|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
Member (Idle past 5184 days)  Posts: 961 From: A wheatfield in Kansas Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
| Author | Topic: Should we let Bill Frist & Co. change the rules of the senate ? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member  Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Really, Phatboy...I want to know: Given that the ACLJ has been caught in more than one...shall we say "exaggeration" of reality, why do we trust anything they say?
"Left-wing pro-abortion ideology"? What on earth does this mean? The majority of Americans don't want to criminalize abortion. Oh, they may have their issues regarding exactly how to go about administrating abortion, but it is a clear and solid majority of Americans who want to keep abortion safe and legal. This is a "left-wing" ideology? How on earth did Bush win if such a large majority of the population is "left-wing"? And "pro-abortion"? What on earth does that mean? Who on earth wants to have an abortion? Women do not get pregnant in order to have an abortion. And regarding the vacancies in the federal court system...hmmm...maybe there wouldn't have been so many vacancies if the Republicans had allowed Clinton's judicial nominations come up for a vote. For all the whining the Republicans have been emoting regarding the "four years!" that Janice Brown has been waiting, they seem to have forgotten that the very same Republican Senators managed to hold up the nomination of Richard Paez for longer. The Republicans then attempted to fillibuster his nomination with Bill Frist leading the way. It would seem that the Republicans didn't think it was "radical" (to use Frist's word) to fillibuster judges when they felt it was appropriate. Why are they whining now? Let me quote from Republican Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire as he was attempting to fillibuster Paez:
Don't pontificate on the floor of the Senate and tell me that somehow I am violating the Constitution of the United States of America by blocking a judge or filibustering a judge that I don't think deserves to be on the circuit court.... That is my responsibility. That is my advice and consent role, and I intend to exercise it. If it isn't a problem when they do it, why would it be a problem when someone else does it? Of course, the Republicans were even more insidious regarding Clinton's nominations beyond their fillibusters (and the subsequent...er..."deviations from established fact" they have spouted regarding how no justice has ever been fillibustered). Specifically, they didn't even allow the nominees to have a hearing before the Judiciary Committee. The Republicans were the majority party so the leader of the Committee, Orrin Hatch, got to set the agenda. And he did so by refusing to schedule hearings on the nominations. Forty-five district court nominations were refused hearings (and many circuit court nominees, too). And he wasn't averse to stalling the process even after. Just because you get a hearing doesn't mean you get a vote of the Judiciary Committee. Many nominees managed to get a hearing but had their votes refused. In the end: What is the point of the Judiciary Committee? I keep hearing all this whining about how the nominations should get an "up or down vote!" But isn't the point of the Judiciary Committee to be a hurdle that nominations must cross before they make it to the floor of the Senate? Are you seriously saying that if the President were to nominate, say, me to a federal judgeship, I should expect to have an "up or down vote"? That the Judiciary Committee shouldn't say to themselves, "This guy has never held a judgeship in any other jurisdiction, isn't a lawyer, has never written a formal legal opinion, isn't a legal scholar, etc., etc. No need to waste the full Senate's time on this. No"? If you're not willing to have someone so clearly unqualified as me to be put to an "up or down vote" before the full Senate but rather feel that the Judiciary Committee is charged with actually making sure that the Senate's time is not wasted on someone so clearly unqualified as myself, then why are you so upset that there are people on the Judiciary Committee who are doing their job? Just because you don't agree with their assessment of your candidate? I hear the whining of the Republicans about the "well qualified" status of their candidates. According to whom? They're quick to bring up the ABA, but Janice Brown, their poster judge, was actually declared "qualified/not qualified" by the ABA (meaning she did not achieve the two-thirds majority required to be declared "qualified"). In fact, not a single member of the panel rated her as "well qualified." Of course, the Republicans have abandoned the ABA's recommendations, so one wonders why they are bringing it up. They don't get to have it both ways. If the ABA recommendations are worthless, then it doesn't really matter how they feel about the nominations, now does it? Which leads us back to the previous question: Isn't the role of the Judiciary Committee to determine for itself whether or not a nominee is "qualified" for the role before calling the full Senate to a vote? If not, then why on earth have a Judiciary Committee? Just send the nominee straight to the floor for a vote. What on earth is the point of the Judicary Committee? Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Phatboy writes:
quote: I can see no clearer example of the falsity of this statement than the so-called "culture of life" claim put forward by Bush and the other Republicans. If abortion is not allowed because "all life is precious," then why do we have the death penalty? It would seem that it's all relative...whether or not life is precious depends upon the circumstances. For all Bush's crowing about how Schiavo needed to be saved, why did Bush sign the "Futile Care Law" that had the life-sustaining technology keeping a baby alive, resulting in its death? The idea that Republicans...or anybody, for that matter...believe in a "fixed morality" and not a "relative" one is naive in the extreme. Everybody's morality is relative. Nobody lives up to fixed absolutes. Nobody can. It helps, however, to understand that you are functioning with a relative morality so that you can discuss the various scenarios that have us make one choice when previously we made another one. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Phatboy responds to schrafinator:
quote:quote: Um, "lifestyle"? What is this "gay lifestyle" that I always hear about? You don't seriously think that all gay people live like they were subdivisions of Queer Eye, do you? My lord, they came up with a few episodes of the "Fab Five" making over other gay men. After all, if gay people want to get married, wouldn't that be indicative that they share the same "lifestyle" as straight people who want to get married? And if that is so, how can this "lifestyle" be called "gay" or "straight" since both gay and straight people engage in it? So please, tell me: What are the specifics of this "gay lifestyle"? What sort of clothes, housing, education, entertainment, social activities, and political activities does this "gay lifestyle" require? And more directly to schraf's comment: What makes you think that allowing gay people to be full citizens entitled to equal protection under the law as demanded by the Constitution requires you to do anything different about how you live your life? Be specific. If you are not allowed to discriminate against gay people, how would your life change? Would you have to pay higher taxes due to your status as a heterosexual? Would your children be taken away from you? Would you be evicted from your home? Would you be refused an education? Would you be forced to socialize with someone you didn't want to socialize with? Would you be forced to house a gay person in your spare room? Be specific.
