You may be arguing for re-installation, but you are arguing for something that has been deemed unconstitutional. Your email is full of facts but devoid of any causal link and as such, the entire premise of the email is faulty. You could argue with the same (lack of) logic that the decline in our schools has been due to the increases for civil rights for African-Americans. I made the argument that prohibition has been the cause of the decline in our schools earlier in this thread and even that argument was faulty due to lack of a causal link. It would be just as easy to say that the decline of our schools is correlated with the increases in technology we have seen over the past 50 years as it is to say that it is correlated with what you decry as "activist" judges doing their job. The Founders avoided the pitfall because they erected a strong barrier between church and state. They codified it into the supreme law of our land and now people like you want to reverse the work of judges who have deemed what has gone on until recently as unconstitutional. You can throw out more garbage like this silly email if you like, but as has been shown ad nauseum in this thread, there is no causal link beween the decline in our schools and what you see as the "removal of God" from them.
Originally posted by andymoon You may be arguing for re-installation, but you are arguing for something that has been deemed unconstitutional. Your email is full of facts but devoid of any causal link and as such, the entire premise of the email is faulty. You could argue with the same (lack of) logic that the decline in our schools has been due to the increases for civil rights for African-Americans. I made the argument that prohibition has been the cause of the decline in our schools earlier in this thread and even that argument was faulty due to lack of a causal link. It would be just as easy to say that the decline of our schools is correlated with the increases in technology we have seen over the past 50 years as it is to say that it is correlated with what you decry as "activist" judges doing their job. <b>Can you make any kind of sensible argument that increases for civil rights of African-Americans has led to disrespect for property and authority, less consideration for others, and rejection of authority? No, I doubt it. Now can you make the argument for those same results due to removal of Godly influences from the life of the school? Yes, I think so. If you think not, tell me how and why.</b> The Founders avoided the pitfall because they erected a strong barrier between church and state. They codified it into the supreme law of our land and now people like you want to reverse the work of judges who have deemed what has gone on until recently as unconstitutional. You can throw out more garbage like this silly email if you like, but as has been shown ad nauseum in this thread, there is no causal link beween the decline in our schools and what you see as the "removal of God" from them. <b>Garbage is in the eye of the beholder. Those Godly principles in our institutions survived for almost two hundred years-- now all of a sudden they were unconstitutional. Is there any way you can prove that the removal of God was not causal?</b>
Then you need to get out more. There are probably tomes written about serial killers in Eastern Asia (where Buddhism is the norm) and since crime isn't at 0% in those areas, I would assume that there are Buddhist thugs. Personally, I don't think that serial killers and thugs are TRULY following the religion they grew up with, no matter if that religion is Xian, Buddhist, or Wiccan. You can think that all you like, but it is just as disrespectful to have Xian ceremonies, prayers, or other activities in school if you do not or (more likely) cannot appeal to ALL of the religions equally. Religion is a private thing that should be taught in the homes, not the schools. The respectful thing to do is follow the constitution and practice your religion as YOU see fit (and teach your children that if you like) rather than fighting to see that religion get reintroduced into our schools. Someone saw these rites (prayers, whatever) as disrespectful of their religion and the judges have agreed that these activities should not be held in the schools. That is their right just as it is your right to believe what you want and to teach your children those beliefs. How would you feel if your children were forced by the state to go to a school that regularly had Muslim of Buddhist rituals? Right, like slavery, women's suffrage, worker's rights, and discrimination were. Sometimes, current practices must change because they are wrong. Just because we did it "one way for a couple of hundred years" does not make that way right.
Not on that one, but I can easily make a VERY strong argument that prohibition has DIRECTLY caused all of that. If you want to debate THAT point, I will be happy to, but I did not want to hijack your thread. You can make some pretty weak arguments to that effect, but with very little causal link. I can show a pretty strong causal link to prohibition with all of the problems you decry above, just let me know if you would like to have that debate. Just like slavery survived for four hundred years in this country. Just like women were denied the right to vote for a hundred and fifty years. Those things were wrong so they had to change. Just like God in schools. No, just as you cannot prove that it was. Again, if you would like to explore the causal link between prohibition and the decline in our schools, I can make a VERY strong case. You simply cannot because there is no causal link (or at the very least, your initial post and subsequent rebuttals have utterly failed to establish one).
