RMJ, for future reference, when somebody calls you out for acting like a baby and hurling insults whenever your intellectual positions are challenged, it's not exactly buttressing your position to respond by acting like a baby and hurling insults. Cheers.
Just calling it like it is ... I'm not the one going around saying that my argument(which I still havn't even seen a real argument) is correct because I have "expensive degrees"
See, again RMJ, you seem to be making the same mistake and are inserting an unwelcome ad hominem element into the proceedings. Your argument stands and falls on its own merits, whether I'm a practicing logician or a garbageman. I've outlined, in pretty clear detail, why it necessarily fails. You can either recognize that and try to counter it or modify it; or continue insulting me personally. Apparently you've made your choice. But if you wish to respond substantively, the ball remains in your court.
Well seeing as how your "argument" boils down to nothing more than "your argument is wrong" ... I guess that leaves me only one choice of what I can do.
Sam ... I completely disagree with your argument, and I consider you saying that "broccoli influences politics" makes as much sense as "religion influencing politics" a personal attack. You insulted me saying that my argument makes no sense whatsover without making any actual points. Obviously religion and politics have an influence on each other and I know you believe that even if you don't want to say it. I should not have resorted to that same low tactic of bashing you and for that I apologize.
Again, I will mention that religion influences politics only for SOME (you are apparently in this group). Some of us actually have the ability to separate politics and religion in our minds and lives. Just because you cannot does not mean that others share your limitations.
Thanks. But the heart of the problem is this: YOU believe that religion influences politics.....I don't share that belief, or at least don't allow religion to influence my politics any more (and probably less) than math, science etc. That's an unworkable outcome, because the same rationale that leads you to the disallowance of politics can be allowed to remove all academic subjects. Therefore, you saying that religion influences politics is equally bizarre to me, on an intellecutal level, as me saying that broccoli influences politics is to you. Accordingly, we are stuck at an impasse. Your arguments; that religion and poltics shouldn't be taught at school because they influence each other, need a new and better premise, or perhaps your thesis should be modified: i.e. Religion and politics should only be taught in school for historical purposes (ex. surely there is no problem with writing an essay on the crusades or writing one on the anti-war movement in the 1960's)
First off if religion influences politics for some then Religion DOES have an influence on politics in general. Some people don't care about hearing religous material in school and some do ... Some people don't care about hearing political messages in school and some do. Even if they are completely separate. If religous expressions are limited as they are, then political messages are going to be also. Yes .. maybe it doesn't bother you, but for many that have to go to that school it does. My whole point was that many of you on this board were saying that this kid should have the freedom of speech and he was censored and that is wrong. I'm saying that if it had been religous censorship (or if it had been a big anti-abortion message on the basis of religion) many would be crying that their kids should not have to hear that. There is a double standard here.
Actually I should say that I don't believe religion and politics shouldn't be included in school. I believe that students should be allowed to express themselves as much as they want regarding religion and politics, even if everyone can hear it on TV if everyone has the same access. The problem is that when students have done religous activities they have often been punished and the liberals all say that beliefs like that shouldn't be forced on other people who have to be at that school, but now when it is a liberal poem that is at issue liberals are crying "Censorship!"
The issue is that politics is the means to get moral/religious beliefs incorporated into law. To that extent religion influences politics in general. If religion doesn't influence politics, why can't I buy a beer in Texas at 11:00 AM Sunday morning?
Let's try it another way. If the Faculty scheduled a political announcement over the intercom, I would have a problem with it. If a student reads their political thoughts over the intercom, I have no problem with it. If the Faculty scheduled a religious announcement over the intercom, I would have a problem with it. If a student reads their religious thoughts over the intercom, I have no problem with it. I see no double-standard. Do you?
Same here. I rarely get into the political discussion threads. Even when I hit the "Reply" button and start typing, I often choose not to hit the "Submit Reply" button by the time I'm done. It just seems pointless. Too many zealots on both sides, and not enough substance.
OK this is my point ... I agree with your lists completely. The double standard among liberals is on your last rule there. A student is NOT allowed to read a religous thought over the intercom and when something like that occurs most liberals cry and say their kid shouldnt have to hear it and the ACLU would side with the kid not having to hear it. My point was that this political poem was no different in being read over the intercom and liberals such as the ACLU are all over it on the side of saying that the kid was being censored and it was not fair. THAT is the double standard. By your definition of "rules" I totally agree with you. But my whole contention is that those rules are not what is applied in today's schools and liberals (people like the ACLU) only agree with your first 3 rules and not the 4th.