quote: Are not humans biological creatures? Therefore, how can the expression of sexuality in humans be something other than a normal component of the human biological makeup? I cannot understand this proclivity of some people to insist that humans are somehow separate from the world in which they live. That somehow there is a definition of "animal" that does not include humanity and therefore it is somehow legitimate to claim that humans are "above" such things as sex and passion and lust. This doesn't mean that one need embrace a "nature-loving religion." It is simply realizing that the argument of "crime against nature" is invalid on its face. Note the hypocrisy, however. From someone who is railing against the supposed "creature worship" he sees everywhere, he falls into that very same "creature worship" by claiming that gay people are going against their "human biological makeup." You don't get to have it both ways, Phatboy. If humans are "above" the other animals, then being gay is not animalistic for gay people are humans, too. You do agree that gay people are humans, too, do you not?
quote: So if god were to insist that pi equals three (which, according to the Bible, it is), then that would justify the abandonment of mathematics because to say otherwise is to defy "god's wish for humanity"? The problem is that gay people exist, Phatboy. They are not going to go away. Our foundational document insists that all citizens be treated equally under the law. That includes gay people as they are citizens. You do agree that gay people in the United States are citizens, do you not? I am forced to ask because, after all, Bush, Sr. once said that atheists should not be considered citizens. Do you agree with that concept? Should only people who have a religious faith be allowed to be citizens? And if so, must they conform to your faith? Did it not occur to you that there are people who think that gay people are part of "god's wish for humanity"? Christian people, at that. Why does your interpretation of "god's wish for humanity" overrule theirs? Why is the idea of equal treatment under the law as full and equal citizens so threatening to your religious foundation?
quote: Considering its origin with Pat Robertson, that is not such a bizarre notion. What else would you call a group that wishes to turn the United States into a fundamentalist Christian theocracy?
quote: What does that have to do with anything? That they are capable of finding cases where people's religious rights are being affected and have argued successfully before the courts doesn't change their basic position. Why are you so threatened by people who do not share your faith? Is your faith so fragile that it cannot survive contact with the outside world? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
holmes writes:
quote: Who is sponsoring the ceremony if not the school? If the school is the one who is sponsoring the ceremony, how can it not be said that what takes place there is endorsed by the school?
quote: Indeed, but nobody involved with the state is organizing that gathering. They did not choose the people. Too, you are not being prevented from engaging in similar activity. Try to get the mike at a graduation ceremony when you're not one of the chosen speakers.
quote: Why does that make a difference? Is not the school the one in charge of the graduation ceremony? To add a variant to crash's question: How many students need to be present for a school-sponsored religious ceremony to be declared unconstitutional? Why does it matter if they want to be there? Why does it matter if they don't have to be there?
quote: A student chosen by the school. Are you suggesting that graduation ceremonies are open-mike? If said student wants to talk about his religion while in line waiting to go to his seat, he should feel free. But that is him acting on his own without any action of the school involved. But the graduation speaker is there only at the whim of the school. He is therefore acting as an agent of the school.
quote: So people's rights should be trampled if to uphold them would create a negative atmosphere and precedent.
quote: Indeed. And no rights are absolute. Sometimes one right needs to give way to another. It would seem that you have a different opinion as to which right should give way.
quote: But someone chosen by the state is a representative of the state, even if not officially "hired." It isn't like being a speaker at graduation ceremonies are open-mike or won by lottery. They are actions of the school. How can an organization of the state do something that is not state-sponsored?
quote: Others, however, do. Isn't part of fostering a diverse and tolerant community entail having a respect for those with whom you are interacting? Shouldn't we expect the speakers to consider somebody other than themselves for a change? It's true that no individual student embodies the entire class, but does that mean the solution is to allow an ego trip?
quote: Huh? Standing up to rudeness is now "extreme sensitivity"? If said students wants to sing her song, she can sing it on her own time, not when she's functioning as an agent of the school. Does the phrase, "this is not the time or the place," mean nothing anymore? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:quote: Wait just a second. Who are these "many individuals"? Graduation is not open mike. Only a selected set of people are given the opportunity to say something.
