Mr Strickland, Please read and try to understand

Religions > Atheism > Mr Strickland, Please read and try to understand

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 1

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	""
Date:	19 Jan 2005 12:27:25 PM
Object:	Mr Strickland, Please read and try to understand

WE THE PEOPLE, THE PARENTS OF STEVENS CREEK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IN
CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Update 1/13/05 - The first Stevens Creek Parents Community Forum is
Monday, Jan 24
Our constitution hanging in the school library - where it has always been!
Parents Home Page
Stevens Creek Elementary has not "banned the Declaration of Independence"
http://www.stevenscreekparents.org/
On the parerents page:
Mary. Holstege - Essay
There is no harm, per se, in teaching about religion in general or
Christianity in particular, in school. Nor of teaching about the role of
Christianity in our history. Indeed, much of history makes no sense without
such an understanding. But there is a great gulf between teaching about the
role of Christianity in the founding of America, and teaching that belief
in Christianity is intrinsically linked to being an American, and teaching
that Christianity is somehow more worthy than other beliefs.
These can be subtle distinctions, patricularly hard for Christians to draw
(not for lack of wit, but because it is hard to get perspective on
something when it's deeply bound up in your life), so permit me to share
some deeply personal pieces of my own story to explain where the harm lies,
and why it matters.
My mother comes from some sort of mid-western Protestant stock, I don't
know which denomination. My father was a Catholic from the Netherlands,
although, by the time I became aware of such matters, not a particularly
observant one. Nevertheless, my parents made some kind of attempt to raise
us good Christians. I spent much of my childhood overseas, in England and
the Netherlands, going to schools that were not run with any separation of
Church and State in mind, and indeed, considered indoctrination part of
their duty.
When I was 10 or 11, I went to a school in England that was more diligent
than most about this indoctrination: every student was required to keep
their own Bible and hymnal in their desks, and participate in choir singing
in church, and the day began with prayers and hymns, followed by an hour of
Scriptures. I had recently come to realize that I didn't believe a word of
it. Not God. Not Heaven and Hell. Not Jesus as Son of God. Not angels and
miracles and Adam and Eve and Noah and Joshua. None of it. This came to me
as an immense relief: as if something had been gnawing at the back of my
head and troubling me for a long time, and was now gone; a burden shed. But
it also came with an oppressive sense of being different and alone. My
moment of epiphany, if I can call it that, came at the communion rail, a
sharp place to learn you are not really of the community. I didn't even
have the word for my unbelief until much later. And it was later still that
I came to appreciate the value of ritual and community and could adopt a
subtler view of participation in such rituals for a faith I didn't share.
But these are not the thoughts of a child. To a child there is black and
white. Belief and unbelief. You're with us or against us.
And here I was at a school where every morning started with prayers and
hymns and an hour of Scriptures. Thus, for me, every morning began with a
crisis of conscience. How could I allow myself to pretend to beliefs I did
not hold? But how could I avoid it? I was already an alien in an alien
land, did I need to mark myself as "other" further? But what if my secret
were discovered? Wouldn't they hate me all the more for having pretended to
be like them? I agonized over it every morning on the train to school. It
consumed my thoughts as lay in bed at night. I approached the start of
every school day with immense dread. Every day I faced the crisis of
conscience and every day fear won over belief. And every day I cursed
myself for a coward. Never have I felt so alone. Not even having the word
"atheist" to cling to, not even knowing that there were others such as I, I
suffered in my own head, and told no one. My mother, perhaps, saw that I
was not happy in the school, but to the extent I admitted anything to her,
it was to mumble about them "hating" me because I was an American. I cannot
truly express the pain the few months at this school caused me; the depth
of the wounds. It took me a very long time to get over it, and in some ways
