On 1/26/2012 4:53 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
In ,
wrote:

Han wrote:

It irks me just a pesky little bit, but as an agnostic,it's just a
really tiny little bit. It's your SCOTUS who have interpreted the
amendment to mean that the state shouldn't interfere in church and
religious businesses, and tha includes offically allowing/sponsoring
religious expressions. I think that is generally a goodT thing. As
mentioned I'm against anything that allows or sponsors
proselytizing.

But proselytizing is an integral part of both Christianity and Islam.

To the faithful, prohibiting proselytizing is no different than
prohibiting baptism or cutting off the heads of unbelievers.

proselytize all you want, but not in public schools. it should be
pointed out that proselytizing is NOT an integral part to lots of
other religions

If the government prohibits proselytizing in government schools then, by
definition, the government is meddling in the free exercize of religion. In
your view, it seems, you would require those dedicated to spreading their
word to affiliate themselves with a foreign deity to avoid offending the
irreligious.



I believe wholeheartedly in religious freedom and I have every right to
say "no thank you" when someone tries to share their faith with me. If
they don't understand "no" then I believe I have a right to use much
stronger measures to convince the proselytizer that I'm not interested
in their religion. I've found that pepper spray is quite effective.

TDD

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:42:03 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:



I read something that was quite disturbing to me a while back. It seems
that the EEOC may now take action against employers who refuse to hire
anyone who lacks a high school diploma because it's employment
discrimination. The EEOC now considers those without a high school
diploma to be "disabled" and should be considered as such when applying
for a job. o_O

TDD

I no longer hire anyone that has not graduated or have a GED. If they
can't finish high school, they are not ready for the workplace.
Everyone of those "disabled" people has turned out to be lazy,
irresponsible, and unreliable. They don't make the 30 day trial
period.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:05:30 -0600, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:




There is a way to evaluate a teacher's performance
One is to benchmark each student with a standard test at BOTH the start and
end of the "teaching period".
But because there are so many outside factors that come into play, such as
the student's culture and home life, that there will never be a good enough
system to do so properly.

It is not easy to grade a teacher, but it is possible to weed out the
bottom 10% or so. Every trade or profession has a few whackos. Get
rid of them early on. Give the rest a good paycheck.

We are the top spending country for education in the world, but rank
only 10th in academics. It is not just money or the lack of it.
Parent involvement is worse than ever too.

On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 16:45:20 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:


How about the family farm? right now,the inheritance tax forces people to
sell their property to meet the tax,despite taxes having already been paid
on that wealth.Double taxation.

Inheritance taxes are put in place, and rather blantantly if you listen
to the people pushing them, solely to punish those who make so much
money that they offend the pushers. Inheritances should be taxed by what
they are. If business, then the inheritors pay the cap gains tax just
like they would have if they had bought it (and get the stepped up
basis).

with LLC's or trusts, why would anyone place themselves in the position of being
liable for inheritance taxes?

Corporations don't shield an estate from estate taxes. Before the corporation
changes hands, at death, they are taxed. An irrevocable trust can change
hands without taxes but it has actually changed hands before the death of the
originator.

On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 16:45:30 -0600, "HeyBub" wrote:

Attila.Iskander wrote:

I think teaching is a great career. Teachers should be appreciated
and well paid. It is the whole school administration that needs
reworking.

There I completely agree with you.
Most school administration systems are so sclerotic and bureaucratic,
that they are counter to any effective teaching.

Yep. I live in the largest school district in the country's largest (almost)
state. Less than half of the payroll is spent on teachers. Oh, you've got to
have people to drive the school busses, mop the halls, and, yes, print the
paychecks, but only HALF of a school district's payroll for teachers?

It's insane.

At one time Vermont had all school data online. They got smart and pulled it
after a few found out what was really happening. They had a student to
teacher ratio of 13:1, which is low but it didn't stop there. There was one
non-teaching teacher for every other one teaching. Also, an "aide" for every
other teacher and an administrator for every three (IIRC). Why are there
"teachers" who's job isn't to teach? Why a professional employee for every
six, or fewer, students? What can they show for it (not damned much)?


But that's not all the government's fault. School systems are truly places
were the insane are in charge of the asylum.

That *is* government.

"Han" wrote in message
...
"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
:


"Han" wrote in message
...
"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Norminn wrote:

Eeeeewwwwhhh! I haven't seen "Newt" and "sex" used in the same
sentence before....pretty much unimaginable ) I don't know why
anyone gives him a hard time about divorcing his first two wives;
I kinda think he did them a favor. Callista looks like a match,
kinda lizardy.

