|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/30/2005 08:40:04 PM · #526 |
Originally posted by RonB:
[quote=louddog] Okay, so then if I'm a leader of a satanic cult, the christian school that your group ended up at can not refuse my group from renting out the same space, legally. Could they stop me from putting a sandwich board out front saying "Devil Worship here" while I'm renting it out? |
NO, if they did NOT stop other groups from putting a sandwich board out front. YES, if they DID stop other groups.
Originally posted by louddog:
If they allow your sign I imagine they'd have to allow mine. |
Yes, I imagine that they would also.
Originally posted by louddog:
Good info to know. |
Yes, it is.
You think maybe this is why God has not authorized the Church to be in the rental business? |
|
|
|
03/30/2005 08:44:46 PM · #527 |
Originally posted by louddog:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by louddog:
Originally posted by RonB:
Just out of curiosity, would you consider that any of the groups who successfully sued for equal rights were impaired from practicing their beliefs, prior to their suits? |
I didn't read the cases all that closely but I'd say no. |
So, when GeneralE originally said
Originally posted by GeneralE:
You are free to practice your beliefs as long as that doesn't impair my ability to practice mine. |
assuming that you are in agreement with that statement, I have two questions:
1) What would you consider to be an "impairment"?
2) What practice(s) of my beliefs COULD or WOULD impair your ability to practice yours? |
I'd agree with GeneralE's statement, but I wasn't trying to make any point based off of it. I just didn't think your group was impaired.
1. To impair is to damage something. Your right to practice your beliefs was forcibly relocated, but not damaged (matter of opinion of course). If there was no other place in town to do it, or every place in town gave you the boot then I'd say your rights were impaired. You were simply inconvenienced That happens all the time to everyone for all sorts of reasons. Talk to someone that is gay, handicapped or a racial minority and see how much sympathy your groups story or impairment gets. Of course that's just my opinion so if you disagree, you can say so and we don't need to argue about it because we are already way off topic. |
My dictionary says of "impair": "To cause to diminish, as in strength, value, or quality".
1) We USED to worship in a community hall designed like a broadway playhouse, the "santuary" at the school was a gymnasium. To me, that is diminished value or quality.
2) We USED to be on Main Street, the School was three miles outside of town on a rural road. As a result, our attendance dropped. To me, that is diminshed strength, and value.
3) That's where I'm coming from. But you're right. We don't need to debate it any longer
Originally posted by louddog:
2. None that I know of, but are you up to something I should be aware of? :) |
Not at all, I was just curious as to what level of "inconvenience" would rise to the level of your definition of impairment, based on your own observations of what kinds of things would impair your ability to practice your beliefs.
FWIW, I fully recognize that no matter WHAT burdens one bears, there is ALWAYS someone whose burden is greater. I am not "complaining" about having to move - after all, in the end, the Christian school ended up getting the money that used to go to the government. And as I used to tell my students, sometimes, instead of praying for a lighter burden, we need to pray for a stronger back. |
|
|
|
03/30/2005 10:09:25 PM · #528 |
The Court of Appeals in Atalanta has turned down the petition. One of the judges who heard the petition has rebuked members of the US Federal Government for getting invovled saying they were in direct violation of the US Constitution in their actions.
The Schindlers are now appealing again to the US Suppreme Court.
|
|
|
|
03/30/2005 10:30:40 PM · #529 |
I agree with Louddog, you weren't impaired in your ability to practice your religion and I believe there was no discrimination. This is a matter for the local courts to sort out, and it seems it was done that way in the cases you cited. I think the fear on the part of the local government was that of appearing as if they were favoring a religion.
If I remember correctly, you stated you were a small group, so why didn't you meet in a home of one of the members? Jews are doing this in the US, and as a matter of fact, I attended one of their services back in the 80s.
This, however, is not really the point to have gone off on a tangent about the religious right. Christian fundamentalists (that is, religious leaders) have great access to the media. In fact, they own big television networks, radio networks and publishing houses that not only rival the mainstream media's reach of viewers, listeners and readers, but surpass it so that it can be described as an empire. I would have no problem with this except that the evangelists that own these networks have now changed their message from one of preaching the word of Christ to political activism. A very dangerous precedent is being set. The Republican party and the Christian right have joined forces. Religious organizations as not-for-profits are not supposed to engage in political discourse or take political sides, yet Karl Rove, and other politicians aligning themselves with this large group, are being accessed to become a constituency. It trickles down through airwaves and results in.