quote: Dunno. I'll have to give it more thought.
quote: As was responded, if "Imagine" could be claimed to be "atheistic," then one has a twisted vision of just what atheism is. After all, Lennon wasn't an atheist. Just because somebody disagrees with a particular religion's brand of supernatural geography doesn't mean that he's an atheist.
quote: There's such an argument to be made. Since such songs are not supposed to be sold to minors, one could say that they shouldn't be played to them without their parents' consent.
quote:quote: Excuse me? Who do you think put that folding chair on the platform? Who do you think put up that platform? The only reason the event exists at all is because the school made it happen. If the local Kiwanis want to be the ones who sponsor graduation, then they can do whatever they want. But since the school chose the venue, the format, and the speakers, then there is no way to deny that they are also sponsoring the speech.
quote: At the approval of the administrators. You don't think the school is going to let the students choose a "disruptive" speaker, are you?
quote:quote: Why not? I point out that the school determines whether or not you are allowed to attend. I don't mean if you have met the graduation requirements. I mean whether you are allowed to participate despite your fulfillment of graduation requirements. You don't have to go, but you don't get to go simply because you want to. Recall the recent story about the pregnant girl who was barred from graduation who waited for the class to walk, stood up from the audience, stated her own name, and walked across. The school had barred her from participation. The boy who got her pregnant, however, was allowed to walk. The school is most definitely the one in charge of the ceremony. Nobody attends except at the whim of the school. Nothing happens except by the consent of the school.
quote:quote: How about none?
quote: Says who? Doesn't context let us know whether or not something is a religious ceremony?
quote:quote: No. You will note, I did not say "students." I said "graduation speaker." You do understand the difference, yes? After all, I gave a specific example of a student making a religious comment at a graduation ceremony that would be perfectly protected constitutionally. Did you not read it? Here it is again:
If said student wants to talk about his religion while in line waiting to go to his seat, he should feel free. But that is him acting on his own without any action of the school involved. But the graduation speaker is there only at the whim of the school. He is therefore acting as an agent of the school. Now, that's strange. It was part of a slightly larger section than what you quoted. One wonders why it is you decided to respond to the third sentence in the paragraph while ignoring the two that immediately preceded it. Do you not see that I was making a distinction between a student spontaneously making comments on his own and a student being selected to by the school to address the students?
quote: Having been a speaker selected by a school, it is a job. Oh, you don't sign a W-2 or any such thing, but it's a job nonetheless. They demanded to see the text I was going to use and when they decided they didn't like it, they dropped me from the program. From what I can tell, it's because I wasn't offering a prayer. And this was at a public school.
quote:quote: But when every line has a logical error, it is hard to be thorough and not do so.
quote: Hah! You're one to talk. See above. That said, your claim is factually false. There was no question that preceded it. Here is your entire statement:
I have agreed that there is at least a side from which to make an argument in this case. I just do not see it holding up under scrutiny, particularly with the negative atmosphere and precedent which would be set. There is not just one set of rights here, there are two. Free speech of a non state employed individual needs to come before your "right" not to be offended by speech of a religious nature when in an audience at a public event. I don't see a question there. I see some statements, but no questions.
quote: So religious freedom is trumped by free expression? You can be forced to listen to a religious ceremony against your will because to stop the person from preaching would be a violation of their free expression? I say it's the other way around in this case. The freedom of religion trumps free expression. Nobody is saying you aren't allowed to preach your gospel. But not right here, not right now.
quote: You realize that you are making the same argument that "intelligent design" isn't religion because it doesn't use the g-word.
quote: She has every right to express herself. But not right here, not right now. No right is absolute.
quote:quote: (*chuckle*) Do you seriously think the school would allow the students to choose a speaker whom they know would turn the ceremony into a circus? The speakers are chosen by the school. They may make the pretense of letting the students choose, but if the administration doesn't like the speaker, then the speaker will not appear. Do you really think the school above regarding the pregnant girl would have allowed her to be a speaker if the students had chosen her to be one?
quote: Strange, I have not witnessed one where the administration of the school does NOT choose students they believe reflect all the students and assign them what to say, editing out messages they feel they should not be endorsed by the school.
quote: Indeed. That's why the speaker should consider the feelings of the audience rather than being a selfish bastard and think it's all about him or herself.
quote: Indeed. That's why the speaker should put his own needs aside when he realizes that his actions are interfering with the practice and expression of beliefs of others.
quote: (*chuckle*) Etiquette does not demand the toleration of the rude. If a person can't contain himself until he finds himself in a more appropriate venue for his needs, then he needs to be gently but firmly removed to such a place.
quote: Of course. But etiquette and the law demand that you do such at the appropriate time and place. Anything else is rude at best and a violation of rights. Not right here. Not right now.
quote: When you are an agent of the school, you do not get the privilege of being able to express yourself in any way you wish. If you wish to retain that right, then you must refrain from placing yourself under the guidance of a governmental agency such as a public school. Sing your song around the flag pole. Invite everyone to share. But from the podium of the graduation ceremony? Not right here. Not right now.