Your comments were disrespectful and ignorant, PERIOD. And before that it was typically American Indian. Weren't their beliefs "rooted out" by the Christians, or do their beliefs not even count with you? We could of been a lot more religiously tolerant from the beginning, unfortunately we were not. I don't want it to suit me, I want it to be able to suit everyone. That's right. It is destructive and not good enough when it is exclusive in a religiously diverse society. This thread is proof to that.
You do not really want to air out sides, giddy. You posted this lame email in order to promote your view and to show others how you are right. It backfired, though, because the email is silly. But I will discuss it with you. I think you are wrong. I know the real answer. The truth is that, in the beginning, the US was a great friend of France. As history has progressed, our country has developed farther and farther away from the French. Liberté, Egalité, and Fraternité have been replaced with Freedom Fries and and surrender jokes. Lacan, Baudelaire, and Proust have been replaced with Schlessinger, O'Reily, and Clancy. It is no surprise, then, that US schools have deteriorated and life sucks. French schools do not have these problems. Coincidence? Obviously not. You cannot convince me I am wrong, by the way, but I am glad we can discuss this important issue.
Do you really think I post things such as this just waiting for the throng of atheists, elitists, secularists to scurry their little fingers across their keyboards to tell me I'm right? Goody, goody, they can't get here fast enough! Wake up, rimbaud... I know that I am headed into a pit of vipers when I post stuff. And you think that I'm unbelievable. What planet are you on... now?
Originally posted by andymoon Not on that one, but I can easily make a VERY strong argument that prohibition has DIRECTLY caused all of that. If you want to debate THAT point, I will be happy to, but I did not want to hijack your thread. You can make some pretty weak arguments to that effect, but with very little causal link. I can show a pretty strong causal link to prohibition with all of the problems you decry above, just let me know if you would like to have that debate. <b>Go ahead. This thread has already been hijacked a couple of times. I want to hear how prohinition has ruined the American public school system.</b> Just like slavery survived for four hundred years in this country. Just like women were denied the right to vote for a hundred and fifty years. Those things were wrong so they had to change. Just like God in schools. <b>Hoo-boy. God in schools is just as bad (or is it worse) than slavery was for America. That is a stretch.</b> No, just as you cannot prove that it was. Again, if you would like to explore the causal link between prohibition and the decline in our schools, I can make a VERY strong case. You simply cannot because there is no causal link (or at the very least, your initial post and subsequent rebuttals have utterly failed to establish one). <B>If you'll go back and re-read the thread, I told Dr. Robert that neither he nor I (not you) could prove any of this... it was just up for discussion. That's just the way it is. How do you prove anything in social science?</b>
I will post to that effect in the near future. I never said it was AS BAD as slavery, just that they are among two of the things that were wrong with this country and have now been changed for the better. Just like women's suffrage, just like anti-discrimination law, and just like environmental regulation. It has been discussed and dismissed as it should have been before it was ever posted. This does not even come close to reaching the level of "social science" since the science part of that actually involves looking at causal links and things like that, something that you (and the piece you posted) have not even attempted to do. Just because somebody puts a few facts together and mass emails them does not create a causal link.
No, I don't think you care. I just think it brings you pleasure to pass stuff like this on. You think that you are right and that is all that matters. That was my point. I realize I shouldn't have said the "backfired" thing because that confused matters. I meant that the email issue took precedence to the "substance" issue. You didn't want that. You enjoy the conflict, sure. It defines most of your posting here. You always post non-sensical sayings such as this. What planet am I on...now? Seriously, what does that mean? Is it an insult? Well, since you misunderstood my point...I guess I am on the same planet as when I began. I don't think you are unbelievable, giddy, I just think that you are funny. Seeing you get sanctimonious, combined with the non-sensical (or simply misplaced) sayings, make you a joy to read.
