Should we let Bill Frist & Co. change the rules of the senate ?

I disagree. This is more liberal hysteria. Read Message 112

That’s ridiculous. Do you have proof that these organizations are NOT getting a hearing? How are they being shut out? When have they tried to meet with politicians and been turned away? Show me. It’s not clear at all. You’re spewing dogma. Stereotypical tripe. Your ranting is becoming predictable. The Republicans are in power today because Bush won the swing vote. And by definition, the swing vote can go either way. That’s right, that is exactly what I am saying. They DON’T have as much influence as you seem to think. You believe that these preachers are standing behind the scenes and if the Republicans don’t do their bidding, they will pull away all of their constituent votes. Is that it? They are blackmailing Republicans with votes? That’s pure crap.How exactly does that work? If Dobson disagrees with the Republicans, does he go back to the pulpit and lecture his mindless drone assembly to not support Republican policies? Absurd.The problem with elitist such as yourself is that you think nobody can think for themselves and assess the situation on their own. In your worldview, people like Dobson have to tell their congregation what issues to support, how to vote and when not to vote.Your hysteria reaches new heights everyday.

As if there remained any doubt that secularist want to rub out religion:

quote:

---

A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by a graduating Virginia high school student who was prohibited from singing a Celine Dion song at her commencement ceremony because of its religious content.

---

No Celine Dion Allowed

quote:

---

Religious people can have all the religion they want, it's just that our government can't sponsor it.

---

The gov't isn't sponsoring it. Others were allowed to voice their religous beliefs at the same ceremony.

quote:

---

Hey, are you ever going to list the reasons why Kennedy's choice for a SCOTUS justice would be worse than Dobson's?

---

I've been waiting for you to list why Dobson's is worse than Kennedy. Are you going to do that anytime soon?

quote:

---

I don't think that you can throw this up as a counter example

---

Well, I did throw it up as a counter point. I did it mainly because I don't see the use of one example as being a substantive argument that we now live in a theocracy. I realize crash was just being cynical with his theocracy comment, so I returned a cynical post in response.But aside from that, my article does show how sensitive and politically correct some school boards are becoming and that standards and rulings are not evenly applied.Doesn't the singer have a right to select the song of her choice, isn't it her right of free speech? Where is the ACLU?Other speakers at the same commencment event walked to the podium and proclaimed their religous faith in various ways. One student quoted a bible story, yet he was not censored. So why was the singer censored?

quote:

---

The lawsuit contended that, in banning Ashby's song, Windsor High School had violated clear guidelines based on the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution -- guidelines issued by the U.S. Department of Education that prohibit censorship of a student graduation speaker's personal religious viewpoint.

​

However, Judge Jackson found that the high school had not violated Ashby's rights, a decision which Knicely says "turned a great deal on technical legal arguments as to whether or not there could be a claim [against the district] for the actions of the principal."

​

The Rutherford Institute attorney maintains that Ashby was definitely a victim of unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination, and that the school violated her rights to free speech and religious expression by prohibiting her musical selection solely on the basis of its religious content.

​

"In this context," Knicely explains, "where a student is simply performing a song, which was titled 'The Prayer,' that seemed to be the big bugaboo among school officials. They were afraid to even permit that to be sung, even though other students were free to say what they wanted to say in their speeches." In fact, the litigator points out, one student at the graduation ceremony even "gave a fairly lengthy, two- or three-minute rendition of the biblical story of Joseph and the obstacles he faced from the Bible."

---

I do see a difference Holmes, and on the surface I agree with the parents who have every right to raise their kids as Wiccans.But I wonder if that's all there is to the story. If the parents are that concerned with the religious education of their son, then why are they sending him to Catholic school?Regarding my article, why is the singer being deprived her free speech rights when other kids at the same ceremony were free to express their religious views?ABE: spelling correctionThis message has been edited by Monk, Fri, 05-27-2005 02:10 PM

Well, it seems that if she had decided to express her religious views, as other students did, then that would have been OK per guidelines issued by the U.S. Department of Education.Those guidelines prohibit censorship of a student speaker's personal religious viewpoint during the graduation ceremony.But sing a song, oooh my, we can't have that. I imagine there are many things we colonials do that appears quite odd when viewed from your side of the pond.

hehehehe, good point

I think you are wrong. Many people do care about traditions they have held their whole life. They see them eroding away. Any one event in itself may seem trivial, but to those who percieve a continual degradation, it isn't. Again, either it's correct or it isn't. Perhaps I could have picked an article that was more egregious, but that one caught my attention so I used it. Regardless how trivial it seems, I still do not understand why some students were allowed to voice their religous beliefs and yet a Celine Deion song is prohibited. Not that I'm a fan mind you, it just doesn't make sense to me.