quote: Is anybody telling her she is evil? Is anybody telling her that she should never, ever sing such a song? Is anybody trying to make it a crime to sing such a song in all places in all contexts? Is her religious identity so fragile that she cannot go 15 minutes without delivering a sermon? Are you claiming that a person has the right to say whatever he wants, whenever he wants? That the freedom of speech is absolute? Nobody can ever insist that now is not the time nor the place?
quote: Because it's all about her at that point. Her religion. Her glory. Her piousness. Look at me and see how I praise god. She is free to do that all she wants. Just not right here, not right now.
quote: (*chuckle*) So asking people at the movies to be quiet so that the rest of the audience can hear is being intolerant? It is never appropriate to point out that this is not the time nor the place to express yourself? That you're going to have to wait a brief moment until you find yourself in more appropriate venue for such expression? Is the right to express yourself absolute? Nobody is ever allowed to tell you not right here, not right now?
quote:quote: Ah, I see...YOU are the ultimate authority as to whether or not something is a mountain or a molehill. I guess we're back to crash's question: How long would a worship service have to be before it would be unconstitutional to make you attend, even if you didn't have to actively participate? Violation of constitutional rights isn't rude? A question: If this truly is such a small issue, then why did she make such a big deal out of it? If it were trivial, then it wouldn't have mattered for her to simply acceed to the request not to do so. Why do the people who are objecting to the display of religious pomposity always have to be the ones who suck it up? Why can't the fanatics ever be made to keep their yaps shut for once?
quote: Because YOU are the ultimate authority of when someone's rights are being violated. Apparently, it's OK for a person's rights to be violated if YOU don't mind.
quote:quote: This isn't about the quality of the performance. This is about the content. How long would a worship service have to be before it would be unconstitutional to make you attend, even if you didn't have to actively participate?
quote: Indeed, but this isn't about whether she sang her comments or spoke them or decided to do an interpretive dance. This is about the content. How long would a worship service have to be before it would be unconstitutional to make you attend, even if you didn't have to actively participate?
quote: And it appeared to be the case that this was an overt religious ceremony.
quote: It isn't about god unless you use the g-word? Then I guess "intelligent design" isn't really about god, then. They never use the g-word, after all. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Phatboy writes:
quote: But that's the entire point behind having a Constitution: The majority does NOT rule. There's a reason why we don't have a direct democracy. There's a reason that the term for a senator is 6 years rather than 2 like the representatives. There's a reason that the Senate is not dissolved completely every election cycle but rather only one-third of the senators are ever up for re-election at any given moment. There is a reason why the Senate wrote the fillibuster into their rules centuries ago. "Majority rules" is mob rule and the mob is stupid. Was the SCOTUS decision in Loving v. Virginia that removed the criminal sanctions for miscegenation the correct deicision, Phatboy? Even though it flew in the face of over 70% of the population of the US at the time? If left to "majority rule," it would be a crime to marry outside your race. Is that right? Even though the Constitution clearly indicates that it isn't? What is it about the Constitution that upsets you so that you refuse to abide by its restrictions? That you would turn your liberty as guaranteed by the Constitution over to the mob? Just because you're currently part of the mob? Do you really think you're going to stay part of the mob forever? Do you not understand that by protecting the minority, you are protecting yourself?
quote: Phatboy, haven't you bothered to listen to the words of your own god? Render unto Caesar that which is due Caesar. Why are you so averse to following the commandment of your god to allow the government to remain the government and to keep your worship to god? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
holmes responds to me:
quote: Depends on context. As sung in the way that John Lennon did it, no.
quote: Incorrect. Try to follow along. John Lennon's song is not an atheistic song because Lennon is not an atheist. He was speaking to his own spirituality and thus, it cannot be an atheistic song as he envisioned it. That doesn't mean somebody else can't come along and impart his own take on it.
quote: No, it doesn't. It simply asks you to imagine. Does the word "metaphor" mean nothing to people? Might the song be about something bigger than a literal reading of the words might imply? If we can agree that not using the g-word doesn't mean someone isn't talking about god, then wouldn't it also be the case that the use of religious imagery might mean something beyond that? Perhaps the issue of the trappings of religiosity that interrupt the deeper connection to the infinite? Not that there really isn't a heaven but that perhaps you shouldn't be using heaven as a weapon?
