Need help-seperation of church and state argument-I didn't write this

[adarling]

read this and see how disgusting it is. From Indiana Daily Student. I am going to write a letter to the editor, but i was wondering what everyone thought about it- Please help-This girl is soo strange


While settling in to watch Joan of Arcadia -- a television series about a girl who meets God in everyone from a punk rocker to an elderly lady -- a disclaimer from the network appeared on the screen. The message rejected any relationship between the show's theme and the views of the network. Clearly, CBS didn't want to offend anyone.

I am not going to lie. IU's diversity immersion is new to me. Before arriving at IU, I attended an all-girls catholic high school down south. We found diversity in the different colored ribbons we wore in our hair. The ideas behind the push for diversity are completely valid. Discrimination is awful and anything that leads to its demise is worth pursuing. Yet an overstatement of diversity often does two things: accentuates our differences and discriminates against the established norm.

Somewhere along the line, the Supreme Court decided that prayer in public schools was illegal. Separation of church and state apparently trumps First Amendment rights of free speech. Let's be honest here. Separation of church and state does not and will never exist. We are a country founded on the basis of freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. The government is prohibited from endorsing a religion. Yet how does a display of the Ten Commandments endorse a religion anymore than a copy of Bill Clinton's My Life endorse his adulterous lifestyle? Agnostic? So what! Those who do not believe in God do not believe in the authority of the document and do not take it as truth. Therefore, it cannot be offensive. Worship a deity of another name? Seriously, does the name really matter? Let's agree on fundamental truths and concentrate on the actual content of the document. Ousting the "Our Father" does not teach tolerance. It teaches that differences can be mended by throwing out the opposition. Requiring a classroom of kids to be silent out of respect for their peers and their decisions to pray (or not) is tolerance in action.

Diversity training often begins with acknowledging differences. Too often, this agenda promotes pointing out discrepancies and "recognizing and respecting" them by not questioning or seeking to understand them. This is counter-productive. Respectful dialogue not only helps to inform dissenters, but also strengthens their own convictions by encouraging them to explain the origins of their personal faith. By shutting down dialogue between social groups, we lose the ability to establish common ground and build a relationship of understanding. Differences segregate; similarities solidify.

Tolerance involves tolerating the majority. Skirting around a belief in God to avoid "offending" others is not only counter-intuitive, but downright ridiculous. Our country is characterized by its diversity and promise of freedom. Hiding behind our opinions and beliefs in order to be politically correct is not the spirit of America. Neither is hate. We may only stand united if we kneel in respect.

[WCGreen]

1. The government is not purchsing the copy of

Bill Clinton's book but is paying for the erection of the Ten Commandment memorial....

Second, freedom of relision means just that, that anyone can exercises the freedom to worship as they wish...

But if you are a minority student, meaning a protestant in a primarily catholic area of town, would you want your version of the our father or would you succumb to the wishes of the majority and reciet the Catholic version.....

That is what is meant by freedom of religion. The freedom to practice, as you wish with out inflicting the "tyranny of the majority" on those who are citizens but choose to view things defferently than you.

You can not have freedom unless all citizens can enjoy the same freedom.....

BTW, I loved Joan of Arcadia. I liked they way the compared the Catholic religion with the spirituality revolving around Joan's relationship with god.....

[mondo joe]

2. Bull. Shit.

"Somewhere along the line, the Supreme Court decided that prayer in public schools was illegal. Separation of church and state apparently trumps First Amendment rights of free speech."

Incorrect. You have free speech. You can't use publically funded resources to support your religion - that's different.

"Let's be honest here. Separation of church and state does not and will never exist. We are a country founded on the basis of freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. "

More bullshit. You can't have freedom OF religion without the government being religion-neutral, and that includes freedom FROM religion.

"The government is prohibited from endorsing a religion. Yet how does a display of the Ten Commandments endorse a religion anymore than a copy of Bill Clinton's My Life endorse his adulterous lifestyle? "

The 10 C's are publically funded and give the appearance of endorsement. If the government did the same with Clinton's book it might do the same - but it's not constitutionally forbidden.