I never shall.
It was only much, much, much later that I came to understand that I had
been put in an impossibly unfair situation. It was a hopeless burden to put
on a child. It is something no child should ever have to handle. Coming
into such a circumstance from strength of a community or family of
(different) faith may have made it easier, I don't know, but atheists often
come to their beliefs on their own, and have no community to support them.
Certainly I did not. I vowed to myself that I would never allow any child
of mine to go through what I went through.
So it matters, first and foremost, because children are vulnerable and
easily hurt and isolated by difference, most especially when a person in
authority is emphasizing that difference.
A second defining circumstance of my childhood came later. I went to middle
school and high school at the American School in London. It was a forty
minutes on the train. At this time, the IRA was engaged in one of their
periodic upwellings of violence against the English: bombs in the Tower of
London, bombs in pubs, bombs on trains. There came events that gave me a
sense of having dodged fate: leaving the department store just ahead of the
smoke from a firebomb; choosing not to back-track to Bakers Street to catch
the British Rail train, to later discover that that train had had a bomb in
in; emerging from an alley to find myself in the middle of a closed off
section of Oxford Street with the bomb squad robot right in front of me.
When most Americans spoke of living in fear of terrorism, they had no clue
what that really means.
Then comes September 11th, and now all Americans bear a mental scar, and
haved shared in the mindless, burning anger and hatred that follows a
terrorist attack, that is, indeed, its very point. It is a seething rage I
know well and despise in myself. It is the rage that led to the gross
miscarriage of justice against the Birmingham 12. It is the rage that led
and leads to the ever escalating carnage in Israel.
And now, being un-Christian is seen as not just vaguely un-American, which
is painful enough, but as downright treasonous. With feelings and anger
high, being non-Christian is therefore dangerous to life, limb, and
liberty.
Every president since I started paying attention to such matters has, at
some time or other, made a point of denigrating the patriotism of atheists.
Some have done it by subtle insinuation, by making the counter-claim that
Christianity is a part of patriotism. Many have done it in cruder and
uglier terms, e.g. "I don't see how an atheist can be a good American, no."
Look at Mr. Williams' list of "What great Americans have said about
Christianity?" with the filter of "Is this telling non-Christians that they
cannot be good patriots?" and you might see what I see in it. We see
Christmas ornaments that link the American flag with the Prince of Peace.
What are we non-Christians to make of this? That when it comes to love of
country, only Christians need apply? All the rest of us our suspects?
So why it matters, part two, is: equating Christianity and patriotism puts
non-Christians in peril in these most perilous of times. That it does so by
undermining the ideals of religious freedom and tolerance under which the
country was founded only makes for a painful irony. It encourages
Christians to question the patriotism of non-Christians, and it encourages
non-Christians to fear that, at the very least, their Christian brethren do
not consider them real Americans.
My father chose this country because it values liberty and he made us all
understand what those values were and why they were precious. I refuse to
take a back seat on the patriotism bus. Religious diversity is at the core
of our country's values. It is why Al Qaeda hates us.
The worst of all possible crimes for a teacher, therefore, is to teach
American history by equating Christianity and patriotism. Most especially
now. At a time when children most feel love towards their country and fear
towards those who would harm us, what can be lower than rejecting their
love of country because of their beliefs about God? What can be more
painful and isolating? What, indeed, can be more damaging to the fabric of
this republic?
As my daugher said of her experience with Mr. Williams "I would have argued
with him about that stuff, but I was afraid he would give me a bad grade."
How ironic it is for a man whose classroom motto is "learning without fear"
to so utterly fail to understand the fear his actions engenders in those
who don't share his beliefs.
.