quote: From what I can tell, nobody here knows what the song was. Knowing Celine Dion, there is every reason to think that it is Christian in nature for she is known for singing Christian songs. In fact, here are the lyrics:
I pray you'll be our eyes, and watch us where we go. And help us to be wise in times when we don't know Let this be our prayer, when we lose our way Lead us to the place, guide us with your grace To a place where we'll be safe La luce che tu haiI pray we'll find your light nel cuore restera and hold it in our hearts. a ricordarci che When stars go out each night, eterna stella sei The light you haveI pray we'll find your light will be in the heart and hold it in our hearts. to remember us that When stars go out each night, you are eternal star Nella mia preghiera Let this be our prayer quanta fede c'e when shadows fill our day How much faith there'sLet this be our prayer in my prayer when shadows fill our day Lead us to a place, guide us with your grace Give us faith so we'll be safe Sognamo un mondo senza piu violenzaun mondo di giustizia e di speranza Ognuno dia la mano al suo vicino Simbolo di pace, di fraternita We dream a world without violencea world of justice and faith. Everyone gives the hand to his neighbours Symbol of peace, of fraternity La forza che ci da We ask that life be kind e il desiderio che and watch us from above ognuno trovi amor We hope each soul will find intorno e dentro se another soul to love The force his gives usWe ask that life be kind is wish that and watch us from above everyone finds love We hope each soul will find around and inside another soul to love Let this be our prayer Let this be our prayer, just like every child Need to find a place, guide us with your graceGive us faith so we'll be safe Need to find a place, guide us with your grace Give us faith so we'll be safe E la fede chehai acceso in noi, sento che ci salvera It's the faithyou light in us I feel it will save us Now, as I have said, context will tell us, but this is a pretty big text to have to overcome contextually to make it something other than a great, big paean to god. "Guide us with your grace"? "The force he gives us"? "Watch us from above"? It starts off in such a way that it could be used as a song about friends, but it doesn't last that way for long. It's talking about god.
quote: Incorrect. Not mentioning god is not an insult. This is a problem many Christians fail to understand: The lack of an active praising of god at all times and in all places is not equivalent to an active statement that there is no god.
quote: So? Since when did the world need to be for children? Why can't the adults have something that isn't for the kids?
quote: But without the school's direct assent the speaker wouldn't be permitted, dear Henry, dear Henry, but without the school's direct assent the speaker wouldn't be permitted, their assent. The students can nominate whomever they wish. It doesn't mean diddly. The administration has final say and reserves the right to change any speaker for any reason. It's their ceremony.
quote: Having participated in more than my fair share of school ceremonies, including being a speaker, I think it's safe to say I have some idea how graduation ceremonies are planned. Nobody gets on that stage without the administration's approval. Nobody gets on that stage without being told by the administration what they can do.
quote: Do you honestly believe that? Do you honestly believe that if the students chose a speaker the administration couldn't abide, they'd simply bow to the will of the student body and not assert their right to determine any and all actions that will take place at said ceremony? Just who do you think is running the show?
quote: Does it matter? Constitutional rights are violated only if someone complains? How many students must be present for a school-sponsored religious ceremony to be unconstitutional?
quote: Strange, that's not what the SCOTUS said. You do recall the lawsuit against the students who used the PA system before the football games to deliver prayers. The speakers were chosen by the student body and yet the court still found that it was unconstitutional for the school to engage in such activity. Are you saying it only became unconstitutional when somebody complained about it?
quote:quote: Incorrect. We keep trying to show you that the school will always and forever retain the right to override the student body. It doesn't matter if the students nominate the speaker. The school has final say. Nobody gets on that stage without the approval of the administration. So how does that make the people on that stage something other than agents of the school?
quote: That particular song in the particular way that Dion would sing it? Yes, it is. It is inappropriate for a public school function.
quote:quote: That the school maintains complete control over everything. Oh, they give the students the illusion of having some control over the events, but it is still an illusion. Nothing happens on that stage without it being choreographed by the administration. It happened to me, after all. I got yanked. If you think the administration ever leaves anything up to someone outside their control, you've got another think coming.
quote:quote: Did you read the lyrics? They are clearly about god. Oh, the g-word is never used, but there is no question about it. Given the specific lyrics and the specific singer involved, there is no doubt that this is a religious song. It would then be up to the girl to show how she could make it something other than a religious song.
quote:quote: (*sigh*) I already did. Twice. Here it is again since you seem to have missed it (and did a tremendous hack job on it when you misquoted it):
If said student wants to talk about his religion while in line waiting to go to his seat, he should feel free. But that is him acting on his own without any action of the school involved. But the graduation speaker is there only at the whim of the school. He is therefore acting as an agent of the school. Now think about it, holmes? Is a student in line to be seated at the graduation ceremony a "graduation speaker"? Of course not. They're not an agent of the school. They are not being given a platform from which to speak. Instead, the student is simply talking from his own volution to his fellow students. If said fellow students felt like it, they could easily tell the speaker to shut up and get back in line with no consequence. A graduation speaker, however, is one who has been vetted by the administration. One who has been specifically given a platform with which to speak and one where if any of the students in the audience were to interrupt and tell the speaker to shut up, sit down, get off the stage, etc., would be rightfully ejected from the ceremony. Free speech requires the ability for others to respond. The students in the audience are not free to respond to the graduation speakers.
quote: Irrelevant. She submitted the lyrics for approval and was turned down by the right of the school. What's her beef? Oh, and to your comment, the administration asked her for the lyrics. She just said she wanted to sing (with another student). The administration then asked for a copy of the lyrics.
quote: Because you don't exist on that stage except at the whim of the school. It is irrelevant how you came to the administration's attention to be placed upon that stage. They are the ones who make the final decision.
