Re: A question to Stan

"Ernie Wisdom" <ewisdom@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
"Brian Westley" <westley@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:12fu8ju9sg0it3a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Ernie Wisdom" <ewisdom@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
"Brian Westley" <westley@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:12fp3072a73fga9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Ernie Wisdom" <ewisdom@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
"Brian Westley" <westley@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:12fjff9o4r7f70e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Ernie Wisdom" <ewisdom@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
"Chimp" <pan_paniscus1859@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1157207375.348777.87040@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Stan,
Would it be acceptable for a public school to demand that boys
swear to do their "duty to God" as a condition of playing in the
school's football team.

Realize that, with this oath, nothing is expected of them that isn't
"an integral part of our culture and heritage". Hence, according to
you "ALL boys would be eligible" and "no boy would be excluded".

Also, would it be acceptable for a public school to demand
that boys swear to do their "duty to God" as a condition of
attending math class? Again, nothing in that oath isn't
"an integral part of our culture and heritage".

Chimp

Chimp,



In that strange alternative universe world:


Would it be acceptable for a public school to demand that boys
swear never to mention God as a condition of playing in the
school's football team?

Realize that, with this oath, nothing is expected of them that isn't
"an integral part of our culture and heritage". Hence, according to
you "ALL boys would be eligible" and "no boy would be excluded".

Also, would it be acceptable for a public school to demand
that boys swear that they have no religious affiliation as a condition
of
attending math class? Again, some believe that no oath is
"an integral part of our culture and heritage".

In this universe is it right that the view of a few mandate that all
beliefs
be removed but theirs. Where diverse religious flourishes now in this
universe the Creedal Belief of the State is there shall be no mention
of
any
religious belief accept that decreed by the State. With the Motto,
"There
is
no God to Trust in".

Welcome to the world atheists live in, only reversed.

For over 200 years, multiple religions have existed together, while
not
always harmoniously they existed.

Now comes the rise in Atheism, "the unbelief in God or deities"
(Encarta
Dictionary).

It's Creed seems to be that there should be no beliefs other that of
the
allowed and conforming to the beliefs of the Atheists.

No, that's what people who want their religion to be dominant say.

Ernie, which of these is neutral:

1) Having "under god" in the pledge
2) Having "under no gods" in the pledge
3) Having "" in the pledge (pre-1954 version)

You'll notice people only argue about using #1 or #3; I have
seen nobody seriously argue for #2.

In other words, atheists are suing for the government to be NEUTRAL
on religion, NOT to advance atheism.


In my view at the time of the change number 3 would have been the
neutral
choice. One reason I believe that to be so is that it would be a
continuance
of the status quo.

Why "at the time of the change"? Is removing a theistic-promoting
phrase no longer neutral after some period of time? If so, how long?
A year? 10 years? 100 years?

And which of these is neutral:
1) in god we trust
2) there is no god to trust in
3) e pluribus unum

Notice again that people have only actually been arguing for
the theist-promoting version (#1) or the neutral one (#3);
atheists are NOT arguing for the non-neutral #2.

"P.S. Some have pointed out that E Pluribus Unum is also another way of
expressing the Buddhist ideal of becoming One with Everything. Om, baby,
Om!"

This is from http://www.rubyan.com/politics/ while I might think #3 is
neutral it seems others rightly or wrongly do not.

And what is YOUR opinion?

Now Ernie, if you'd like to argue that the "atheists' creed" is
"there should be no beliefs other that of the allowed and
conforming to the beliefs of the Atheists", perhaps you could
come up with some actual examples from real life. I can
easily come up with examples of theists trying to get the
government to promote their theism, but I'm having a hard
time finding atheists trying to get the government to
promote atheism, or to get the government to prevent the
free exercise of religion.

Now the whole quote said "It's Creed seems to be that there should be no
beliefs other that of the
allowed and conforming to the beliefs of the Atheists."

You will note that I said seems to be, and to me that is how it seem.
Could
I be wrong, sure but that is how I see it.

And for what reason, other than your prejudice against atheists?
Do you also see Jews as pernicious, blacks as lazy, and Scots
as cheapskates?