User: "Jeff Strickland"
Title: Re: Mr Strickland, Please read and try to understand	20 Jan 2005 11:33:45 AM

Religious diversity is at the core of our country's values. Not religious
oppression. Diversity means that we, including our children, will encounter
religion, perhaps every time they turn around. My children and my neighbor's
children are very resilient and they understand their religion might not be
shared by the other kids on the street, but they do not sit around whining
about the fact that they might be exposed to one another's religion.
I am all for diversity, even if it means I might hear something I reject. It
is hearing that which I reject that gives me the understanding of why I
reject it. Sometimes my rejection is rooted in acceptance of another view
point, sometimes it is rooted in my own ignorance. Either way, I am not
threatened by a message that opposes that which I hold important.
I am not arguing here that my belief is the one we should all have, I am
arguing that everybody's belief is just as valid to them as mine is to me.
If I succeed in silencing messages that I do not like, eventually my own
message is at peril of being silenced. In order for my message to be made, I
accept that other's messages must also be allowed to be made, even if I do
not agree with them.
The Atheist Community is suggesting that their message is the only right
message and that all other messages should never be allowed to see the light
of day. The falacy of this is that they need to restrict free speech in
order for their message to be upheld. But, if we uphold one aspect of
restricting speech, then where do we draw the line between acceptable speech
and that which must be restricted in order to make atheists happy?
The government is not allowed to pass any law respecting an establishment of
religion, this means any law about religion. No pro-religion laws and no
anti-religion laws. Religion must be allowed to be present for no other
reason than it exists. There must be no religious test to see who is
suitable to have the benefit of law on thier side, or who should suffer the
scorn of law. Government can not scorn those that deny religion, but it must
not silence those that embrace religion. If one opts to deny religion, there
might be a consequence that he is not represented in the public square
during the Chistmas season. That is his choice, and he should suffer that
consequence in silence. If he is a parent, he should take the lead in making
his kids comfortable with the choice he has made for them. Either way,
people make choices, and they should take responsibility for dealing with
them. The author of the story posted by you should have gotten parental
guidance on how to deal with this issue. Instead, it appears by her own
words that she suffered in silence and never told anybody, now as an adult
she seems to say that culture - religion - is somehow a taboo subject. It is
not.
But thank you for this.
<buckeye@exis.net> wrote in message
news:9k9tu01g32f4d65utsm9gulnu1p38ge0dg@4ax.com...

without

such an understanding. But there is a great gulf between teaching about

the

role of Christianity in the founding of America, and teaching that belief
in Christianity is intrinsically linked to being an American, and teaching
that Christianity is somehow more worthy than other beliefs.

These can be subtle distinctions, patricularly hard for Christians to draw
(not for lack of wit, but because it is hard to get perspective on
something when it's deeply bound up in your life), so permit me to share
some deeply personal pieces of my own story to explain where the harm

lies,

and why it matters.

My mother comes from some sort of mid-western Protestant stock, I don't
know which denomination. My father was a Catholic from the Netherlands,
although, by the time I became aware of such matters, not a particularly
observant one. Nevertheless, my parents made some kind of attempt to raise
us good Christians. I spent much of my childhood overseas, in England and
the Netherlands, going to schools that were not run with any separation of
Church and State in mind, and indeed, considered indoctrination part of
their duty.

When I was 10 or 11, I went to a school in England that was more diligent
than most about this indoctrination: every student was required to keep
their own Bible and hymnal in their desks, and participate in choir

singing

in church, and the day began with prayers and hymns, followed by an hour

Scriptures. I had recently come to realize that I didn't believe a word of
it. Not God. Not Heaven and Hell. Not Jesus as Son of God. Not angels and
miracles and Adam and Eve and Noah and Joshua. None of it. This came to me
as an immense relief: as if something had been gnawing at the back of my
head and troubling me for a long time, and was now gone; a burden shed.

But

it also came with an oppressive sense of being different and alone. My
moment of epiphany, if I can call it that, came at the communion rail, a
sharp place to learn you are not really of the community. I didn't even
have the word for my unbelief until much later. And it was later still

that

I came to appreciate the value of ritual and community and could adopt a
subtler view of participation in such rituals for a faith I didn't share.
But these are not the thoughts of a child. To a child there is black and
white. Belief and unbelief. You're with us or against us.

And here I was at a school where every morning started with prayers and
hymns and an hour of Scriptures. Thus, for me, every morning began with a
crisis of conscience. How could I allow myself to pretend to beliefs I did
not hold? But how could I avoid it? I was already an alien in an alien
land, did I need to mark myself as "other" further? But what if my secret
were discovered? Wouldn't they hate me all the more for having pretended

be like them? I agonized over it every morning on the train to school. It
consumed my thoughts as lay in bed at night. I approached the start of
every school day with immense dread. Every day I faced the crisis of
conscience and every day fear won over belief. And every day I cursed
myself for a coward. Never have I felt so alone. Not even having the word
"atheist" to cling to, not even knowing that there were others such as I,

suffered in my own head, and told no one. My mother, perhaps, saw that I
was not happy in the school, but to the extent I admitted anything to her,
it was to mumble about them "hating" me because I was an American. I

cannot

truly express the pain the few months at this school caused me; the depth
of the wounds. It took me a very long time to get over it, and in some

ways

I never shall.