quote:quote: But at the time you wrote your statement, I hadn't entered the discussion. How could it possibly have been my question? Come on, holmes, try to keep up.
quote:quote: Oh, yes, it does! Freedom of religion means nothing without the freedom from religion. I have to be able to say no to every single religious idea you put forward in order to be truly free.
quote: Oh, please. Don't be disingenuous. Freedom from religion does not mean that nobody is ever allowed to utter religious expressions. It means nobody is allowed to force religion upon people without their consent. The schoolyard grounds are not the public square.
quote: Ah, yes...the nonsensical Breyer argument (shared by O'Connor and Kennedy and Souter) that a reference to god isn't actually a reference to, you know, god. Acknolwedging the existence of god is necessarily a religious notion.
quote: That song is a gospel song, though.
quote: You mean there can be god without religion?
quote: Indeed, but no right is absolute. She is free to speak but not right here, not right now.
quote: So a sermon is only a sermon if it's effective?
quote: Why does it matter? You can't be talking about god unless you give a specific name for that god?
quote:quote: Are you or are you not claiming that the song is not a religious song? Did you or did you not use as justification for that claim that it isn't a religious song the fact that it simply uses the word "faith" and "prayer"? Your argument is that she didn't use the g-word. Her sermon wasn't fire-and-brimstone, damn people to hell, sinners in the hands of an angry GOD and therefore it wasn't religious. But it is. It uses specifically religious imagery. It was released by a religious singer. It is a religious song. She could try to make it secular, but she'd have to cut out some lyrics.
quote: Logical error: Equivocation. The word "faith" in "Faith" does not mean the same thing as the word "faith" in "The Prayer." George is talking about getting laid. Celine is talking about god.
quote:quote: Who said anything about California? Remember...I'm an Air Froce brat. I'm from everywhere.
quote: Oh, yes they are. The very idea of tolerance stems from etiquette. The enforcement of equal legal proceedings is the legal equivalent of tolerance. You respect the diversity by tolerating the differences.
quote: Wrong. You understand the differences among the public, the private, and the government arenas, yes? You are allowed to have whatever sex you want in private. You aren't allowed to have sex in public (theoretically...in practice, straight people can but gay people can't.) And the government doesn't get to value one over the other. If a mixed-sex couple is allowed to hold hands while walking down on a public street, announce their marriages in the paper, and kiss each other goodbye at the airport, then so are same-sex couples.
quote: I am? Since when did I ever say I was gay? I certainly don't recall mentioning it. I've been very careful not to say one way or the other in order to counter precisely the argument you are trying to use: That my statements are somehow related to my status. Would the veracity of my statements change if I were straight? Then why the assumption that I'm gay?
quote: But not if it is inappropriate. Tolerance and diversity also recognizes that there are times and places where it is inappropriate to engage in certain activities. Sometimes, illegal. Not right here, not right now.
quote: Excuse me? Since when did it become "intolerant" to refuse to accomodate boors? What a typical, right-wing statement: Refusal to accept intolerance is somehow labeled "intolerance." Since when?
quote: You can't have freedom to without freedom from.
quote:quote: Then why did she sue? She wanted to sing a religious song. The administration said no. Somehow, she thought her rights were being violated. And yet you claim that this issue is a tiny, miniscule issue. So why did she sue? If this is such an innocuous, diaphanous event, why did she feel the need to hire a lawyer? She obviously felt it was important enough. Therefore, she must have felt that she couldn't continue unless she were allowed to preach to the student body. She couldn't sing something else?
quote: The lyrics. You did read them before you started in on this conversation, didn't you?
quote:quote: How is a song written specifically to be a prayer to god and popularized by a singer who has made her career singing religious songs something other than a religious song? I'd love to see the context that this song could justified to be something other than a religious pleading to god.
quote: Ah, so constitutional violations aren't really violations unless somebody says something and when they do, they're being jerks about it. C'mon...I only hit you a little. It isn't really "assault" unless I break your bones, right?
quote: I think the Constitution is the ultimate authority. I think the interpretational precedents are clear.
quote: (*chuckle*) Since you don't seem to understand that you can't have freedom to without freedom from, one wonders how you can say such with a straight face.
quote:quote: Yes. Didn't you read the decision? The judge ruled that because Ashby wasn't denied her place as a speaker but rather the school was exercising its right to control the content of the ceremony, she had no claim.
quote: And neither did you, apparently. I, on the other hand, did.
quote: (*chuckle*) Amazing how in this entire discussion, I'm the one who quoted the lyrics. Not you. Not crash. You, yourself, admitted that you didn't know who sang the song. Why did you fail to do your homework first?
quote: Because the lyrics clearly indicate that it is a religious song. It was written specifically to be a religious song. It was orginally performed by a singer who specializes in religious songs (among others). So if the author, the original performer, and this particular individual all think it's a religious song, who are you to say it isn't? Everybody directly involved seems to understand that they're talking about god. How is it you know that they're not?
quote:quote: Incorrect. The acknowledgement of the existence of god is by necessity a religious ceremony. Are you saying that when we're talking about god we're not actually talking about god? Unless we specifically state a name for the particular god in question, it isn't really god?
