Palin and censorship

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

Is state-sponsored censorship less harmful than state-sponsored endorsement?

I don't define secularism as "state-sponsored censorship". Instead, secularism is the precondition for protecting against religiously sponsored censorship.

and btw, secularism is a principle laid down in your nation's first amendement in the Bill of Rights.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The state should guarantee the free practice of religion (which is okay with me as long as that practice does not require me to a.) witness or b) participate in it, or c) to compromise my own freedom in favour of it - an individual's freedom ends where he/she starts to limit the freedom of others inf avour of their own). But from that can not be concluded that the state/ congress shall act in favour of rfelgious establoishements, or pass laws favouring any religion's demands and interests. And that is not just a conclusion, but is written there black on white.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Skybird

secularism as "state-sponsored censorship". Instead, secularism is the precondition for protecting against religiously sponsored censorship.

and btw, secularism is a principle laid down in your nation's first amendement in the Bill of Rights.

Yes, it is. But government-sponsored education is not. In fact, it is not stated anywhere in the constitution of the U.S.A.
This is only a problem because the government was unconstitutionally granted fiat powers over education.

The state should guarantee the free practice of religion (which is okay with me as long as that practice does not require me to a.) witness or b) participate in it, or c) to compromise my own freedom in favour of it - an individual's freedom ends where he/she starts to limit the freedom of others inf avour of their own). But from that can not be concluded that the state/ congress shall act in favour of rfelgious establoishements, or pass laws favouring any religion's demands and interests. And that is not just a conclusion, but is written there black on white.

I totally agree, with the minor exception of point "a". The reason has a great deal to do with the legal practice currently excersised in the U.S.
I would argue that one is not exempted from witnessing others practicing their beliefs.
To me, that is a ridiculous notion. Even extremists are not harming anyone by practising their beliefs in public. This is why we tolerate neo-nazi and KKK demonstrations. The subscribers of such beliefs only invite further humiliation and ridcule upon themselves by making their ignorant philosphies public.

Witnessing others practising their beliefs goes hand in hand with the inviolability of personal freedom.

It is all a matter of personal choice. People should have the right to attempt to convince others to think like they do, so long as they do not force the issue and leave when asked to.

Jehovah's witnesses are a pain in my a$$ because they come to my door several times a month and ask me to subscribe to their philosophy. I always politely turn them down or engage them in a lively debate concerning their religion to no avail.
But they are not violating my personal freedom. I can always close the door on them if I wish.

Legal professionals do not see this the same way. Do you remember when I wrote to you about the "culture of victimhood" in the U.S. ?
This is largely due to the legal profession. They can easily make a multi-milllion dollar case out of some person being offended by some other person's beliefs or their practice of said beliefs.
The U.S. legal code occupies an entire wing of the library of congress. There is no person on earth who understands it in its' entirety, but it is the law that governs us. What a paradox that is! We are governed by a law that no one can understand?

Once again we see the indestructible mechanics of capitalism at work. The legal professionals are beneficiaries of a complex legal code. By no small coincidence, most U.S. legislators, now and in the past, are/were lawyers.

Getting back to the point, these lawyers/legislators are greatly benefitted by a legal code that allows things like civil lawsuits over practise of personal beliefs to take place. As such, the preservation of personal freedoms has been distorted.


The truth of the matter is that one should have the frredom to be affected or unaffected by others' belefs as they choose. And this does include children, and their parents.


Finally, I posit that no state can ever administer a truly objective, or even effective, belief system. Look at the Soviet Union. Despite cradle-to-grave indoctrination in socialist philosphy, there was a black market, and a strong revolutionary presence, and even a military anti-establishment presence.

Keep in mind that I am playing Devil's Advocate here, as I would like to see your views.

[Thomen]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I have a problem with somebody who thinks creationism is of that intellectual quality that it should be taught side by side with scientific theopries in public school although the state has a constitutional obligation not to support any religion'S views and interests and to make sure the principle of secularism is obeyed - by all.

Now that is funny, Sky. As a matter of fact it is both taught in Germany, is it not? Strangely it seems, there are no such problems.But the kids and the parents have the right to opt out of the religion part.

I am for teaching both, with the chance to opt out. Give people the chance to decide for themselves. Forbidding one and favoring the other because it is more sound is exactly what many people do not want: Being told what they have to believe.