It was only much, much, much later that I came to understand that I had
been put in an impossibly unfair situation. It was a hopeless burden to

put

on a child. It is something no child should ever have to handle. Coming
into such a circumstance from strength of a community or family of
(different) faith may have made it easier, I don't know, but atheists

often

come to their beliefs on their own, and have no community to support them.
Certainly I did not. I vowed to myself that I would never allow any child
of mine to go through what I went through.

So it matters, first and foremost, because children are vulnerable and
easily hurt and isolated by difference, most especially when a person in
authority is emphasizing that difference.

A second defining circumstance of my childhood came later. I went to

middle

school and high school at the American School in London. It was a forty
minutes on the train. At this time, the IRA was engaged in one of their
periodic upwellings of violence against the English: bombs in the Tower of
London, bombs in pubs, bombs on trains. There came events that gave me a
sense of having dodged fate: leaving the department store just ahead of

the

smoke from a firebomb; choosing not to back-track to Bakers Street to

catch

the British Rail train, to later discover that that train had had a bomb

in; emerging from an alley to find myself in the middle of a closed off
section of Oxford Street with the bomb squad robot right in front of me.
When most Americans spoke of living in fear of terrorism, they had no clue
what that really means.

Then comes September 11th, and now all Americans bear a mental scar, and
haved shared in the mindless, burning anger and hatred that follows a
terrorist attack, that is, indeed, its very point. It is a seething rage I
know well and despise in myself. It is the rage that led to the gross
miscarriage of justice against the Birmingham 12. It is the rage that led
and leads to the ever escalating carnage in Israel.

And now, being un-Christian is seen as not just vaguely un-American, which
is painful enough, but as downright treasonous. With feelings and anger
high, being non-Christian is therefore dangerous to life, limb, and
liberty.

Every president since I started paying attention to such matters has, at
some time or other, made a point of denigrating the patriotism of

atheists.

Some have done it by subtle insinuation, by making the counter-claim that
Christianity is a part of patriotism. Many have done it in cruder and
uglier terms, e.g. "I don't see how an atheist can be a good American,

no."

Look at Mr. Williams' list of "What great Americans have said about
Christianity?" with the filter of "Is this telling non-Christians that

they

cannot be good patriots?" and you might see what I see in it. We see
Christmas ornaments that link the American flag with the Prince of Peace.
What are we non-Christians to make of this? That when it comes to love of
country, only Christians need apply? All the rest of us our suspects?

So why it matters, part two, is: equating Christianity and patriotism puts
non-Christians in peril in these most perilous of times. That it does so

undermining the ideals of religious freedom and tolerance under which the
country was founded only makes for a painful irony. It encourages
Christians to question the patriotism of non-Christians, and it encourages
non-Christians to fear that, at the very least, their Christian brethren

not consider them real Americans.

My father chose this country because it values liberty and he made us all
understand what those values were and why they were precious. I refuse to
take a back seat on the patriotism bus. Religious diversity is at the core
of our country's values. It is why Al Qaeda hates us.

The worst of all possible crimes for a teacher, therefore, is to teach
American history by equating Christianity and patriotism. Most especially
now. At a time when children most feel love towards their country and fear
towards those who would harm us, what can be lower than rejecting their
love of country because of their beliefs about God? What can be more
painful and isolating? What, indeed, can be more damaging to the fabric of
this republic?

As my daugher said of her experience with Mr. Williams "I would have

argued

with him about that stuff, but I was afraid he would give me a bad grade."
How ironic it is for a man whose classroom motto is "learning without

fear"

to so utterly fail to understand the fear his actions engenders in those
who don't share his beliefs.

User: ""
Title: Re: Mr Strickland, Please read and try to understand	20 Jan 2005 01:28:32 PM

"Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote:

:|The Atheist Community is suggesting that their message is the only right
:|message and that all other messages should never be allowed to see the light
:|of day.

