|
|
Post by jbhelfrich on Nov 12, 2008 10:23:59 GMT -8
Kirk- telling these people they can't have it both ways doesn't work and you know it. Because it hasn't worked for 300 years. And actually, in this case they can; tax exempt organizations are preventing from working for and endorsing *candidates* but they are not prohibited from working on behalf of non-partisan ballot initiatives and the like. Even if such a law were passed, it would probably be held as an unconstitutional abridgment of freedom of speech, and I'd have to agree. You cannot advocate religion, so you can set aside a place for students to go pray, but you can't force them to go, and you can't force others to listen to them, and you can't make it in any way part of an official function. So theoretically, yes, I think that would pass the existing constitutional tests. (Though it shouldn't be allowed; we need to stop coddling superstition in this country.) But that's not what they want. There's nothing that *can* stop a student from quietly praying to Eris during his study hall, or his lunch hour. They want people to be forced to listen to, and accept, their version of Truth. But they simplify and mischaracterize their arguments to get their foot in the door. |
|
|
|
Post by jarddavis on Nov 12, 2008 11:18:49 GMT -8
"You cannot advocate religion, so you can set aside a place for students to go pray, but you can't force them to go, and you can't force others to listen to them, and you can't make it in any way part of an official function. So theoretically, yes, I think that would pass the existing constitutional tests. (Though it shouldn't be allowed; we need to stop coddling superstition in this country.) But that's not what they want. There's nothing that *can* stop a student from quietly praying to Eris during his study hall, or his lunch hour. They want people to be forced to listen to, and accept, their version of Truth. But they simplify and mischaracterize their arguments to get their foot in the door. "
This, then, is my entire point in a nutshell. This is the way these people think.
Unfortunately, it's also the way Joe is thinking. And how I think quite often. We want religion out of our lives. We want people to stop shoving their belief systems down our throats. So we fight against it. And in the process become exactly what we're fighting against.
Mind you... I'm not going to stop. I'm just aware of what I'm doing.
|
|
|
|
Post by jbhelfrich on Nov 12, 2008 11:30:22 GMT -8
Is that what this is all about?
Am I aware, that from a certain rhetorical standpoint, you can turn my arguments on their ear and "prove" that I am working against freedom of speech, oppressing people for their belief, and generally betraying everything I say I stand for?
Sure. But I don't give a fuck. I recognize that it's an entirely rhetorical argument designed to stop me from fighting for what I believe is right. I remain confident that my positions result in the highest amount of freedom possible (if you could, for example, calculate the degree of freedom allowed an individual and the number of individuals affected and turn that into a numeric value.) I also recognize that these people are arguing for their right to oppress others, which is a net negative in the hypothetical mathematical calculation, and as such is a necessary sacrifice in the efforts to maximize (rather than perfect) individual freedoms.
I don't shed any tears over this necessity any longer, either.
|
|
|
|
Post by jarddavis on Nov 12, 2008 15:40:58 GMT -8
Not entirely what it's about but at this point I'm sufficiently tired of the argument as I'm sure you are for right now. Let's agree to disagree.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johann Chua on Nov 13, 2008 14:59:00 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Anders on Nov 13, 2008 22:18:19 GMT -8
In Swedish "barack" means "barracks" but I only saw a small note of it on a humor page ("Black barack/barracks in the White House"), nothing on a front page.
|
|