Hypocrisy FTW.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Thomen

I am for teaching both, with the chance to opt out. Give people the chance to decide for themselves. Forbidding one and favoring the other because it is more sound is exactly what many people do not want: Being told what they have to believe.

Hypocrisy FTW.

But are "both" the only options? What about the ancient Greek and Egyptian versions of creation? Hindu? 'Creation Science' springs directly from a religious belief, and its propagators do their best to hide that fact; but read any of their published books and that is the bottom line. It is one religious belief asking to be taught in publically funded schools as 'science', at the expense of all others.

[August]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

By the way I don't understand what's the big deal with this with christians in the US. After seeing it's a hot debate here I asked my only christian friend about her view on creation and she replyed "uh well, good question, I've been raised in a christian family but we never saw it as anything but a legend".

It's not as big a deal as the press, both here and over there, would have you believe Mik.

[Thomen]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

That's where some religious people are confused I think, as in "being told what they have to believe". Evolution is not about believing, creation is.
By the way I don't understand what's the big deal with this with christians in the US. After seeing it's a hot debate here I asked my only christian friend about her view on creation and she replyed "uh well, good question, I've been raised in a christian family but we never saw it as anything but a legend".

Good points, both of you!

My wife's ex-husbands wife, is a very devout person and it can get quite problematic when she is around.. hehe
Oh, and interestingly she comes from Wassilla, Alaska. No kidding.
Maybe we are in the middle of scheme to invade and take over the lower 48.... /just kidding

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Thomen

Now that is funny, Sky. As a matter of fact it is both taught in Germany, is it not? Strangely it seems, there are no such problems.But the kids and the parents have the right to opt out of the religion part.

I am for teaching both, with the chance to opt out. Give people the chance to decide for themselves. Forbidding one and favoring the other because it is more sound is exactly what many people do not want: Being told what they have to believe.

Hypocrisy FTW.

You are right. and maybe that is one of the reasons why there are political motivations on level of federal states to replace religious classes in school with non-specific, non-religious ethics classes. The hypocrisy continues in varied court-ruling regarding head-scarfs, and crucifixes in classroom. Conservative Bavaria ("Germany's Texas") insists on the latter, while other federal states have banned them, and have forbidden at least female teachers to wear head-scarfs. the state should stay away from promoting religious classes of any kind in publicly funded schools.

I myself was successfully banned repeatedly from religious classes for the rest of the schoolyear. Nothing better than to start early...

Creationism is NOT being taught at public schools in Germany. But the rate at which it is becoming popular in Europe'S new Eastern states, and Turkey and parts of the Islamic world as well, is frigthening. must be a virus eating the brain.

Lance,

when I said "witness" i maybe was not precise enough, and lacked the correct words. what I meanis: it is a difference to know that somebody is islamic, for example a colleague at work. not by business, I do not jump at his throat over that info alone. but if he is given freedoms to make breaks five times a day while others must compensate for his absence, or like we just had it in my wider neighbourhood: that in a part of the city where no Muslim community lives, a mosque is being raised or is to be enlarged, close to your home, or every time you go into town you need to shake off some people from religious information stands that try to engage you, or a sect is meeting in the flat next to you and you need to live with their tootling and yelling extacy, or a religious lobby demands teachings in its favour being brought to public or being made part of the curriculum at public schools - then that is something different.