What's a hoot is his second wife complaining that he did to her what
he did with his first wife with her.

This is kind of a take-off on the advice given to young men:
"Laddie, if your lady says bad things about her former husband or
previous beau, someday she'll be saying the same things about you."

Actually, what the guy does in bed or with his squeezes doesn't
concern me so much, although there is a reflection on character and
honesty. What concerns me much more is how he gets his millions,
which I think is by influence peddling ("pimping") and outright lies.
That he gets it, is a reflection on DC prostitution.


Do you have any DATA to support your belief ?
Or is it a case of wanting to believe something while hoping it to be
true ?

I said I don't care what he does in bed and that I'd like more info on
how he got rich. Is that a belief?


Do you even know how many books he has written ?
Not to mention articles ?
Most if not all generated revenue...
He also has been in Congress long enough to have a generous pension

In article ,
"Stormin Mormon" wrote:

It's been several years ago, but I think I remember the schools in, what
state was it? California? Were teaching Muslim studies in schools, including
having the kids take on Muslim sounding names.

I don't doubt there was educational segment dealing with comparative
cultures/religions, and I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't happen around 9/11,
but unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, I seriously doubt there was
a semester studies on the subject.

For your info, there are also the same studies on slavery and the holocaust plus
the American Indians.

But perhaps you prefer the the ostrich technique of education




Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
news
If the government prohibits proselytizing in government schools then, by
definition, the government is meddling in the free exercize of religion. In
your view, it seems, you would require those dedicated to spreading their
word to affiliate themselves with a foreign deity to avoid offending the
irreligious.

In article ,
" wrote:

On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 16:45:20 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:


How about the family farm? right now,the inheritance tax forces people
to sell their property to meet the tax,despite taxes having already been
paid on that wealth.Double taxation.

Inheritance taxes are put in place, and rather blantantly if you listen to
the people pushing them, solely to punish those who make so much money
that they offend the pushers. Inheritances should be taxed by what they
are. If business, then the inheritors pay the cap gains tax just like they
would have if they had bought it (and get the stepped up basis).

with LLC's or trusts, why would anyone place themselves in the position of
being liable for inheritance taxes?

Corporations don't shield an estate from estate taxes. Before the
corporation changes hands, at death, they are taxed. An irrevocable trust
can change hands without taxes but it has actually changed hands before the
death of the originator.


if the estate is a corporation how can the estate be inherited other than the
normal process of shareholders/members of the corporation. If a corporation
dies, it should pay taxes on the proceeds of the dissolution

In article ,
"Stormin Mormon" wrote:

I'm all for it. And a gay bar, to one side of the mosque, and a pork butcher
shop on the other side.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"Malcom "Mal" Reynolds" wrote in message
...

and let's not forget how tolerant you xians were of the muslims that wanted
to
open a mosque just blocks away from the Towers site.

as long as we can have a gay bar and a shooting range using jesus for targets
next to churches

On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 22:17:38 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:42:03 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:



I read something that was quite disturbing to me a while back. It seems
that the EEOC may now take action against employers who refuse to hire
anyone who lacks a high school diploma because it's employment
discrimination. The EEOC now considers those without a high school
diploma to be "disabled" and should be considered as such when applying
for a job. o_O

TDD

I no longer hire anyone that has not graduated or have a GED. If they
can't finish high school, they are not ready for the workplace.
Everyone of those "disabled" people has turned out to be lazy,
irresponsible, and unreliable. They don't make the 30 day trial
period.

You should only hire occupiers who have degrees in Ancient Egyptian
Literature, $100K in student loans, and live in mommy's basement. They
*must* be motivated, right?

On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 22:23:15 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:05:30 -0600, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:




There is a way to evaluate a teacher's performance
One is to benchmark each student with a standard test at BOTH the start and
end of the "teaching period".
But because there are so many outside factors that come into play, such as
the student's culture and home life, that there will never be a good enough
system to do so properly.

It is not easy to grade a teacher, but it is possible to weed out the
bottom 10% or so. Every trade or profession has a few whackos. Get
rid of them early on. Give the rest a good paycheck.

They get good paychecks now and absurdly good benefits. Get rid of the 10%,
sure, but fix the other problems, too.

We are the top spending country for education in the world, but rank
only 10th in academics. It is not just money or the lack of it.
Parent involvement is worse than ever too.