In my last post I said I agreed with the parents of the Wiccans. Can't you read? Here you seem to argue in support of the judges ruling, but in the same post you said you disagreed with the decision, which is it? Read my post once in awhile, would you?This message has been edited by Monk, Sat, 05-28-2005 12:40 AM

Does singing a song force the listener to worship someone else's God? Is that what you atheist believe?Do you support the judges decision to allow only the spoken profession of religious faith at the ceremony and not a song that happens to mention God?Shouldn't both be either banned or both allowed?

So then you agree with the court decision

I wouldn't call a Celine Dion song a religious ritual and the student speakers do have the right to voice their religious views at this event.I don't know whether the audience would be considered "captive". Attending the graduation ceremony is not mandatory towards receiving a diploma, so if students were informed ahead of time that it was possible a speaker or singer might say "God" in their discourse, then those students have the freedom not to attend.This message has been edited by Monk, Sat, 05-28-2005 12:43 AM

Wrong! It is NOT disallowed. The school board DOES allow a student speaker the right to voice their religious views during this event.

quote:

---

The lawsuit contended that, in banning Ashby's song, Windsor High School had violated clear guidelines based on the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution -- guidelines issued by the U.S. Department of Education that prohibit censorship of a student graduation speaker's personal religious viewpoint.

---

Message 132

I understand the difference between the two examples offered and I believe the judge was out of line to issue an order preventing the parents from raising their own kid as a Wiccan. It’s just plain wrong and I was not offering a rebuttal in favor of the judge's decision. There is a difference between preventing the religious education of a child and someone being denied free speech. I do understand this.My case was offered more specifically to counter the statement that we live in a theocracy or that the current trend is that we will soon end up as a theocracy. I’ve read comments like this on several occasions and I don’t believe it. I just do not believe that one day soon our government, or more specifically the Republicans, will create a state run religion that will exert authority over all aspects of government.Does one errant judge give definitive evidence that theocracy is in the future? I say no. Similarly, the Dion case does not give definitive evidence that all religion will be eliminated by secularist. Theocracy is a strong word and should be used with the appropriate definition in mind. When I think of a theocracy, Iran comes to mind. Look at their level of intolerance for anything divergent from Islam.Islamic laws have intruded in all aspects of life in Iran. All public functions are now designed, based and enforced by Islamic law. Iranian Society has been segregated based on sexual apartheid. Men and women are segregated in public space and women are treated as second-class citizens in all manners of life.Schools in Iran and the education system have been redefined and any subject not compatible with Islamic definitions has been eradicated. Women have been forced to veil. Marriage has to follow Islamic codes of conduct.Any voluntary sexual relationship outside marriage is punishable by flogging, imprisonment and by stoning to death. Any criticism of Islam or any policies handed down by the representatives of god on earth has been treated with the harshest response under the laws of blasphemy and critics silenced by imprisonment and death. Religious intolerance and bigotry are the order of the day.This is theocracy. This is something to be fearful of. This is something I strongly disagree with. Are there any Americans who would welcome this type of society? Very few if any. Some would argue that organizations like the Family Research Council (FRC) have an agenda to form a society exactly like Iran but with Christianity as the religion. I don’t see this either. I do not believe the FRC wants a religious society in the Iranian extreme.The FRC lobbies for increased religious expression in the general public. Their objective is to establish a conservative Christian standard of morality in all of America’s domestic and foreign policy. Because of these stated goals, many on the left find FRC abhorrent. That’s understandable.But there are many other lobbying organizations that have all sorts of goals abhorrent to some segments of society. Secular lobbying organizations would like to push atheism to the forefront of society much to the chagrin of Christians.One such organization, "Godless Americans Political Action Committee," or GAMPAC, have adopted a rather novel lobbying strategy. Their name is intentionally offensive so that GAMPAC could use the threat of endorsement to pressure lawmakers into siding with the group on issues. According to President Ellen Johnson, If a candidate says, 'Don't endorse me,' we will have to say we have the right to endorse somebody, but perhaps we can talk about what we can get in terms of promises from that candidate to help us out in return for not endorsing him,".This may be a joke and they may not be serious about using this tactic, but then again, the selection of their name could have been less conspicuous if their goal is to effectively push forward their cause.So, I would not deprive atheist their rights to lobby politicians in this way or in much the same way that the FRC is lobbying. Christian lobbying efforts do not demonstrate a clearly irreversible march towards Iranian type theocracy.The Democrats will regain power one day and when they do, the FRC and other right wing organizations will begin to fade. Nothing in American politics is permanent though the short term seems unbearable to those not in power. It often helps to have a longer viewpoint.This message has been edited by Monk, Sat, 05-28-2005 10:46 AM