"Agnostic? So what! Those who do not believe in God do not believe in the authority of the document and do not take it as truth."

What the fuck are you trying to say here? It's not relevant to the separation clause. The GOVERNMENT is not permitted to endorse religion, a religion, or favor any.

"Requiring a classroom of kids to be silent out of respect for their peers and their decisions to pray (or not) is tolerance in action."

They can pray on their own time and thheir own dime all they like. They have no business forcing other kids to sit through their religious ceremony.

Your subject line had it right: you do need help.

[adarling]

6. i didn't write the column

I am writing a letter to the editor and i wanted your opinions...do u think i would be a memeber of democratic underground and have these views..

[mondo joe]

8. I dunno - I've seen a number of bizarro opinions posted here now and

again. Consider my comments made to the author.

[adarling]

10. i will and thanks again

it seems there are alot of wolves in sheeps clothing posting really wierd stuff. Sorry to have confused u on this. :)

[kestrel91316]

3. ".............. and I expect YOU to kneel in respect to MY beliefs, peon"

What a malignant soul.

[mondo joe]

4. Indeed. A funny argument: "tolerance means you accepting my shit doesn't

stink, but keep yours to yourself".

[adarling]

7. hahahaha

love it, thanks

[SaveElmer]

5. Check out this site...Americans United

Several good resources here

http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=resources

[adarling]

9. thank u

i want to take her down a peg, she has been writing conservative crap like this all summer and they don't have a liberal counterpart to any of it, except the letters to the editor

[SaveElmer]

11. Well this site will do it...

The primier organization protecting the constitutional seperation

Rev. Barry Lynn is the head...a really great guy!!!

You might also google the founders comments on it...plenty out there...one on my sig line

[HawkerHurricane]

12. Tell you what, lady...

we can have prayer in public school...
IF I GET TO PICK THE PRAYER.
And no, you don't get to know what prayer I intend to pick.
I don't get to pick? Then you don't either. My way or no way.

(Little miss Catholic doesn't know that the reason the Catholics have thier own school system is because they got tired of Protastant prayers in public school.)

[bonzotex]

13. wow...where to begin!!?

If you want to do a LTTE keep it short and sweet. This whole thing could be torn to pieces easily but I'd just stick with the paragraph:

"Somewhere along the line, the Supreme Court decided that prayer in public schools was illegal. Separation of church and state apparently trumps First Amendment rights of free speech.....etc...

That whole paragraph is full of right wing Christian nonsense. Pick one part and use it to demonstrate why this guy: (pick one)

a) is an idiot (ridicule him in a funny way)
b) doesn't understand US history or the Constitution (cite quotes, examples)
c) doesn't understand logical argument (point out a logical fallacy, there's plenty!)
d) is looking for repression where none exists (refute his whole premise)

some points to use:

Prayer in public school is not illegal, it's just illegal for the school to lead or endorse it.

Separation of Church and State was a passionately stated goal of the founders, and even though the Constitution doesn't say the words "Separation of Church and State" anywhere it also doesn't say "God" anywhere.

Nobody is placing 10,000 lb bronze graven images of Bill Clinton's book in Courthouses.

Having someone else's religion forced on you through the law of your County, State or Nation is pretty damn offensive to a lot of people, especially if you don't share that belief.

"Requiring a classroom of kids to be silent out of respect for their peers and their decisions to pray (or not) is tolerance in action." ...is not illegal, just retarded, a waste of valuable class time and not the issue.

Have fun!

[adarling]

14. thanks

by the way...she was a girl...i am a guy at school trying to get her to stop torturing this liberal campus with her nonsense

[bonzotex]

15. he, she, it... do the right thing! n/t

[GiovanniC]

16. So... Who Else Here is a Member of the United Church of Clinton's Penis?

Am I the only one?