In article ,
Han wrote:



"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American
people which declared that their ***legislature*** should "make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church &
State. (emphasis mine)

I interpret that to specifically mean that no law shall be made to
sanction any religion as official, and that would mean no religious this
or that in public schools, since they are directed by law to educate the
kids, and so are a direct extension of the legislature. (It's immaterial
here that schools in general don't do a good job educating).

The gist is that the constitution, and TJ's suggested
interpretation, only impact on active things. That the legislative
bodies can't pick out one and make it the official religion. This has
nothing to do with more passive actions such as allowing Christmas
decorations or even pagents, and especially not disallowing student-lead
prayer.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

In article ,
"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" wrote:


if the estate is a corporation how can the estate be inherited other than the
normal process of shareholders/members of the corporation. If a corporation
dies, it should pay taxes on the proceeds of the dissolution

But the person dies, not the corp. One of the reasons behind a corp is
to last longer than the individual. Besides, this doesn't begin to talk
about the main problem, that is traditionally has been used as a means
to take away money when someone has more than the PTB think they should.
I think an inheritance tax is fine as long as it taxes what is
inherited at the same rate as it would have in a non-death situation.
Inheriting stock, pay the cap gains like any other sale (although I
would also be happy with no taxes, but no update in basis so we'd still
get the some amount of money when sold... even if two more generations
later)./

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 22:17:38 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:42:03 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:



I read something that was quite disturbing to me a while back. It
seems that the EEOC may now take action against employers who
refuse to hire anyone who lacks a high school diploma because it's
employment discrimination. The EEOC now considers those without a
high school diploma to be "disabled" and should be considered as
such when applying for a job. o_O

TDD

I no longer hire anyone that has not graduated or have a GED. If
they can't finish high school, they are not ready for the workplace.
Everyone of those "disabled" people has turned out to be lazy,
irresponsible, and unreliable. They don't make the 30 day trial
period.

You should only hire occupiers who have degrees in Ancient Egyptian
Literature, $100K in student loans, and live in mommy's basement.
They *must* be motivated, right?

Heh! Saw an interview with a visibly upset occupier. He said:

"I'm a recent college graduate with a boatload of debt and I can't find a
job!"

Interviewer: "What was your college major?"

Occupier: "I don't see how that's relevant."

Attila.Iskander wrote:

So tell me how do you evaluate a teacher's performance when that
teacher has to deals with kids
- whose home life is in shambles ?
- who come to school with clothes that haven't been washed for a few
days ? - who just had a parent incarcerated or murdered ?
- whose parents don't believe that education is worthwhile ?

Teaching success does NOT depend PURELY on the teacher
It also depends on the students, the parents, and even that family's
culture with respect to education.

Even the best teacher will fail if the student is not willing, or
able, or conditioned against studying.

Then:
a) The teacher should obtain the necessary skills to motivate the
un-motivated, or
b) The student should be cycled into the "incorrigible" career path.

I agree you can't make a railroad locomotive out of wood, no matter the
skill of the craftsman. But you can change the builder's raw materials.

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
In article ,
"Stormin Mormon" wrote:

Not at all.

Any religious person may run for office, or behave in a religious
manner in matters of politics. As long as the Fed doesn't create a
church or denomination (such as the Church of England).

requiring those that are irreligious, non-religious or even non-xian
to be involuntarily exposed to xianity is defacto a state church



Er, no. First, you've got to establish who exactly IS a Christian. I know
that Southern Baptists do not consider Mexican Catholics to be Christians. A
near-majority of non-Mormons don't think the Mormon Church is a Christian
entity. And so on.

I can't imagine getting anywhere close to unanimity on the definition.
Without a firm test, you're doomed.

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:

If the government prohibits proselytizing in government schools
then, by definition, the government is meddling in the free exercize
of religion.

So you would let pedophiles proselytize in gov't schools in the free
exercise of their speech?

Um, yes, if they met the requirements of being able to speak in a public
school (remember, the original context was with pupils being able to express
themselves). We already permit gay and lesbian teachers, and readings of
"Sally Has Two Mommies".

My ACTUAL view is that schools should prohibit that which falls outside
contemporary community standards (we already do that with obscenity). But as
long as the current rule is "anything goes," why should religion be
excluded?


In your view, it seems, you would require those dedicated to
spreading their word to affiliate themselves with a foreign deity to
avoid offending the irreligious.

irreligious? big difference between being irreligious and
non-religious or especially non-xian, but I bet you would be just as
offended if your xian child was subjected to the very same
proselytizing by muslims or jews in your "gov't" school.

No, I wouldn't. My religion teaches that what God wants is righteous
conduct. To the degree that such proselytizing strengthens the faith - and
conduct - of the preacher, it's a Good Thing(tm). My kids won't be affected
by it. Nor insulted. We'll wish the Christians well and success in their
endeavors.