The fear is that as more and more political power is amassed by the Christian right, the American people will have less and less choice and control as to how to live their lives. That's the issue...CONTROl. We saw in the Schiavo case how Randall Terry and his minions pounced on this issue. He does not believe in living wills, he is not for choice but he has media access to make people believe there is an issue here that doesn't exist in reality, as demonstrated by all of the courts involved.
Freedom of religion thrives in the United States because of seperation of church and state. The religious leaders, and politicians that cater to the CR groups have openly declared their ambitions to change the US government from a democracy to a theocracy. I can find many instances on the internet of quotations from the likes of Pat Robertson, or Tom DeLay, and many others who wish to convert what should be a secular form government to one of a given religion. Should I not be worried when laws such as the Constitutional Restoration Act is on the table before congress? should I not be worried when there has been intolerance by the CR towards gays, people with Aids, women who wish to undergo abortions, etc.
Originally posted by louddog:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by louddog:
Originally posted by RonB:
Just out of curiosity, would you consider that any of the groups who successfully sued for equal rights were impaired from practicing their beliefs, prior to their suits? |
I didn't read the cases all that closely but I'd say no. |
So, when GeneralE originally said
Originally posted by GeneralE:
You are free to practice your beliefs as long as that doesn't impair my ability to practice mine. |
assuming that you are in agreement with that statement, I have two questions:
1) What would you consider to be an "impairment"?
2) What practice(s) of my beliefs COULD or WOULD impair your ability to practice yours? |
I'd agree with GeneralE's statement, but I wasn't trying to make any point based off of it. I just didn't think your group was impaired.
1. To impair is to damage something. Your right to practice your beliefs was forcibly relocated, but not damaged (matter of opinion of course). If there was no other place in town to do it, or every place in town gave you the boot then I'd say your rights were impaired. You were simply inconvenienced That happens all the time to everyone for all sorts of reasons. Talk to someone that is gay, handicapped or a racial minority and see how much sympathy your groups story or impairment gets. Of course that's just my opinion so if you disagree, you can say so and we don't need to argue about it because we are already way off topic.
2. None that I know of, but are you up to something I should be aware of? :) |
|
|
|
|
03/30/2005 11:55:07 PM · #530 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I agree with Louddog, you weren't impaired in your ability to practice your religion and I believe there was no discrimination. This is a matter for the local courts to sort out, and it seems it was done that way in the cases you cited. I think the fear on the part of the local government was that of appearing as if they were favoring a religion. |
1) In case after case after case the courts have found government institutions, and those accepting government funding, to be in violation when they so discriminate. It appears that you would insist that the same battle be fought in every town and city case by case, at taxpayer expense, rather than admit that it is a violation of the Constitutional rights once and for all.
2) It is completely immaterial whether the local government fears the appearance of favoring a religion or not. Local governments have recourse to obtain a legal opinion before acting, if they wanted to. I know of no municipality that does not have legal counsel on retainer.
3) It is BECAUSE of their illegal actions that they are being sued more and more often. The number of such actions has, in fact, spawned the formation of new law firms whose only purposes are to litigate on behalf of Religious groups that have been discriminated against illegally.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
If I remember correctly, you stated you were a small group, so why didn't you meet in a home of one of the members? Jews are doing this in the US, and as a matter of fact, I attended one of their services back in the 80s. |
Our "small" group consisted of 60-70 congregants - too many for a home. But even if we were only 12, it wouldn't matter. THE ACTION WAS ILLEGAL.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
This, however, is not really the point to have gone off on a tangent about the religious right. Christian fundamentalists (that is, religious leaders) have great access to the media. |
You DID mean SOME religious leaders, did you not?