quote: What about spiritual belief systems that do not include gods? What about spiritual belief systems that have multiple gods? What about spiritual belief systems that are of the opinion that god doesn't care about your daily life? There is no such thing as "non-denominational." Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
holmes writes:
quote: The House is dissolved every single year. Each year, the rules for how the House will conduct business are voted on by the House. The point of the House is that it is the emodiment of the popular will. Every time it meets, it needs to create itself anew as the embodiment of the current state. Because every single representative is elected every single time, you can get a brand new House with no connection to the past at all. The House is about the here and now. The Senate, on the other hand, is not. While the rules of the Senate can change, they were essentially written when the Senate first came into existence two centuries ago. The Senate is supposed to be a body that stretches all the way back into the past. While it needs refreshing from the population, the effect of that population's opinion is blunted. It is impossible to get a completely new Senate in a single election. If you want to be the newcomer who changes the rules, you have to convince a supermajority of people who were there before you and have been working under those rules and didn't find any reason to change them. The Senate is supposed to have a memory and by making sure that most senators were around last time, it helps to keep that memory. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Phatboy writes:
quote: Huh? The nation has always done better under a Democratic president than a Republican president for the past 60 years.
quote: Excuse me? The economy collapsed under Nixon/Ford. And despite the hyperinflation (that was a worldwide phenomenon), the 70s still turned in a better economic record than the precious 80s.
quote: Excuse me? We fought a war without losing a single American life in the Balkans. And we managed to convince France to join in. We halted the nuclear ambitions of the North Koreans and kept Iraq free of weapons of mass destruction. We handed off a plan to the next president about how to keep America safer in the face of fundamentalist Islamic terrorism which, if followed, stood a very good chance of preventing the 9/11 attacks. Our allies trusted us. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
crashfrog writes:
quote: More appropriately: If the police are barred from entering a room to conduct a search because they do not have cause to search the room, they cannot deliberately go out and recruit someone who isn't a police officer to go in that room and do the search for them. The person at that point is an agent of the police and is subject to the same rules barring search. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
holmes responds to me:
quote:quote: I did. It depends on context. "A teen using up time allotted at a mike on graduation day" is not sufficient to determine context. It will depened on what happens before and what happens after. It will depend upon any previous history the student has regarding such a subject.
quote: Why does it matter? The mere recognition of the existence of a god is necessarily a religious act.
quote: You don't know? She's Catholic.
quote:quote: Why? Are you claiming that freedom of speech is absolute? Not right here. Not right now.
quote: It is unconstitutional whether it is insulting or not. Do rights only get violated when people make a fuss?
quote: Because you are confusing the fact that people ignore the restrictions with the idea that the restrictions are of no use.
quote: That is precisely what it means, though. The fact that they have the right to put her on the stage at their pleasure is precisely because by putting her on the stage to speak, she is an agent of the school. The school's ceremony, the school's message, the school's presentation. Every single person involved is acting for the school.
quote: Of course. But without an explicit caveat that "the opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the school," it is a reasonable assumption that the comments are endorsed. After all, the speaker wouldn't be there unless the school allowed it.
quote: No. But if it's your show and you don't indicate that you are opening up the system to people who aren't under your control, it is reasonable to assume that it is. And given that the Constitution expressly prohibits the government from endorsing religion, the school cannot afford even the appearance of impropriety. The easiest way to do that is to remain silent. Not right here, not right now.
quote:quote: Because it's the same context. Didn't you read the case? They tried the same arguments that you are making: The speaker was selected by the student body. Football games aren't mandatory. Nobody had to listen if they didn't want to. It was an expression of the student. If it is inappropriate for a student-selected student to give a prayer over the PA at a football game, what difference does it make that it's a graduation ceremony instead? The presence of a football and plastic shoulder pads makes people take it more seriously? That there are people who are not members of the school present has an effect?
quote: And that is different from the same action at a football game how? If you can't do it at a football game, why can you do it at a graduation ceremony?
quote: Excuse me? It isn't like the PA announcement was scheduled to be a prayer. Why does the fact that it happened multiple times have to do anything? How many times must a constitutional right be violated before it becomes an actual violation?
quote: I don't have to. The standard is not the endorsement of a specific religion. It is the endorsement of religion, period. It doesn't matter which religion she was endorsing. It doesn't matter how vague and nebulous the expression. The acknowledgement of the existence of god is by its very nature a religious act and is thus prohibited by the school.
quote:quote: Excuse me? Are you saying that if the school were to do this, they wouldn't be within their rights to do so? You are confusing the actual act with the right to perform said act. That the school might not do so is irrelevant. They have every right to do so. It's their ceremony, their rules. That's why they banned that pregnant girl from participating. When she announced her own name and walked across on her own, she and her family were promptly arrested and escorted out.