I'll admit I'm confused by your terminology; what's the difference between
"irreligious" and "non-religious?"

Just asking.

Han wrote:

If you'd allow official proselytizing or sanction religious displays
(behavior, things) in schools you'd be approving that religion, which
is contrary to the law. If you want to come by my house and ask me
or tell me things about your religion, I am free to say no, as you
are free to try, as long as you do not annoy me.


I disagree. Merely permitting a behavior is not the same thing as endorsing
the behavior. If I showed up at the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts
in Bermuda shorts and a t-shirt, I'd probably be permitted to attend a
performance of The Marriage of Figaro. But I bet you a dollar, the
blue-noses wouldn't approve of my attire.

Larry W wrote:
In article ,
Han wrote:
Steve Barker wrote in
:

On 1/25/2012 11:16 PM, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:


Except for that pesky 1st amendment thing of separating church and
state.


it just makes me sick that this amendment is taken out of context
constantly. It was written to keep the Government out of the
church. NOT to keep the church out of the government. There IS no
separation, and those words 'church and state' do not appear in the
text.

It irks me just a pesky little bit, but as an agnostic,it's just a
really tiny little bit. It's your SCOTUS who have interpreted the
amendment to mean that the state shouldn't interfere in church and
religious businesses, and tha includes offically allowing/sponsoring
religious expressions. I think that is generally a goodT thing. As
mentioned I'm against anything that allows or sponsors proselytizing.


From a constructionist perspective, one does not have to do much
research into the writings of the founders to find that their
intention was indeed to erect a wall of separation between church and
state. Thomas Jefferson himself used the phrase as early as 1802 to
describe the intent of the "establishment clause."

Er, no. It wasn't until 1946 that the so-called "Establishment of Religion"
clause was imposed upon the states. Until that time, any state could have a
"state sponsored" religion.

For example, the Massachusetts Constitution read, in part:

"...the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature
with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to
time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and
other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at
their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for
the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion
and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made
voluntarily."

Robert Green wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Robert Green wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
From the rebuttal to the president's State of the Union address, by
Mitch Daniels:

Jeez, HeyBub. You want your party to lead, but you can't remember
to add OT to an Off Topic post subject line. How's your team going
to handle the "tough" decisions if adding two letters is too hard
for them?

Light bulbs and the government mandating thereof is a frequent topic
on this newsgroup.

Only because habitual OT posters like you MAKE IT SO. Recently the
signal-to-noise ratio has gone through the roof again. People that
spend considerable time writing OT political tripe *can't* be
spending that time answering actual on-topic posts. cc

Several posters here have said things far more hurtful about the
government and light bulbs than did the governor of Indiana.

Or haven't you been keeping up?

Sounds like you're starting to believe your own bullshi+, HeyBub I'm
not buying it. It turns out that after a little analysis that a
*very* small number of posters here consistently use this newsgroup
as their private blog and start topics just to kick up dust. Yes,
I've joined in when people spew utter nonsense that *demands*
correction, like the Birthers, but you really will have to look very,
very hard to find any OT political threads I've started. Not so with
you and a very few others. Why on earth are you so determined to
force politics into a home repair newsgroup? Were you the kind of
kid that put spiders and ants in jars to watch them fight?

How do you think you score on a rank ordered list of "starts the most
off-topic political posts in AHR?" One of your right wing buddies
recently raised that issue (getting it completely wrong, as always),
so I thought I would start to shine some light on who the very, very
few people here who account for the vast majority of off-topic posts.
Very, very few - when you talk about those who are more than
occasional offenders as most of us are. That's fine. But when
someone keeps kicking out flamebait, week after week, you have to
wonder what their real agenda is. What is your real agenda, HeyBub?
Or are you just afraid to argue politics with experts in the
political newsgroups? They're a *much* tougher crowd and might chew
you up and spit you out when you start "Gingrichizing."

If want to perpetuate the belief that the right winger doesn't know
where they are, are incapable of exercising self-control, think of
themselves as above the rules, can't recognize boundaries, likes to
start fights and can't even type two letters correctly, be my guest
and keep flooding AHR with political clap-trap. I'll be happy to
point it out every time. (-: In fact, post all you want. I can't
imagine anyone offering a better opportunity to point out why the
right shouldn't rule.

Okay, I'll play. Show me ONE off-topic thread I've started that didn't have
OT as part of its subject. Just one.

And I will not accept anything about light bulbs as being off-topic.

