uh, its a simple as I am pro separation of church and state. My belief is that a public school shouldn't have a religious club.
Howard has apparently interpreted this that I think religious groups should not be allowed to meet at a school or other public building. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Erika L. Walker-Arnold" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 6:47 PM Subject: RE: Church and State > OK. Now, I may be a bit sleepy, but I was trying to follow this one, and now > I'm lost. > > Please forgive my inability to decipher the posts, I am just curious as to > the bottom line. In ONE or TWO sentences at most, can you two (Beth and > Howard) tell me what your belief is on this point? > > Who advocates what? > > I re-read and re-read, but it just doesn't seem to gel in my mind. > <confused> > > Don't ask me why it's important to me, I have no idea. It's late, and I feel > like I've written 1,000 queries, and half of the double and triple joins. > <sigh> > > :) > > Erika > ----------------------------------------------------- > > >>|-----Original Message----- > >>|From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >>|Sent: 02 February 2002 03:24 > >>|To: CF-Community > >>|Subject: RE: Church and State > >>| > >>| > >>|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. > >>|> > > > >>|> > > > >>|> > > > >>|> > > > >>|> > > > >>|> > > > >>|> > > > >>|> > > > >>|> > > > >>|> > > >>|> > > >>|> > >>|> > >>| > >>| > ______________________________________________________________________ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