quote: Yes, usually because it was easier to stop the disruption by removing the speaker rather than trying to arrest the protestors, possibly causing a riot. But again, you are confusing the performance of an act with the right to perform said act. The school has the right to yank the speaker and they have the right to yank the audience. Nobody is present except at the pleasure of the school. When a problem presents itself, the school must decide how to handle it given their rights. A single person in the crowd behaving like an ass? Then the three rent-a-cops can probably take care of that. But if it's half the students and they're rushing the stage, then something else will need to be done. And even so, the school has every right to prosecute any of the disruptors they can get their hands on. The fact that they may not do so is irrelevant. It is their right to do so.
quote: Since that question was never considered by the court, that's hard to say. We can only go off of other court cases and the precedent seems to be clear: It would have been.
quote:quote: Not according to you. You claim I don't have freedom from. But freedom from means being allowed to say no to any and all religious ideas you put forth, even ones you haven't yet mentioned. You can't have true freedom unless you are allowed to say no to everything. And that's freedom from.
quote: That the effective result of being allowed to veto everything and then following through. The only way to ensure that you neither endorse nor prevent is to remain completely silent.
quote: So how is that not a religious activity? Why does it matter what god I'm making my plea to? I'm not allowed to make a plea to any god, no matter how poorly defined.
quote: Indeed. But that's irrelevant. It doesn't matter what particular religion or deity I'm advocating. The admonition is not against a specific religion or deity but against all religion. It doesn't matter how vague the definition of god, I'm not allowed to bring god up.
quote: In line before you enter the auditorium, spontaneously shouted as the principal hands you your diploma, afterward at the party, you go right ahead. But on the school-provided microphone? Not right here, not right now.
quote:quote: I have. That's why it doesn't matter. It doesn't talk about specific religions. It talks about all religion. It talks about the mere concept of religion. It doesn't matter how generic you think your expression is. This was an argument put forward by those who were advocating school prayer: "It's non-denominational." Doesn't matter. It doesn't matter how generic the religious expression. All religious expression at the action of the school is forbidden.
quote:quote: No, it's pretty explicit:
Well I guess it would be nice If I could touch your body I know not everybody Has got a body like you quote: Which only makes sense if one is trying to equivocate. The word "faith" does point to something very specific. Context makes it clear. George is talking about having the faith to fall in love so that the sex will be that much better. Celine is talking about having religious faith in god to take care of us.
quote: When is Madonna not talking about sex? That was part of the entire controversy behind "Like a Prayer": She was suggesting that she was going to have sex with Jesus in the video (and the burning crosses didn't help, especially with the Jesus being black).
quote: Precisely. That's why not right here, not right now is so important. It is incumbent that you tolerate the differences and consider the possibility that what you're about to do is inappropriate and should not be done. Not right here. Not right now. End the ego trip and consider somebody else for a change.
quote:quote: Good. It's working. The point is to show that people's arguments are based upon personal prejudices and not upon rational thought. That you made such an assumption and responded based upon that assumption is an example of what I was trying to accomplish.
quote: (*chuckle*) What does "equal treatment under the law" mean to you? If heterosexuality is allowed, then homosexuality must be allowed, too. And if religious endorsement isn't allowed, religious denial isn't allowed, either. Equal treatment. The easiest way to do that is to simply shut up about it.
quote: I'm saying it is irrelevant what the religious statement was. She can't sing a song about how horrible god is just as much as she can't sing a song about how great god is and just as much as she can't sing a song about how there is no god. The problem isn't the emotional imagery. It's the fact that it's about god.
quote: Says who? Newdow got all the way to the Supreme Court to fight for his daughter's right not to be indoctrinated with "under god" in the Pledge of Allegiance. And the highest court that actually looked at that question found for him. The SCOTUS rejected it not by saying the decision of the Ninth Circuit was wrong but by saying the father had no standing to bring the suit in the first place. Violation of constitutional rights are only important if enough people complain about it?
quote: Then do yourself a favor and don't. You don't read my posts, anyway.
quote: I already did. Message 215.
quote: Can't remember your own words, eh? Message 166 I thought it was something from Celine Dion. You mean you didn't know? Pardon me for taking your words seriously.
quote: Where? I said the contrary, in fact. At worst, I said nothing one way or the other.
quote: Citations, please. Be specific.
quote: Incorrect. It is in precise opposition with current interpretation. If you can't do it at a football game, why can you do it at graduation?
quote:quote: How is it anything but? Is not god necessarily connected to religion? Note, I am not saying that all religions include god. I'm saying all gods include religion.
quote:quote: And you, of course, are the ultimate arbiter of whether something is offensive or not.
quote: It can't fit a god that doesn't interfere. So much for deists. Besides, it doesn't matter how generic the reference to god is. It's that it's a reference to god.
quote: I already did. Message 215.
quote: And those that think god isn't male but is female or beyond such concepts as sex?
quote: I will respond with as much rigor as I feel necessary. You are free to ignore my posts as you see fit. If you have something better to do, then do it. We've been through this over and over again, holmes. You have no control over me. Please stop trying. I am not beholden to you. That said, physician, heal thyself! If you don't want long responses, then perhaps you should refrain from writing 5-page, 2500 word responses.
quote: Yes.
quote: The fact that it was a prayer to god.
quote: Asked and answered. Message 215.
quote: Asked and answered. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