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:

Not stupid. If my city government shuts down my favorite unsanitary
taco stand, the city government has interfered with my choice of
tacos.

and saved the city from liability issues, the hospital from
overcrowding and your insurance company from additional costs



You are correct. And in so doing, they deprived me of a choice. The
government forced me to do what's good for me (and others) when all they had
to do was mandate a sign: "If you eat these tacos, the state of California
will get cancer" or somesuch.

I expect a mandate soon to eat at least three helpings of arugula each week.
There will be monitors.

Plonk!

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Malcom "Mal" Reynolds" wrote in message
...

as long as we can have a gay bar and a shooting range using jesus for
targets
next to churches

"HeyBub" wrote in news:-
:

Then:
a) The teacher should obtain the necessary skills to motivate the
un-motivated, or
b) The student should be cycled into the "incorrigible" career path.

That is indeed what is happening in a nearby school district. Teachers
were fired en masse, and many were re-hired at different "schools".
"Schools" were closed and new "schools" and "academies" were opened (same
old buildings), and students and teachers were re-apportioned to warehouses
and teaching facilities (my words). I think they generated ways for kids
to move from warehouse to school, and vice versa. Hopefully the pregnancy
rates will "improve" ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:

If the government prohibits proselytizing in government schools
then, by definition, the government is meddling in the free exercize
of religion.

So you would let pedophiles proselytize in gov't schools in the free
exercise of their speech?

Um, yes, if they met the requirements of being able to speak in a
public school (remember, the original context was with pupils being
able to express themselves). We already permit gay and lesbian
teachers, and readings of "Sally Has Two Mommies".

My ACTUAL view is that schools should prohibit that which falls
outside contemporary community standards (we already do that with
obscenity). But as long as the current rule is "anything goes," why
should religion be excluded?


In your view, it seems, you would require those dedicated to
spreading their word to affiliate themselves with a foreign deity to
avoid offending the irreligious.

irreligious? big difference between being irreligious and
non-religious or especially non-xian, but I bet you would be just as
offended if your xian child was subjected to the very same
proselytizing by muslims or jews in your "gov't" school.

No, I wouldn't. My religion teaches that what God wants is righteous
conduct. To the degree that such proselytizing strengthens the faith -
and conduct - of the preacher, it's a Good Thing(tm). My kids won't be
affected by it. Nor insulted. We'll wish the Christians well and
success in their endeavors.

I'll admit I'm confused by your terminology; what's the difference
between "irreligious" and "non-religious?"

Just asking.

I like that phrase "righteous conduct". I will use it too. In my view
righteous conduct doesn't mandate any religion or view except being a
"good person"™


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Han wrote:

If you'd allow official proselytizing or sanction religious displays
(behavior, things) in schools you'd be approving that religion, which
is contrary to the law. If you want to come by my house and ask me
or tell me things about your religion, I am free to say no, as you
are free to try, as long as you do not annoy me.


I disagree. Merely permitting a behavior is not the same thing as
endorsing the behavior. If I showed up at the Kennedy Center for the
Performing Arts in Bermuda shorts and a t-shirt, I'd probably be
permitted to attend a performance of The Marriage of Figaro. But I bet
you a dollar, the blue-noses wouldn't approve of my attire.

There is a difference between proselytizing and Bermuda shorts, AFAIK.
And, no, I don't approve of either under those circumstances. As you said
elsewhere - righteous behavior is what should (fill in verb).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

The Daring Dufas wrote in news:jfsu9g$bc$1
@dont-email.me:

I believe wholeheartedly in religious freedom and I have every right to
say "no thank you" when someone tries to share their faith with me. If
they don't understand "no" then I believe I have a right to use much
stronger measures to convince the proselytizer that I'm not interested
in their religion. I've found that pepper spray is quite effective.

Yep, but over here a "no, thank you" to the Jehovah's witnesses has been
sufficient

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Kurt Ullman wrote in
m:

In article ,
Han wrote:



"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole
American people which declared that their ***legislature*** should
"make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of
separation between Church & State. (emphasis mine)

I interpret that to specifically mean that no law shall be made to
sanction any religion as official, and that would mean no religious
this or that in public schools, since they are directed by law to
educate the kids, and so are a direct extension of the legislature.
(It's immaterial here that schools in general don't do a good job
educating).

The gist is that the constitution, and TJ's suggested
interpretation, only impact on active things. That the legislative
bodies can't pick out one and make it the official religion. This has
nothing to do with more passive actions such as allowing Christmas
decorations or even pagents, and especially not disallowing
student-lead prayer.