And this universe you live in:
In this universe is it right that the view of a few mandate that all
beliefs
be removed but theirs.

No Ernie, removing unlawful religious promotion by the government is
NEUTRAL, it isn't promoting atheism, no matter how hard you try to
say it is.

While you might feel something is a promotion other might think it is an
historic icon.

And what is YOUR opinion, spineless one?

My opinion is things only get done through civil discourse.
My opinion is name calling rarely is a good idea.
My opinion is coming up with ideas and options is more useful than name
calling.


Some people might think that this part of the first amendment is being
forgotten, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

And what is YOUR opinion, spineless one?


My opinion is things only get done through civil discourse.
My opinion is name calling rarely is a good idea.
My opinion is coming up with ideas and options is more useful than name
calling.


Will YOU actually argue this? You know you'll lose, since the
"free exercise" clause does NOT cover governmental acts.

Of course I will lose because you are the self proclaimed judge and jury.


So, again, what is YOUR opinion?

My opinion is things only get done through civil discourse.
My opinion is name calling rarely is a good idea.
My opinion is coming up with ideas and options is more useful than name
calling.

Well, in MY opinion people have to put forth THEIR opinions
to even begin to have any sort of discourse, civil or not.

Well my opinion is you first must look at who you are speaking to, in my
case it is any third party reader to this thread. It is my judgment that
most people take someone serious that tries to be reasonable and civil. My
opinion is the same as I have stated many times over the years. If you want
to change things go through the process.

If you want to change the BSA go through the process, it is long but look at
how many years you have been at it now.




YOU, so far, haven't even done that. You're making vague
generalizations of what *other people* may or may not think.

That is what people do in a conversation.

No, that's just gossip. In conversation, people offer up their
own opinions, and can even explain why they hold those opinions
by pointing out actual facts.

You haven't been doing this.


Are you turning into Lyin' Jay,
with no direct statements of your own, and just "other people may
say xxxx" so you never have an actual opinion to defend?

This is where we have a different philosophy, I have a point I am trying to
make and quite frankly your statements are making them.

Currently, you haven't made any points, and you've backpedalled
about even holding any opinion.

So let's go back to what you've spouted earlier:

For over 200 years, multiple religions have existed together, while not
always harmoniously they existed.

Now comes the rise in Atheism, "the unbelief in God or deities" (Encarta
Dictionary).

It's Creed seems to be that there should be no beliefs other that of the
allowed and conforming to the beliefs of the Atheists.

Now, do you have enough spine to back up your insulting beliefs?
Or will you again refuse to point out where atheists have done the
above?


You know what might help if you posted the Merlyn LeRoy FAQ so everyone
would know what was allowed and permitted on your newsgroup.

Everything's "allowed", but I don't suffer fools gladly.


Nor should any of us.

Now if there was a change in the Constitution that flat stated the
religious
symbols were ok on government property, thereby making them legal would
it
be ok with you because they were now legal.

Other people somewhere might agree or disagree that it is now legal or
not.

Now, if you want to hear my opinion, you'll have to grow a spine first
and voice YOUR opinion and defend it, instead of giving ridiculously
vague answers like my joke answer above.

Did I ever ask for your opinion? I made a post to Chip and as the owner of
this newsgroup you jumped in. I was just trying to be polite and so I
replied to you.

Well, you started out by lying about atheists, so of course I replied.

I started out doing a mirror parody of a post by Chip and you jumped in
swinging and name calling, right on cue.

Only after you insulted atheists.



Let's say there's a city hall that does not have a 10 commandments
monument in front - is that city hall promoting atheism?

No, of course not.

Now, let's say the mayor puts up a 10 commandments monument, and
someone sues to have it removed.

Is removing the monument promoting atheism?

No, of course not. It only reverts back to the original situation,
which was not promoting atheism.

If a church across the street puts up a 10 commandments monument,
do atheists sue to have it removed?

No, of course not. Which shows that your statement that "the view
of a few mandate that all beliefs be removed but theirs" is a lie.

