beth. No matter how much you twist my words, I will restate my position over and over, whether you want to believe it or not. With each post you make, the evidence mounts as to your true feelings. H. -----Original Message----- From: BethF [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 9:14 AM To: CF-Community Subject: Re: Church and State So, you can randomly accuse people of hostility and bigotry and don't have to show evidence. I haven't accused anyone of anything, so I wouldn't need to show evidence, now would I? I believe that the separation of church and state protects my religious freedom and therefore public schools shouldn't have religious clubs. It has nothing to do with being hostile towards anyone, it has to do with protecting my rights. If you can't see that thats your problem. If you choose to see that as bigotry on my part then I have to feel sad that you live with such paranoia - of course folks MUST be horrible, hostile, anti-xtian bigots if they think that the separation of church and state is a good thing. Your exchange WAS personal and WAS inappropriate. Your calling other folks hostile was also inappropriate - we were having a very interesting debate about the rights that the constitution gives us and decided that folks who didnt' agree with your opinion must be horrible bigots who are hostile towards you and your churchgoing brethren. How Very Christlike of you to make such a negative assumption about others instead of attempting to see that perhaps they hold different things dear (i.e. our freedom) than you do. You point out our political differences and call me a liberal like its a horrible insult - quite frankly, I am proud of my morals that involve equality and fairness for EVERYONE. I have no hostility towards folks of any religion, and have many friends who are religious - and many who are very xtian. Heck, I have a friend at work who, during a heated discussion about how he felt gays shouldn't be teachers because they try to "convert" kids to homosexuality, told me that this is an XTIAN country and so we should all live by xtian laws. After I threw him out of my cube and kicked him proverbially around the block for a few minutes I let it go and we are friends still. If I don't depise this guy, I surely dont' despise the whole of christianity nor other religious folks. I do despise having prayer - any prayer, imposed upon me at work or in school. I took offense at the grace someone led at our holiday party - I felt it should non-denominational, I took offense at the morning prayer we had in high school over the loudspeaker and I even took offense at the prayer before meetings at the catholic hospital I worked for but quite frankly I could give a crap what religion anyone is. So, if you choose to see bigotry, "hostility" and evil intentions where there is none, thats your prerogative i suppose, but I would hope you would be able to substantiate your accusations of me before making them. --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: Thursday, January 31, 2002 10:15 PM Subject: RE: Church and State > 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