I agree that the "prohibition" against decorations etc has gone a bit too
far. Student-led prayer is a different thing, since then a majority, or
even a minority, can easily become coercive. Look at a (perhaps crazy)
example. If you allow that in a majority Christian/Catholic/Baptist
school, you need to allow it also in a majority Jewish community, or
Muslim community. I can see it already, before a public high school
football game 3/4 of the students prostrate themselves facing east ...

If someone wants to bow their head and mumble a phrase or two, or cross
themselves before coming to bat, that's fine, because it is a short and
personal gesture. Leading the congregation in prayer is something to be
done in church (substitute other religions' peculiarities).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Larry W wrote:
In article ,
Han wrote:
Steve Barker wrote in
:

On 1/25/2012 11:16 PM, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:


Except for that pesky 1st amendment thing of separating church and
state.


it just makes me sick that this amendment is taken out of context
constantly. It was written to keep the Government out of the
church. NOT to keep the church out of the government. There IS no
separation, and those words 'church and state' do not appear in the
text.

It irks me just a pesky little bit, but as an agnostic,it's just a
really tiny little bit. It's your SCOTUS who have interpreted the
amendment to mean that the state shouldn't interfere in church and
religious businesses, and tha includes offically allowing/sponsoring
religious expressions. I think that is generally a goodT thing. As
mentioned I'm against anything that allows or sponsors
proselytizing.


From a constructionist perspective, one does not have to do much
research into the writings of the founders to find that their
intention was indeed to erect a wall of separation between church and
state. Thomas Jefferson himself used the phrase as early as 1802 to
describe the intent of the "establishment clause."

Er, no. It wasn't until 1946 that the so-called "Establishment of
Religion" clause was imposed upon the states. Until that time, any
state could have a "state sponsored" religion.

For example, the Massachusetts Constitution read, in part:

"...the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their
legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature
shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns,
parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies,
to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution
of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of
public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all
cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily."

Yes, the colony was established by people fleeing religious persecution
in England, and established a most similar religiously persecuting
community in the new colony. Has been often held up for ridicule.
Wasn't Rhode Island established by religious refugees from Mass.?

The fact that something is or was established by (civil or religious)
law, doesn't make it righteous! (which is of course only in the eye of
the beholder)

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 22:17:38 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:42:03 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:



I read something that was quite disturbing to me a while back. It
seems that the EEOC may now take action against employers who
refuse to hire anyone who lacks a high school diploma because it's
employment discrimination. The EEOC now considers those without a
high school diploma to be "disabled" and should be considered as
such when applying for a job. o_O

TDD

I no longer hire anyone that has not graduated or have a GED. If
they can't finish high school, they are not ready for the workplace.
Everyone of those "disabled" people has turned out to be lazy,
irresponsible, and unreliable. They don't make the 30 day trial
period.

You should only hire occupiers who have degrees in Ancient Egyptian
Literature, $100K in student loans, and live in mommy's basement.
They *must* be motivated, right?

Heh! Saw an interview with a visibly upset occupier. He said:

"I'm a recent college graduate with a boatload of debt and I can't find a
job!"

Interviewer: "What was your college major?"

Occupier: "I don't see how that's relevant."

LOL
Obviously, it's not what he leaned that's important
What a maroon.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Attila.Iskander wrote:

So tell me how do you evaluate a teacher's performance when that
teacher has to deals with kids
- whose home life is in shambles ?
- who come to school with clothes that haven't been washed for a few
days ? - who just had a parent incarcerated or murdered ?
- whose parents don't believe that education is worthwhile ?

Teaching success does NOT depend PURELY on the teacher
It also depends on the students, the parents, and even that family's
culture with respect to education.

Even the best teacher will fail if the student is not willing, or
able, or conditioned against studying.

Then:
a) The teacher should obtain the necessary skills to motivate the
un-motivated, or
b) The student should be cycled into the "incorrigible" career path.


1) There is NO WAY to "motivate the unmotivated"
The military in the days of the draft failed at that
The most excessive form of that would be slave labor in it's various
forms
2) The current attitude of the "educators" is that recycling the students
to show their real level of performance or achievement would be "damaging to
the egos of the poor children".
A big NO-NO.
Our schools, and good students, have been paying the price for that
stupidity over the last 50 years.


I agree you can't make a railroad locomotive out of wood, no matter the
skill of the craftsman. But you can change the builder's raw materials.

Not going to happen unless a MAJOR revision occurs to the mission statement
of public schools.