'Festivus' Shares Space With Fla. Nativity Wed Dec 22,11:59 PM ET Add to My Yahoo! U.S. National - AP By SARA KENNEDY, Associated Press Writer BARTOW, Fla. - When a church group put a nativity scene on public property, officials warned it might open the door to other religious — and not-so-religious — displays. They were right. Related Links � Festivus (Y! Directory) Since the nativity was erected in Polk County, displays have gone up honoring Zoroastrianism and the fake holiday Festivus, featured on the TV show "Seinfeld." The Polk County Commission voted 4-1 Wednesday to permit the nativity scene to remain across the street from the courthouse, as well as to make that area a "public forum" open to any type of display. But the commission insisted that unless someone claims a particular display and submits a written request asking it remain, it would be removed. By Wednesday evening, no one had claimed the Festivus display, and the commission said it would come down; a woman claimed the Zoroastrianism display, which was to stay. The debate began Dec. 15 when a handmade creche with the figures of Joseph, Mary and baby Jesus was erected by a Bible study group from the First Baptist Church of Bartow. "The real spirit of Christmas is the birth of Christ," said Marvin Pittman, a retired law enforcement officer and parishioner. "We felt it needs to be in the public eye, so we did it." Other displays are fine, too, he said, adding, "If somebody wants to do that, it's their right." And true to form, the site almost immediately sprouted alternative displays, including a simple sign that reads: "Festivus for the Rest of Us — Donated to Polk County by the Seinfeld Fan Club." The display, a reference to the fake holiday featured on an episode of the television sitcom, did not include the totem of Festivus — a bare aluminum pole instead of a tree. Key rituals of Festivus include accusing others of being a disappointment and wrestling. Another display celebrating Zoroastrianism was erected by Stella Darby, who wanted to encourage people to research the ancient Persian religion. Richard Blank, a member of the American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites), objected to the nativity scene's presence on public property, arguing it violates the constitutional separation of church and state. "The nativity scene is totally celebratory of the birth of Christ," he said. "Not everyone subscribes to that, and those who do should put it on their own property." But a board member who voted to allow the creche as part of the "public forum" disagreed with Blank. "A group had asked to display a scene important to their beliefs; I felt we shouldn't suppress their right to do so," said Commissioner Samuel K. Johnson.
<b>My</b> point was that it is not social science and so this standard of proof that you demand is not appropriate because likewise you cannot prove anything you would assert yet you demand it of me while I don't demand it of you. As I said, it's up for discussion... What do you mean when you say it has been discussed and dismissed before it was ever posted? Is that another Red State-Blue State thing? Don't take this personally, but isn't that kind of arrogant? Since when is the role of God is not up for discussion in our public institutions...