And of course, as usual you are lying through your teeth.
(1) You didn't address a single thing that was in the original post
(2) Instead you pull a Barclay and launch into ***** propaganda
(3) How many atheists do you actually know? How much time have yo spent
with atheists actually talking with them, listening to them, trying to
understand their points, where they are coming from and why?
I suspect little of any
There is a reason you have the following reputation. Almost every time you
post you prove the opinions offered by others below there to be totally
true
"Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote:

:|But the Adams son was a child, or relative child, when the Adams father was
:|Prez.

John Adams 1735-1826.
President 1797-1801
John Q. Adams 1767-1848
President 1825-1829
J.Q. Adams was approx 30 years old when his father was elected president.
That hardly makes him a child or relative child
One more time jeffy dazzles us with his ignorance
********************************************************************
Jeffy - I am "against" vouchers but I have offered every pro voucher
argument ever offered on the internet in voucher discussions for at least a
year to two years now - strickland
******************************************
[Jeffy had asked another]

Why do you feel the constant need to be nasty?

To you? Because you are an ignoramus who not only does not check his
facts, but posts endlessly repeating stuff that has been disproven
several times. You also seem to think that your unsupported opinion
is of interest to other people.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier,
**********************************
[To that I add]
Jeff - I don't have a clue what I am talking about, but I am good at
pretending and making it up as I go along so don't confuse me with the
facts, my mind is made up. I stereotype and prejudge. It has always worked
well in the past, why change now - Strickland
**********
Jeffy -- maybe, I heard, but didn't bother to do any independent research,
[ He says it gives him a headache] I like to believe things I want to hear.
I don't like knowing the facts if they aren't going to agree with what I
want to believe and I especially love passing along on the internet, as
facts, things I haven't a clue about their accuracy -- Strickland )
*******************************
[To Jeff Strickland]
I find it "interesting" that you are so incredibly stupid that you totally
missed the citation to the _New York Times_.
You seem to have remembered to take your one-a-day stupid pills.
Gray Shockley
**********
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
I think I see more intolerance.
"Gray Shockley" <gray-87a@cybercoffee.org> wrote in message
Oh, no, no, no.
You neither "think" nor "see".
Is that better?
*******************************
Jeff Strickland wrote:

I find it interesting that when Carol is unable to find the link, you ignore
the request for assistance. But, when I am unable to find the link (and
volunteer twice that I have looked), you jump in with a snide remark that
"the search was not too difficult," as though I am the idiot.

[Joni said]
I'm sorry. I didn't mean to imply you are an idiot. I meant to just
come right out and say you are an idiot.
**************************************
[another time Joni asked Jeffy]
Were you born this stupid or did you take a class?
**************************************
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 14:12:45 -0500, Jeff Strickland wrote

The ACLU is not mentioned in this story, but I believe they have been
mentioned in other stories on the same topic with the same county. Perhaps I
am being a bit reactionary to point my boney fingers at the ACLU,

You don't mind that some of us consider you a pschopathetic liar, do you?
After all, you seem to create "facts" just like your spiritual
great-great-great-great-great grandfather, Richard "I'll ***** You" Cheney.
Are you so [drunk, stoned, Bushed, freaked out] that you even realize how
much - and how many - of your posts are lies?
Are you truly stupid or totally insane?
Gray Shockley
**************************************
[jeffy was asked]
Can you back this up with truthful citations or is this just more of your
"lies manufactured especially for any and all occasions by Jeffie
Strickland"?
Gray Shockley
Vicksburg, MS
**************************************
As you, Jeffie the Wack Strickland, are quite obviously the product of no
education whatsoever.
Gray Shockley
**************************************
[jeffy had said]

It is the mother that has custodial and full guardianship
rights of the child. Newdow has no rights relative to this child and her
rearing.