While my view can be wrong it is still my view so I do not consider
myself
a
liar while you may.

Uh, no. Until you can show actual examples, "your view" is a lie,
just as much a lie as anhy other false statement about the real
world. If you have nothing to back it up, you're lying.
And you don't.

You missed one example.

The Mayor that put it up in the court house did so in 1896. There is no
record of any one converting to anything because of it. It has become
part
of the towns history. Can you see how some people rightly or wrongly
could
see removing it a non-neutral act?

And what is YOUR opinion, spineless one? Is it a neutral act or not?

If you think REALLY hard, you might realize the difference
between a 10 commandments monument in front of city hall,
vs. the same monument in front of a church across the
street, even though both are publically visible.

What about a reglious symbol on goverment land that people want to by
the
land, (at fair market value) would that be ok?

Depends on the situation. Most examples in real life that I know of
go something like this:

1) religious symbol erected on public land, either by the government,
or by a religious group with the OK (or benign neglect) of the local
government.

2) Lawsuits filed over obvious 1st amendment violations.

3) Offers to "fix" it by selling part of the public land to a private
group.

Notice that the above situation still results in only one religious
view being allowed, unless other, similar plots of public land are
also offered on the same terms (and they never are from what I've
seen).

The proper thing to do is remove the symbol that shouldn't have been
put up in the first place. If symbols can be erected on public land,
this must be offered on equal terms to all comers.

So if there was a auction open to all and a group won and allows the
symbol
to stay that would be alright with you? See I knew we could come together.

If, for some reason, a town wanted to sell some public land, yes,
an auction or some other neutral bidding process is the proper
way to do it; you don't allow religious symbol squatters to
unlawfully erect only their symbols on public land and then "fix"
it with a special sale only for their benefit.



And it's lying by people like you that contribute to the
problem, by deliberately distorting what religious rights
are.

I am sorry that you feel I am such a contributor to the problem because
of
the statements I make of my views and the questions I ask.

I don't "feel" that, I'm pointing out facts. You are deliberately
distorting the issues and lying.

Well you must understand that I am an old man and the fact that I have
views
you disagree with makes me a liar.

No, the fact that you've made false statements and you have yet to
give actual, real-world examples to back up your false statements
makes you a liar. I wouldn't consider someone spreading "information"
gleaned from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to be telling "their
view" of the truth, either.


If you mean that when I state my opinion it not my opinion that would make
it false. You could say it was wrong but not false.

Of course I can say it is false.

You seem to get very upset if people do not post in the format of your
choice, perhaps you should post that Merlyn LeRoy FAQ more often.

Like I said, I don't suffer fools gladly.

---
Merlyn LeRoy
.

Relevant Pages

  • OT: "The Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine
    ... Religion. ... opinion might be to mine. ... I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life. ... called Gentiles, or Mythologists, and it was those people only that believed it. ...
    (sci.med.diseases.hepatitis)
  • "The Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine
    ... Religion. ... opinion might be to mine. ... I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life. ... called Gentiles, or Mythologists, and it was those people only that believed it. ...
    (soc.rights.human)
  • Re: Atheists cause trouble over 11-million-dollar Christmas treeinAbuDhabi:)
    ... "Putting the Christmas tree... ... Shame on you, and every other person in the world, of any religion, ... true atheists are religious fundamentalists who can't see ... assumption that God exists, that God doesn't exist, and that whatever this ...
    (rec.crafts.metalworking)
  • Re: Atheists cause trouble over 11-million-dollar Christmas treeinAbuDhabi:)
    ... "Putting the Christmas tree... ... Shame on you, and every other person in the world, of any religion, ... true atheists are religious fundamentalists who can't see ... assumption that God exists, that God doesn't exist, and that whatever this ...
    (rec.crafts.metalworking)
  • Re: Znalezione w sieci - Ten myths about atheism
    ... Most of us believe in a God that is every bit as specious as the gods ... Myth -1) Atheists believe that life is meaningless. ... Myth- 4) Atheists think everything in the universe arose by chance. ... And yet it is the life-blood of faith-based religion. ...
    (soc.culture.polish)