Originally posted by rimbaud No, I don't think you care. I just think it brings you pleasure to pass stuff like this on. You think that you are right and that is all that matters. That was my point. I realize I shouldn't have said the "backfired" thing because that confused matters. I meant that the email issue took precedence to the "substance" issue. You didn't want that. <b>I know that you would rather have me going around on a daily basis thinking I am wrong... do you do that? What kind of POV is that! Of course I think I'm right. Everyone thinks they're right with some small or large measure of doubt thrown in. What is it with the email issue? Why can't people take the words at face value. This probably started somewhere as a letter to the editor. What about converting it to email makes it illegitimate? Is that just some kind of convenient defamation?</b> You enjoy the conflict, sure. It defines most of your posting here. <b>The conflict comes from the tone and the attitude of those who differ. There is civility and then there's sarcasm, insult... the list goes on..</b> You always post non-sensical sayings such as this. What planet am I on...now? Seriously, what does that mean? Is it an insult? Well, since you misunderstood my point...I guess I am on the same planet as when I began. I don't think you are unbelievable, giddy, I just think that you are funny. Seeing you get sanctimonious, combined with the non-sensical (or simply misplaced) sayings, make you a joy to read. <b>Here's what you wrote: "You do not really want to air out sides, giddy. You posted this lame email in order to promote your view and to show others how you are right." I guess in the future I should post things which I think will promote your point of view. Is that how it's supposed to work. andymoon posts endlessly (almost) on de-criminalization of drugs. Do you criticize him for this? Is this not a flaw according to you. How dare he post something with which he agrees and which promotes his point of view and how dare he attempt to validate his position. What's wrong with the guy?! The facts that you hold someone (me) with whom you are prone to disagree with to an illogical standard and then surmise that I am so naive as to not expect disagreement is exactly the reason why I sarcastically ask you what planet you are from. If you would think about it objectively at all it is not non-sensical. Only because you consider yourself unassailable does it appear to be non-sensical. Merry Christmas!</b>
The standard of proof I "demand" is the standard of proof that would be necessary to even assert that removing God from schools has caused ANY of the things decried in the email. It is up for discussion and I believe that the discussion has shown that this email is a garbage piece designed to fan religious flames. I said it was discussed and dismissed and then said that it SHOULD have been dismissed before you even posted it. You should have seen through the illogical and unfounded claims. If you had written a post yourself in which you made the statement that you thought that there might be some relationship between the decline in our schools and the removal of God from them, I might have taken it seriously. I might also have taken it seriously if you had any sort of data regarding when religion began to be removed from the schools along with correlated evidence describing the problems in our schools. As it is, you posted a piece of garbage with many facts but no causal link and no evidence of such a link, but the piece DID go ahead and make the claim that these two things were related. It is certainly up for discussion, but this piece did not prove its "point" and neither have you.
For the umpteenth time: the piece was posted to provoke discussion not to be some kind of shut-down proof of anything. Your versioin of the discussion "demands" a proof which can never be offered just as cannot any proof be offered that denies there is a causal relationship between the ousting of God and the decay of public schools. It can't be "proved" in either discussion. It is only a topic for discussion. When was all this "discussed and dismissed?" I'm especially interested in the dismissed part. The claims are not illogical; they are just unproven. You are condemning the piece for having an opinion. Isn't that kind of PC police? If you agreed with the opinion, I assume it would be okay to express it--- like all of your pro-decriminalization stuff?
It did. It provoked discussion regarding how unfounded the claims are and how they do not necessarily have anything to do with the real causes of the problems in our schools. In the absence of any kind of evidence, the discussion must logically end at "this email is a bunch of fluff with no substance whatsoever." I am saying that YOU should have dismissed it when you read it and not even posted it in the first place. If you wanted to base a post on this email, I think it would have been better received if you had written it in your own words or if you had presented anything that remotely indicated that there was a causal relationship or both. I think what people here get annoyed with is the posting of stupid chain emails like this one that have absolutely nothing to do with reality. I disagree. I don't see any logical way that not having school prayer could have led to Columbine (or any of the other horrors detailed) in any way, shape or form. The claims are both illogical AND unproven. I am not condemning the piece for having an opinion, I am condemning it for trying to draw a conclusion from a set of loosely (or not at all) related facts. At least when I post an opinion piece about prohibition, the author generally uses evidence and causality to draw conclusions. Generally, in the absence of such, I either do not post the piece or I follow it up with evidence that I reasearch myself.