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
In fact, they own big television networks, radio networks and publishing houses that not only rival the mainstream media's reach of viewers, listeners and readers, but surpass it so that it can be described as an empire. |
None larger than Ted Turner's empire - and he's not exactly pro-Christian.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I would have no problem with this except that the evangelists that own these networks have now changed their message from one of preaching the word of Christ to political activism. |
Christ Himself did not spend ALL of His time praying and preaching the word of God. On one occasion he fashioned a whip out of cords and drove the moneychangers and merchants out of the temple courts. Would you call that activism? I would. He also did what the Judaic law said was illegal - healing the sick on the Sabbath. Was that activism, too? I think so. Therefore, I do not think that political activism is out of line with Christian teaching.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
A very dangerous precedent is being set. The Republican party and the Christian right have joined forces. |
Rather, SOME members of the Republican party and the Christian right have found much in common.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Religious organizations as not-for-profits are not supposed to engage in political discourse or take political sides... |
This last statement is not true. While non-profits are usually enjoined from endorsing specific candidates or parties, or from speaking against specific candidates or parties, they have always been allowed to speak openly about issues, political or otherwise. Many hand out pamphlets in which, for example, the League of Women Voters ask each candidate the same questions. So long as no candidate or party is given unequal treatment, it is perfectly legal. The IRS says of 501(c)(3) organizations in this article
"Organizations may, however, involve themselves in issues of public policy without the activity being considered as lobbying. For example, organizations may conduct educational meetings, prepare and distribute educational materials, or otherwise consider public policy issues in an educational manner without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status."
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
...yet Karl Rove, and other politicians aligning themselves with this large group, are being accessed to become a constituency. It trickles down through airwaves and results in. |
I don't see anything illegal or immoral in politicians aligning themselves with any law-abiding group. I leave it up to voters to decide whether such alignments are something that they wish to support or not.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
The fear is that as more and more political power is amassed by the Christian right, the American people will have less and less choice and control as to how to live their lives. |
We are a government OF the people. If the Christian Right IS succesful in gaining political power, then it means that they ( the Christian Right ) were successful in turning out more voters than those who are opposed to them. In a democracy, like the U.S., that's how it works. If the American people don't want to yield power to politicians leaning toward the right, then they had better go to the polls and vote for their opponents. What you don't seem to be able to understand is that the Christian Right is being energized BECAUSE they feel that their rights are being eroded by those who have been in power - that's why they are becoming more vocal, and more active in politics.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
That's the issue...CONTROl. |
You're right. That is the issue. Those on the right formerly stood by and watched as their political power was eroded, and have seen the results. They don't like what they see. So now they are trying to change the power structure. In accordance with the laws of democracy, of course.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
We saw in the Schiavo case how Randall Terry and his minions pounced on this issue. He does not believe in living wills, he is not for choice but he has media access to make people believe there is an issue here that doesn't exist in reality, as demonstrated by all of the courts involved. |
We also saw how George Felos and his minions pounced on the issue. He is a right-to-die advocate, but he, too, has media access to make people believe his side of the issue.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Freedom of religion thrives in the United States because of seperation of church and state. The religious leaders, and politicians that cater to the CR groups have openly declared their ambitions to change the US government from a democracy to a theocracy. |
That would be "SOME" religious leaders, right - please remember the qualifier.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I can find many instances on the internet of quotations from the likes of Pat Robertson, or Tom DeLay, and many others who wish to convert what should be a secular form government to one of a given religion. |
And I could find many that wish to push ALL religion out of the country. So what? And what difference does it matter what Pat Robertson wishes? It is the voters who decide who gets elected to the legislature. And the legislature that decides what laws are passed.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Should I not be worried when laws such as the Constitutional Restoration Act is on the table before congress? should I not be worried when there has been intolerance by the CR towards gays, people with Aids, women who wish to undergo abortions, etc. |
Frankly, if I were you, I'd be worried as to why someone or some group had been pushed to the point where they thought such legislation was even necessary. It must be because they feel that their rights are being excessively abridged and/or that laws are being passed that run contrary to their sensibilities. You're the pacifist. Talk to them. Negotiate with them.
And, once again, I request that when you say that there has been intolerance by the CR towards gays, people with Aids, etc, that you use the qualifier "SOME", as in "there has been intolerance by SOME in the CR towards gays" etc. You do seem to have a difficult time in adapting your rhetoric to the standards that have been suggested.
Message edited by author 2005-03-31 00:17:55. |
|
|
|
03/31/2005 12:38:16 AM · #531 |
I did at one time look forward to seeing the debates in this thread as they related to the Terri Shiavo Controversy.
Unfortunately, we seem to have digressed to the point that we are now dealing with a totally different matter.
Perhaps now is a good time to put an end to this thread.
Just a thought. |
|
|
|
03/31/2005 02:15:16 AM · #532 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
I did at one time look forward to seeing the debates in this thread as they related to the Terri Shiavo Controversy.