[Alcibiades]

19. Kneel

Monica Lewinsky is. Many was the hour she spent, reverently kneeling in respect.

No, that thought is heretical. I must purify myself by making the sign of the distinguishing characteristic. All hail the bent one!

[GiovanniC]

20. Perhaps We Could Erect a Statue of Clinton's Penis

on the statehouse lawn?

It could be displayed merely for the historical value.




PS... yes, I DID use both "erect" and "Clinton's Penis" in the same subject line!

[Alcibiades]

17. Separation of church and state part one

Extremist Christian revisionist historians have been trying to hijack this country’s history by spreading the lie that America was established as an explicitly Christian nation, whereas the truth of the matter is that our founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing in creating a secular government that would guarantee religious liberty for all, including (and perhaps especially) unbelievers. And by God, it’s time we stopped them from so doing.

The central lie behind this effort is the concept that there is an identifiable group of Americans who “people of faith.” These persons are supposed to be more genuinely American and more virtuous than the rest of us. Whoever says “faith” in this way is trying to deceive you. Religious Americans are not comprised of “people of faith,” but rather “people of many faiths.” By framing the issue as one of a virtuous and devout majority of faithful versus a minority of decadent and depraved faithless, Republicans have held together a heterogeneous coalition of Protestants, Catholics and Jews, who actually only have political partisanship and conservatism in common.

The fact that the very notion of “people of faith” is grounded in a lie does not matter, unless we are able to expose it for what it is. In practice, whenever these “people of faith” do win, they wind up affirming a particular faith. The fact that the writer does not realize that the question of the name of God is a matter of great theological controversy reveals his historical ignorance, intentional or unintentional. Christians practice the worship of Jesus: Jews do not—when school boards in Alabama and Georgia get to write the rules, will rural southern Jews (yes, there are such people) be forced to follow the practices of the majority?

[Alcibiades]

18. and part two

Every religious practice referred to by the writer prefers one religious practice over another. Even “Our Father” assumes, or takes for granted, the holy trinity of the most Catholic Church, whose not-so-tender embrace many of our forefathers fled. Every version of the Ten Commandments that appears in English is taken from some translation of the Bible: depicting one to the exclusion of others clearly is a step towards endorsing one sect’s translation over all others. “Worship a deity of another name?” Sadly, this writer does not even apparently know the Ten Commandments, for, if he did, he would realize that Jehovah is a jealous god, etc. The name of God IS part of “the actual content of the document.” This writer thinks it’s grand for “dissenters” to “explore the origins of their personal faith,” as though this were somehow non-controversial. The point is that dissenters should not have to explore (i.e. justify) their faith for his benefit or anyone else’s: that’s why it’s called faith. The very idea that there are fundamental truths upon which we all can agree is belied by the very existence of the diversity of religions.

As in almost every instance of this “argument” against the separation of church and state, this one is rife with logical flaws: this either does not speak well of the quality of education poor the writer has had at her Catholic School down south, or, as is more likely the case, her ability to receive such an education. She begins her rant with a tirade against the disclaimer, and then goes on to ramble on about the diversity policy of the university and the separation of church and state. Though connections may be drawn between these things, she fails to do so. The CBS disclaimer—which I have not read—is probably not even directed at atheists or agnostics at any event, for they would find the show to be a harmless fantasy, but rather at “people of faith” such as Mr. Darling. I have not watched the show, but I suspect it is deeply heretical to at least one of the many religions out there. She claims to have an understanding of diversity developed at her all-girls Catholic school “down south,” where “We found diversity in the different colored ribbons we wore in our hair,” which is either an intentional trivialization of what diversity advocates advocate or evidence that she has no understanding of what diversity means at a large state school such as IU. I find it especially ironic that this attack on separation of church and state comes from someone who claims to have attended a Catholic school in the south, because if the majority in the south had their way, those schools would have been claimed by Southern Baptists and the students forcibly converted years ago.