As I always say: keep thy religion to thyself. It is NOT a public thing, it is a most privvate thing, so keep your belief in your private sphere. what could be more intimate and private than the relation you have between you and the deity you believe in? Is it a fairgrouund attraction? You need to dress it in candy-floss, and advertise it with colourful lights and promises for prices of goldfish? No relgion has a legal or moral right to missionize, no matter what it claims. I do not care for the colours of the walls in your flat, I must not like it and I must not be interested. But when you tell me I need to paint my own flat in the same colours, or that I need to come over and admire it and like it, I turn difficult, and short time later turn towards attack if you do not shut up. (Saying "you" in a general, not in a personal meaning). What somebody's private beliefs are, does not interest me as long as he does not claim needs or rights to bother others or me with it. But once he claims that by religion he is obligated and demands the freedom to make it known to the public, or enforce his ways no matter if the social environments cares or not, wants it or not, religion turns away from caring for man's spiritual wellfare and turns towards becoming totalitarian earthly powerpolitics, and is about trying to subjugate others and establish censorship and tyranny with itself as the ruler. That is true in case of Islam, and that is true for fundamental Christians lobbying for their church's goals, and that is true for the traditional past role of the conventional churches as well. As a matter of fact I think it is a general rule that where religion is public - RELIGION IS POWERPOLITICS. That's the deal: you submit. You can't argue with it, you can't have a reasonable debate, because religion wants you to give up the very reason and logic itself, give up independant thinking and submit to just believing, blindly - believing in what it tells you. You submit, becasue to say you got convinced needs that you have been given undeniable reasons and evidence. but this does religion not: it declares blind beloieving as the real virtue, and claims it is superior to reason and logic. Where you give reasons, thoughts, logic and argument, it just says "I believe different" and demands that that shall be seen as valid and worthy an attitude like evidence, logic or reason. This is where it becomes useless and a waste of time to try arguing with religion. when somebody says: "That is all nice and well what you say, but you can'T prove that god does not exist, and that is evidence for me that he does exist", it becomes stupid, and is nothing more than intellect's declaration of bancruptcy.

But where such people want me to accept limiting my freedom in favour of their religious powerpolitics, they find a new enemy in me. I demand to be left alone by them and their practices, and I demand them to practice their things in ways that I do not need to be constantly noting it, and does not need to chnage my life. keep thy religion to thyself. But if you don't - expect nothing but mockery and attack from me.

I think I have made my stand clear in the essay you asked me for last week. Even shorter, my position is this: believing is not knowing. I take the freedom to insist for you showing evidence that what you believe is true and your god does exist. Give me evidence in the meaning of the word, not just some distorted carricature of evidence, and I join your camp.

Or better, don't care for giving me evidence, but leave it to the boss himself to show up with evidence. If he really is a god, he knows my motivation and will understand it as the honesty that it is. and if he doesn't and just threatens me hellfire and penalty if I do not obey, he can lick my a$$.

If somebody wants creationism being taught in school as if it were on same eyelevel like scientific theories, then I demand classes to teach the religion of the flying spagetthi monster as a scientific truth as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

[Diopos]

Originally Posted by Skybird

...
If somebody wants creationism being taught in school as if it were on same eyelevel like scientific theories, then I demand classes to teach the religion of the flying spagetthi monster as a scientific truth as well.

Ok! I can tolerate many things but leave the "flying spagetthi monster" out of this discussion! Infidel!!!!!

[SS107.9MHz]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I think I have made my stand clear in the essay you asked me for last week. Even shorter, my position is this: believing is not knowing. I take the freedom to insist for you showing evidence that what you believe is true and your god does exist. Give me evidence in the meaning of the word, not just some distorted carricature of evidence, and I join your camp.

If somebody wants creationism being taught in school as if it were on same eyelevel like scientific theories, then I demand classes to teach the religion of the flying spagetthi monster as a scientific truth as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

Amen to that!:rotfl:

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Lance,
I think I have made my stand clear in the essay you asked me for last week. Even shorter, my position is this: believing is not knowing. I take the freedom to insist for you showing evidence that what you believe is true and your god does exist. Give me evidence in the meaning of the word, not just some distorted carricature of evidence, and I join your camp.

Yes, your essay did make your position on religion clear, and was a good read as well. Thanks again for that

And we do agree on limiting the influence of religion in secular, and especially political, affairs. So do not think that we are at odds over this. Like I said, I am only playing Devil's Advocate.

I was more interested to see what methods you would use to keep religion out of schools, politics, and public life in general. Looking back, I communicated this poorly. Sorry for that.

So, what do you think? Any public policies you would favor? And would you be politically opposed to creationism being taught in private schools?

[Wolfehunter]

Originally Posted by Skybird

You are right. and maybe that is one of the reasons why there are political motivations on level of federal states to replace religious classes in school with non-specific, non-religious ethics classes. The hypocrisy continues in varied court-ruling regarding head-scarfs, and crucifixes in classroom. Conservative Bavaria ("Germany's Texas") insists on the latter, while other federal states have banned them, and have forbidden at least female teachers to wear head-scarfs. the state should stay away from promoting religious classes of any kind in publicly funded schools.