Unfortunately, we seem to have digressed to the point that we are now dealing with a totally different matter.
Perhaps now is a good time to put an end to this thread.
Just a thought. |
The thread is still usefull and this seems apparent as it is still being used. If you would like to add something that you feel would bring the dicussion back to the original topic feel free to do so.
Oh, by the way, Terri is going to die.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2005 10:08:36 AM · #533 |
Terri Schiavo, the brain-damaged Florida woman at the heart of a bitter right-to-die dispute that drew in the U.S. Congress and President Bush, died on Thursday, 13 days after a court halted her tube feeding, a spokesman for her parents said.
RIP
Message edited by author 2005-03-31 10:21:52. |
|
|
|
03/31/2005 10:13:00 AM · #534 |
One would hope that the passing of Terri Shiavo would put an end to this acrimonious debate between the parties involved, but somehow I doubt it.
Message edited by author 2005-03-31 10:19:07. |
|
|
|
03/31/2005 10:31:26 AM · #535 |
Originally posted by RonB:
...It is the voters who decide who gets elected to the legislature. And the legislature that decides what laws are passed. |
This is about the most naive (or is it disingenuous) statement I've ever heard you make here. |
|
|
|
03/31/2005 10:42:21 AM · #536 |
May she now see the peace she never found on earth.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2005 10:57:19 AM · #537 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
...It is the voters who decide who gets elected to the legislature. And the legislature that decides what laws are passed. |
This is about the most naive (or is it disingenuous) statement I've ever heard you make here. |
I'll have to take your word for it, since you don't explain what there is about that statement that strikes you as being either naive or disengenuous. But, for what it's worth, One of the synonyms for "naive" is "INgenuous", and "ingenuous" means "openly straightforward or frank". DISingenuous, on the other hand, means "NOT straightforward or candid". So, if I AM naive then I can't be DISINgenuous. You must be confused if you can't tell the difference between two options at opposite ends of the spectrum. |
|
|
|
03/31/2005 11:03:51 AM · #538 |
| This has nothing to do with elected people on either side of the asile. It has all to do with run a muck judges that are making law from the bench and not doing their job or interpurting the law. That is what is dangerous. |
|
|
|
03/31/2005 11:06:10 AM · #539 |
Originally posted by RonB:
I'll have to take your word for it, since you don't explain what there is about that statement that strikes you as being either naive or disengenuous. But, for what it's worth, One of the synonyms for "naive" is "INgenuous", and "ingenuous" means "openly straightforward or frank". DISingenuous, on the other hand, means "NOT straightforward or candid". So, if I AM naive then I can't be DISINgenuous. You must be confused if you can't tell the difference between two options at opposite ends of the spectrum. |
I think he was referring to the defenition of "naive" which means lacking in sophistication or worldliness. Therein, one could be both naive and disingenuous (or not straightforward or candid). |
|
|
|
03/31/2005 11:24:42 AM · #540 |
WOW ! What a will to live !
She just won't die for you will she? |
|
|
|
03/31/2005 11:26:09 AM · #541 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by RonB:
I'll have to take your word for it, since you don't explain what there is about that statement that strikes you as being either naive or disengenuous. But, for what it's worth, One of the synonyms for "naive" is "INgenuous", and "ingenuous" means "openly straightforward or frank". DISingenuous, on the other hand, means "NOT straightforward or candid". So, if I AM naive then I can't be DISINgenuous. You must be confused if you can't tell the difference between two options at opposite ends of the spectrum. |
I think he was referring to the defenition of "naive" which means lacking in sophistication or worldliness. Therein, one could be both naive and disingenuous (or not straightforward or candid). |
So, what do you think strikes him as being naive or disingenuous in the statement I made? |
|
|
|
03/31/2005 11:27:26 AM · #542 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
May she now see the peace she never found on earth. |
Agreed... |
|
|
|
03/31/2005 11:32:41 AM · #543 |
Originally posted by jlhudson:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
May she now see the peace she never found on earth. |
Agreed... |
Absolutely |
|
|
|
03/31/2005 11:33:51 AM · #544 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
WOW ! What a will to live !