In article ,
Han wrote:



I agree that the "prohibition" against decorations etc has gone a bit too
far. Student-led prayer is a different thing, since then a majority, or
even a minority, can easily become coercive. Look at a (perhaps crazy)
example. If you allow that in a majority Christian/Catholic/Baptist
school, you need to allow it also in a majority Jewish community, or
Muslim community. I can see it already, before a public high school
football game 3/4 of the students prostrate themselves facing east ...
I was talking more about specific functions. For instance if the
students vote to include a prayer at graduation ceremonies, which is
forbidden. In many instances, they have said a person couldn't use even
a biblical reference in their validictory speech.




--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:

Not stupid. If my city government shuts down my favorite unsanitary
taco stand, the city government has interfered with my choice of
tacos.

and saved the city from liability issues, the hospital from
overcrowding and your insurance company from additional costs



You are correct. And in so doing, they deprived me of a choice. The
government forced me to do what's good for me (and others) when all they had
to do was mandate a sign: "If you eat these tacos, the state of California
will get cancer" or somesuch.

I expect a mandate soon to eat at least three helpings of arugula each week.
There will be monitors.

you seem to be under the impression that you deserve special treatment or that
in fact the law offers you freedom of choice...you don't and it doesn't

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Han wrote:

If you'd allow official proselytizing or sanction religious displays
(behavior, things) in schools you'd be approving that religion, which
is contrary to the law. If you want to come by my house and ask me
or tell me things about your religion, I am free to say no, as you
are free to try, as long as you do not annoy me.


I disagree. Merely permitting a behavior is not the same thing as endorsing
the behavior. If I showed up at the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts
in Bermuda shorts and a t-shirt, I'd probably be permitted to attend a
performance of The Marriage of Figaro. But I bet you a dollar, the
blue-noses wouldn't approve of my attire.

well maybe we can come up with a win-win scenario with this logic. Since the
KCfPA is a for profit institution and you had to pay admission to demonstrate
your sartorial excellence, let people proselytize in public schools all they
want as long as they pay a sufficiently high fee for the privilege. That money
could be used to build schools where the students would be proselytizing free

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:

If the government prohibits proselytizing in government schools
then, by definition, the government is meddling in the free exercize
of religion.

So you would let pedophiles proselytize in gov't schools in the free
exercise of their speech?

Um, yes, if they met the requirements of being able to speak in a public
school (remember, the original context was with pupils being able to express
themselves). We already permit gay and lesbian teachers, and readings of
"Sally Has Two Mommies".

as far as I'm concerned, the discussion has evolved into a discussion of whether
there should be school/class wide prayer



My ACTUAL view is that schools should prohibit that which falls outside
contemporary community standards (we already do that with obscenity). But as
long as the current rule is "anything goes," why should religion be
excluded?

with that view you must consider that while the contemporary community may have
a majority of xians, I doubt that it has a majority of practicing/observant
xians and therefore they fall outside of the contemporary community standards.
As far as obscenity being outside of the contemporary community standards, where
the heck do you live?




In your view, it seems, you would require those dedicated to
spreading their word to affiliate themselves with a foreign deity to
avoid offending the irreligious.

irreligious? big difference between being irreligious and
non-religious or especially non-xian, but I bet you would be just as
offended if your xian child was subjected to the very same
proselytizing by muslims or jews in your "gov't" school.

No, I wouldn't. My religion teaches that what God wants is righteous
conduct. To the degree that such proselytizing strengthens the faith - and
conduct - of the preacher, it's a Good Thing(tm). My kids won't be affected
by it. Nor insulted. We'll wish the Christians well and success in their
endeavors.

prayer in school is not about god, it is about religion. you can't proselytize
what you think is the contemporary community of xians...they have already made
the choice.



I'll admit I'm confused by your terminology; what's the difference between
"irreligious" and "non-religious?"

Just asking.

irreligious = anti-religious
non-religious = doesn't practice religion

--

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras lobortis volutpat
commodo. Morbi lobortis, massa fringilla adipiscing suscipit, velit urna
pharetra neque, non luctus arcu diam vitae justo. Vivamus lacinia scelerisque
ultricies. Nunc lobortis elit ligula. Aliquam sollicitudin nunc sed est gravida
ac viverra tellus ullamcorper. Vivamus non nisi suscipit nisi egestas venenatis.
Donec vitae arcu id urna euismod feugiat. Vivamus porta lobortis ultricies.
Nulla adipiscing tellus a neque vehicula porta. Maecenas volutpat aliquet
sagittis. Proin nisi magna, molestie id volutpat in, tincidunt sed dolor. Nullam
nisi erat, aliquet scelerisque sagittis vitae, pretium accumsan odio. Sed ut mi
iaculis eros rutrum tristique ut nec mi. Aliquam nec augue dui, in mattis urna.
In pretium metus eu diam blandit accumsan. Ut eu lorem sed odio porttitor
blandit.