Do you incorrectly interpret everything I say on purpose, giddy? You are quite good at it. It certainly makes your argument easier. Surprisingly, you missed the point. Mine was that you posted something that you think is right and cannot really be proven or argued. I was saying you left little room for discussion, something you claimed you wanted. That was why I brought up the French thing. It cannot be proven but I am positive I am right, so why won't you discuss it with me? Surprisingly, you missed the point. Mine was that the email issue became the most important aspect of this thread at first. That made you sad because you wanted to "discuss" God in school. That was why I said your thread backfired on you. I, personally, made no value judgement on the fact that you got it in an email. Understand yet? Surprisingly you missed the point. Mine was not that you didn't expect disagreement or tha t you should prmomote my worldview but that you posted something for "discussion" in such a way that it cannot really be discussed. You think you are right and also don't think there is any evidence for any position out there. So, again, what did you want to discuss? Even peripherally Doctor Robert tried to mention studies and analysis invovling a much wider range of issues and you immediately brushed it aside as easily mistaken and impossible to prove and somehow interpreted his posts as him arguing that nothing is wrong with schools (yes, I realize that was a painful sentence). That is silly and does not promote discussion. I look forward to seeing what arguments you think I am making in your next post. This, actually, is pure gold. I know this is an easy position for you to hold, but it is beyond absurd.
Originally posted by rimbaud Do you incorrectly interpret everything I say on purpose, giddy? You are quite good at it. It certainly makes your argument easier. <b>No I don't, but you deliberately write obtusely or with some subtle entendre. You come at almost nothing head-on.</b> Surprisingly, you missed the point. Mine was that you posted something that you think is right and cannot really be proven or argued. I was saying you left little room for discussion, something you claimed you wanted. That was why I brought up the French thing. It cannot be proven but I am positive I am right, so why won't you discuss it with me? <b>Can't be proven? I agree. Can be discussed? I disagree. There was plenty of room for discussion but everyone kept demanding proof for something which cannot be proven. I didn't take your French thing seriously.</b> Surprisingly, you missed the point. Mine was that the email issue became the most important aspect of this thread at first. That made you sad because you wanted to "discuss" God in school. That was why I said your thread backfired on you. I, personally, made no value judgement on the fact that you got it in an email. Understand yet? <b>Of course I got that. I was more irritated than sad because people were derailing the topic to pick on a detail that I think is of no importance. I regret that they can't see past their own prejudice against a letter to the editor that eventually got circulated as an email. That ruined it somehow, I guess. This is a refrain that I hear a lot, but I won't let that narrow-minded view deter me. Words on a page or a screen have meaning which can be discussed, dissected, or devalued.</b> Surprisingly you missed the point. Mine was not that you didn't expect disagreement or tha t you should prmomote my worldview but that you posted something for "discussion" in such a way that it cannot really be discussed. <b>Not true. It can't be proven, but I wasn't the one looking for proof. Others were doing that. I was looking for opinions and discussion.</b> You think you are right and also don't think there is any evidence for any position out there. <b>I was just turning the argument around for the sake of rhetoric. Doc Robert, Meowgi, andymoon et al kept telling me I couldn't prove anything so that I might as well shut up. I pointed out that they couldn't prove anything either, so let's both discuss the idea.</b> So, again, what did you want to discuss? Even peripherally Doctor Robert tried to mention studies and analysis invovling a much wider range of issues and you immediately brushed it aside as easily mistaken and impossible to prove and somehow interpreted his posts as him arguing that nothing is wrong with schools (yes, I realize that was a painful sentence). That is silly and does not promote discussion. <b>Doc Robert mentioned one thing specifically: the increase in literacy over the last 150 years. Big woop. I never said that that was impossible to prove; that kind of improvement is to be expected... from the inception of public schooling in America. He talked of his family full of teachers and how they think that the public schooling is so much better. From the get-go, Doc was trying to shut my topic down by criticising my source, yet you want to accuse me of being the one who wouldn't promote discussion.</b> I look forward to seeing what arguments you think I am making in your next post. <b>I don't have time. It's Christmas Eve at 11 PM and I'm off to be and then out of town for the better part of a week.</b> This, actually, is pure gold. I know this is an easy position for you to hold, but it is beyond absurd. <b>Perhaps if you looked at it from where I sit, you would see it on the very near side of absurd. I freely admit to being argumentative here, because almost no one else is interested. I'm not willing to see these topics just shut down by 4-5 attack dogs. If I remember correctly, andymoon described God in schools as a more serious problem that took longer to squash than the awarding of civil rights. I have a really tough time with that. I'm off.</b>