She just won't die for you will she? |
You're a little behind on the news apparently. |
|
|
|
03/31/2005 12:22:04 PM · #545 |
Originally posted by RonB:
So, what do you think strikes him as being naive or disingenuous in the statement I made? |
I think you'll have to ask GeneralE what he thinks about your statements are naive and disingenuous. You have this habit of asking posters to defend other posters' statements. I was merely pointing out that you were using a liquid definition of the word "naive" in order to score a cheap debating point.
Note:
Originally posted by RonB:
You must be confused if you can't tell the difference between two options at opposite ends of the spectrum. |
|
|
|
|
03/31/2005 01:00:04 PM · #546 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by RonB:
So, what do you think strikes him as being naive or disingenuous in the statement I made? |
I think you'll have to ask GeneralE what he thinks about your statements are naive and disingenuous. You have this habit of asking posters to defend other posters' statements. I was merely pointing out that you were using a liquid definition of the word "naive" in order to score a cheap debating point.
Note:
Originally posted by RonB:
You must be confused if you can't tell the difference between two options at opposite ends of the spectrum. |
|
But, by that post, you had already established that you had thoughts about what GeneralE meant by the words he chose, so it was just my natural assumption that you would also have thoughts about what he meant by his entire remark. Perhaps, it would have been better to let Paul explain himself on both counts, instead of jumping in to what appeared to be a dialogue between him and me, even though publicly posted. |
|
|
|
03/31/2005 02:13:01 PM · #547 |
Originally posted by RonB:
But, by that post, you had already established that you had thoughts about what GeneralE meant by the words he chose, so it was just my natural assumption that you would also have thoughts about what he meant by his entire remark. |
You assume incorrectly, then. (Iâve seen you used this curt, literalist tactic several times in prior posts. Fun, isnât it?)
Originally posted by RonB:
Perhaps, it would have been better to let Paul explain himself on both counts, instead of jumping in to what appeared to be a dialogue between him and me, even though publicly posted. |
If you want to have a private conversation with GeneralE, I suggest you both exchange phone numbers or, better yet, one could fly to the otherâs city and you could have a true tête-à -tête over brunch.
When you post on a public form, not only is your argument up for evaluation, criticism and critique, but also your method of debating. If you don't like it pointed out that you used the less logical definition of the word ânaïveâ in the context of GeneralEâs post in order to call him âconfused,â then either defend your method of argument or improve it.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2005 03:00:20 PM · #548 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by RonB:
But, by that post, you had already established that you had thoughts about what GeneralE meant by the words he chose, so it was just my natural assumption that you would also have thoughts about what he meant by his entire remark. |
You assume incorrectly, then. (Iâve seen you used this curt, literalist tactic several times in prior posts. Fun, isnât it?)
Originally posted by RonB:
Perhaps, it would have been better to let Paul explain himself on both counts, instead of jumping in to what appeared to be a dialogue between him and me, even though publicly posted. |
If you want to have a private conversation with GeneralE, I suggest you both exchange phone numbers or, better yet, one could fly to the otherâs city and you could have a true tête-à -tête over brunch.
When you post on a public form, not only is your argument up for evaluation, criticism and critique, but also your method of debating. If you don't like it pointed out that you used the less logical definition of the word ânaïveâ in the context of GeneralEâs post in order to call him âconfused,â then either defend your method of argument or improve it. |
Less logical definition? Are you implying that the dictionary provides some "logical" definitions and some that are "less logical"?
And, to be specific, I did not use a "definition" of naive at all, even though you falsely accuse me of such. Rather, I referred to what the dictionary listed as a SYNONYM for 'naive', and used the definition of THAT word ( ingenuous ), not the definition of the word 'naive'. It appears that it is YOU who have used a cheap debating tactic - twisting what I posted into something SIMILAR yet DIFFERENT, and then deriding me for what YOU say I posted rather than what I actually posted. |
|
|
|
03/31/2005 03:32:46 PM · #549 |
Just strike the freaking parenthetical "disingenuous" and accept that the general called your statement "naive". Don't try to tie us all up in semantics, as if it will make the "naive" part go away.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2005 03:38:45 PM · #550 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by David Ey:
WOW ! What a will to live !
She just won't die for you will she? |
You're a little behind on the news apparently. |
Yeah, well fax is fax no matter what time it is. I have a business to run and can't stay in front of tne pc all day.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/16/2025 02:59:30 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/16/2025 02:59:30 AM EDT.
|