--

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras lobortis volutpat
commodo. Morbi lobortis, massa fringilla adipiscing suscipit, velit urna
pharetra neque, non luctus arcu diam vitae justo. Vivamus lacinia scelerisque
ultricies. Nunc lobortis elit ligula. Aliquam sollicitudin nunc sed est gravida
ac viverra tellus ullamcorper. Vivamus non nisi suscipit nisi egestas venenatis.
Donec vitae arcu id urna euismod feugiat. Vivamus porta lobortis ultricies.
Nulla adipiscing tellus a neque vehicula porta. Maecenas volutpat aliquet
sagittis. Proin nisi magna, molestie id volutpat in, tincidunt sed dolor. Nullam
nisi erat, aliquet scelerisque sagittis vitae, pretium accumsan odio. Sed ut mi
iaculis eros rutrum tristique ut nec mi. Aliquam nec augue dui, in mattis urna.
In pretium metus eu diam blandit accumsan. Ut eu lorem sed odio porttitor
blandit.

In article , Han
wrote:


No, I wouldn't. My religion teaches that what God wants is righteous
conduct. To the degree that such proselytizing strengthens the faith -
and conduct - of the preacher, it's a Good Thing(tm). My kids won't be
affected by it. Nor insulted. We'll wish the Christians well and
success in their endeavors.

I'll admit I'm confused by your terminology; what's the difference
between "irreligious" and "non-religious?"

Just asking.

I like that phrase "righteous conduct". I will use it too. In my view
righteous conduct doesn't mandate any religion or view except being a
"good person"™

well said

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
In article ,
"Stormin Mormon" wrote:

Not at all.

Any religious person may run for office, or behave in a religious
manner in matters of politics. As long as the Fed doesn't create a
church or denomination (such as the Church of England).

requiring those that are irreligious, non-religious or even non-xian
to be involuntarily exposed to xianity is defacto a state church



Er, no. First, you've got to establish who exactly IS a Christian. I know
that Southern Baptists do not consider Mexican Catholics to be Christians. A
near-majority of non-Mormons don't think the Mormon Church is a Christian
entity. And so on.

I can't imagine getting anywhere close to unanimity on the definition.
Without a firm test, you're doomed.

if you believe in christ you are a xian. you may not like how the Mexican
Catholics, Southern Baptists or Mormons approach their worship, but they are all
praying to the same god

In article ,
The Daring Dufas wrote:

On 1/26/2012 3:16 PM, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
In ,
The Daring wrote:

I never understood why Republicans were against Democrats having
abortions. Heck, pass a law that compels only Democrats to get
abortions and see how that flies. Thin the herd, heck conspiracy
nuts already believe the real world rulers behind the curtain want
to eliminate most of the world population. o_O

I like it. A society run and totally influenced by republicans. No foreign
players on baseball, football or basketball teams, no foreign workers
(can't
have even legal ones because there is too much chance of illegals
infiltrating)
so there is no fresh fruit or veggies or even beef, pork or poultry and all
those Mac Mansions will have brown landscape dominated by weeds. And all
the
*******s will all be republicans or there will be a great tourist boom for
single republican mothers-to-be flying to more enlightened countries for
their
"touch-ups"

You do realize I was being fecesious[sic]? ^_^

TDD

but there is a whole passle of repubs that aren't

On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 05:45:15 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

I know
that Southern Baptists do not consider Mexican Catholics to be Christians.

Cite please!

I've never heard of such a thing, from any Southern Baptists, period.

I've heard the same about SB not thinking Mormons are Christian. I'd have to
DAGS for you, on that.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 05:45:15 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

I know
that Southern Baptists do not consider Mexican Catholics to be Christians.

Cite please!

I've never heard of such a thing, from any Southern Baptists, period.

On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:29:38 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

I've heard the same about SB not thinking Mormons are Christian. I'd have to
DAGS for you, on that.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"Oren" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 05:45:15 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

I know
that Southern Baptists do not consider Mexican Catholics to be Christians.

Cite please!

I've never heard of such a thing, from any Southern Baptists, period.


While you search, find out if these are Baptists living in the South
or members of the Southern Baptists Convention.

Let me know, please.