I myself was successfully banned repeatedly from religious classes for the rest of the schoolyear. Nothing better than to start early...

Creationism is NOT being taught at public schools in Germany. But the rate at which it is becoming popular in Europe'S new Eastern states, and Turkey and parts of the Islamic world as well, is frigthening. must be a virus eating the brain.

Lance,

when I said "witness" i maybe was not precise enough, and lacked the correct words. what I meanis: it is a difference to know that somebody is islamic, for example a colleague at work. not by business, I do not jump at his throat over that info alone. but if he is given freedoms to make breaks five times a day while others must compensate for his absence, or like we just had it in my wider neighbourhood: that in a part of the city where no Muslim community lives, a mosque is being raised or is to be enlarged, close to your home, or every time you go into town you need to shake off some people from religious information stands that try to engage you, or a sect is meeting in the flat next to you and you need to live with their tootling and yelling extacy, or a religious lobby demands teachings in its favour being brought to public or being made part of the curriculum at public schools - then that is something different.

As I always say: keep thy religion to thyself. It is NOT a public thing, it is a most privvate thing, so keep your belief in your private sphere. what could be more intimate and private than the relation you have between you and the deity you believe in? Is it a fairgrouund attraction? You need to dress it in candy-floss, and advertise it with colourful lights and promises for prices of goldfish? No relgion has a legal or moral right to missionize, no matter what it claims. I do not care for the colours of the walls in your flat, I must not like it and I must not be interested. But when you tell me I need to paint my own flat in the same colours, or that I need to come over and admire it and like it, I turn difficult, and short time later turn towards attack if you do not shut up. (Saying "you" in a general, not in a personal meaning). What somebody's private beliefs are, does not interest me as long as he does not claim needs or rights to bother others or me with it. But once he claims that by religion he is obligated and demands the freedom to make it known to the public, or enforce his ways no matter if the social environments cares or not, wants it or not, religion turns away from caring for man's spiritual wellfare and turns towards becoming totalitarian earthly powerpolitics, and is about trying to subjugate others and establish censorship and tyranny with itself as the ruler. That is true in case of Islam, and that is true for fundamental Christians lobbying for their church's goals, and that is true for the traditional past role of the conventional churches as well. As a matter of fact I think it is a general rule that where religion is public - RELIGION IS POWERPOLITICS. That's the deal: you submit. You can't argue with it, you can't have a reasonable debate, because religion wants you to give up the very reason and logic itself, give up independant thinking and submit to just believing, blindly - believing in what it tells you. You submit, becasue to say you got convinced needs that you have been given undeniable reasons and evidence. but this does religion not: it declares blind beloieving as the real virtue, and claims it is superior to reason and logic. Where you give reasons, thoughts, logic and argument, it just says "I believe different" and demands that that shall be seen as valid and worthy an attitude like evidence, logic or reason. This is where it becomes useless and a waste of time to try arguing with religion. when somebody says: "That is all nice and well what you say, but you can'T prove that god does not exist, and that is evidence for me that he does exist", it becomes stupid, and is nothing more than intellect's declaration of bancruptcy.

But where such people want me to accept limiting my freedom in favour of their religious powerpolitics, they find a new enemy in me. I demand to be left alone by them and their practices, and I demand them to practice their things in ways that I do not need to be constantly noting it, and does not need to chnage my life. keep thy religion to thyself. But if you don't - expect nothing but mockery and attack from me.

I think I have made my stand clear in the essay you asked me for last week. Even shorter, my position is this: believing is not knowing. I take the freedom to insist for you showing evidence that what you believe is true and your god does exist. Give me evidence in the meaning of the word, not just some distorted carricature of evidence, and I join your camp.

Or better, don't care for giving me evidence, but leave it to the boss himself to show up with evidence. If he really is a god, he knows my motivation and will understand it as the honesty that it is. and if he doesn't and just threatens me hellfire and penalty if I do not obey, he can lick my a$$.

If somebody wants creationism being taught in school as if it were on same eyelevel like scientific theories, then I demand classes to teach the religion of the flying spagetthi monster as a scientific truth as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

I'm with skybird on the keep it personal.... I believe religion shouldn't be in schools but at home or in their church.

If a child wants to learn about a religion they should be able to do it on their own time with parental supervision.