YOU STUPID FUCKING ILLITERATE MORON, READ WHAT YOU AGREED
WITH EARLIER! THE COURTS HAVE RULED THAT NONCUSTODIAL
PARENTS **DO** HAVE RIGHTS TO THE RELIGIOUS UPBRINGING
OF THEIR CHILDREN, YOU BRAIN-DAMAGED TURD!
Merlyn LeRoy
*********************************************************
Said to Jeff Strickland
Because you are clueless, seeing an objection when there is none, and
failing to understand the objection that I do have.
Aren't you again showing your cluelessness? Yes.
lojbab
********************************************************
[Larry Hewitt said to Jeff Strickland]

Seeing that you deleted my links to the US census and a current news
report
that both proved you to be factually incorrect, I conclude that you
acknowledge your failure and chose to try to lie your way out of your
defeat.

larry

[jeff replied ]

Those links show NOTHING relative to this discussion.

[Larry naidled jeff with]
So you deleted them because you were afraid I was making a fool of myself
in
public, and you wanted to shield me from that humiliation??
Nah, you're just a rightard liar.
Larry
*********************************************************
.

User: "Bob LeChevalier"
Title: Re: Mr Strickland, Please read and try to understand	20 Jan 2005 02:36:07 PM

"Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote:

Religious diversity is at the core of our country's values. Not religious
oppression. Diversity means that we, including our children, will encounter
religion, perhaps every time they turn around.

No it doesn't. We will only encounter those religions whose adherents
broadcast their religious beliefs.

I am all for diversity, even if it means I might hear something I reject.

But you aren't, because you have expressed intolerance of
whatshername's nipple being shown for a fraction of a second on TV,
and of various obscene rap lyrics. You aren't accepting of ANY
diversity that offends your sensibilities.

It
is hearing that which I reject that gives me the understanding of why I
reject it. Sometimes my rejection is rooted in acceptance of another view
point, sometimes it is rooted in my own ignorance.

Given your ignorance, I'd consider the last to be the norm.

Either way, I am not threatened by a message that opposes that which I hold important.

But you aren't everyone, and other people do feel threatened by such
messages. Why else do people seek to ban books and movies and songs
that they don't approve of?

I am not arguing here that my belief is the one we should all have, I am
arguing that everybody's belief is just as valid to them as mine is to me.
If I succeed in silencing messages that I do not like, eventually my own
message is at peril of being silenced. In order for my message to be made, I
accept that other's messages must also be allowed to be made, even if I do
not agree with them.

There are times and places for everything. Public school is not the
place for ANY religious messages.
lojbab
--
lojbab

Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.

User: "Jeff Strickland"
Title: Re: Mr Strickland, Please read and try to understand	21 Jan 2005 11:27:36 AM

I want to apologize. I did not mean to marginalize this person's experience.
Clearly it is a violation to have kids sit down in school and open Bibles
for study sessions, and sing hymnals.
Having said that, there is a distinct and significant difference in the
level of religion this person experienced, and what is being complained
about in this newsgroup (alt.politics.usa.constitution). You are complaining
of a tiny cut, she is telling of how she survived a train wreck.
By the author's own admission, religious diversity is at the core of our
country's values. We must respect ALL values, even those of religious
children. This might mean that religious kids might hear an offensive
message from time to time, and that non-religious kids might hear an
offensive message. When the message is a passing one, the harm is one thing,
when the kids are steeped in the message, the harm is quite another. You
complain of passing, the author is described being steeped.
I never want to be charged with intolerance, because the instant that the
charge becomes true, my own beliefs are at risk. Indeed, it is intolerance
that I am arguing against. It is intolerance that I detect in the words that
I read here. It is my firm belief that the mere recognition by government
that religion exists is not a violation of the Constitution, and that it
might even be permissible that government actually teach that religion
exists with practices such as reciting the Pledge with the words, one nation
under God, with such slogans as, In God We Trust, with religious invocation
at the inaugural address.
When protesters succeed in shutting down the mere recognition that religion
exists, then we are one giant step towards shutting down religion at all. I
don't even care what religion is being railed against, my religion or
another. Government can not distinguish between one religion and another,
therefore a successful attack on any one religion is a successful attack on
all religions. By the same token, government must not hold any religion
above any other because as soon as one religion becomes favored by
government, the others are then under attack, eventually all religion is
thus attacked and we are in the same boat. Now, what may happen is that
government might reflect one religion, but that reflection is in itself not
an endorsement. And, the reflection is, in a perfect world, one that mirrors
the majority in our society at the time. As religions come and go, this
reflection can and should change. If religion is lost in our society, then
the obvious effect would that the reflection stops.
My particular faith is Christianity, but I have no interest is forcing my
faith on anybody, particularly on those that have no interest in hearing. I
am not a shining example of a faithful person. I seldom attend church. I
drink. I swear. I do not smoke, and I do not chase women. But I have plenty
of sin in my backpack to haul around. But what little faith I have is true
to me, and I hold it dear.
But, my topic is not Christ, it is religion. I perceive Christianity as
being the major religion in the USA, but there are literally dozens, several
dozen in fact, Christ based religions in America. Religion is important to
those that practice it, each religion is important to each person, just like
avoiding religion is important to people that do not share the faith that
there is God. Seeing a government worker carry around a Star of David as a
necklace or ear rings or hanging over the door of a classroom is not a
problem to me, and I do not understand why it is a problem for anybody. I
think it is important that kids see and understand that there are many
different kinds of peoples.
We demand and promote sexual tolerance that defies religious beliefs, but we
do not demand and promote religious tolerance that defies sexuality. Why is
that? Isn't it a bit hypocritical that we demand our kids tolerate one while
dining the other? We bring suits to force sexual tolerance among children,
and we bring suits to eliminate the chance for religious understanding.
You sit there pounding on your keyboard about intolerance from the religious
right, but all the while you words demonstrate your own intolerance. Why is
that? Don't you see that you are being intolerant at the very time you are
complaining of intolerance?
Tolerance and acceptance are two distinctly different things. I tolerate
deviant sexual behaviors and lifestyles, I do not accept them. I don't want
my government to round up sexual deviants and oddballs. That is tolerance. I
don't want my government to recognize sexual deviants and oddballs. That is
non-acceptance. I don't mind that gay kids are in our schools. That is
tolerance. I also don't want Gay Pride Days at school, that is
non-acceptance. We don't hold Christ Pride Days or Muhammad Pride Days or
Allah Pride, or Jewish Pride. Why must our kids be subjected to Gay Pride?
And, if our kids are going to be subjected to Gay Pride at school, why can't
they exercise their free speech rights to put a message on a strip of tape
that says homosexuality is wrong, in keeping with their faith? It is one
thing to tolerate, quite another to accept. Tolerance can be forced,
acceptance must be earned.
I hold that IF a state, or a particular school district, opts to use
vouchers as a funding mechanism for education, then we have no choice bu to
allow recipients of vouchers to choose a religion based school to send their
kids to. We can no object to the school a parent might choose, unless it can
be shown that the school is not proficient in educating in reading, 'riting,
and 'rithmetic. If a private school is proficient in the areas that are
important to us as a society, then we can not object it a child also gets an
education is that which is important to the parents at the same time. As a
business man, it is important that people coming to me for my services can
understand that which they are asking me about. It takes a sound footing in
the 3R's to have that understanding. If my customer also has a sound footing
in religion, that is on no consequence to me because it does not help me in
the undertaking of my business. It might help me with the integrity of my
customer, but it might not. I have no guarantees that a footing in religion
by my customers will be of any benefit to me, but it might make a difference
to them or their parents. (By the time these "children" get to me, they are
adults, by the way.) It makes no difference to me. What I care about, and
what you have a reasonable need to care about, is that they can read and
write and balance their checkbook. Any other skills or knowledge they get as
a function of grade school and secondary school education is none of your
business. I would hope that our school districts and state departments of
education can make public schools work better than they seemingly are, but
if there is a choice made to use vouchers so that parents can escape failing
schools, then we can not get our knickers in a bunch if those parents opt to
send Johnny and Suzy to Calvary Chapel Christian School, or to St. Mary's
Catholic school, or to the school operated by the synogouge or the school
operated by the mosque or the school operated by a military academy. Or a
school operated by a clan of witches and warlocks. All we can demand of
these schools is that they have a ciriculum that mirrors the public schools,
and a track record of student performance that is better than public
schools. How do we measure the performance? I don't know. But these are the
only demands we can reasonably make because the result is the ability of the
child to perform the 3Rs. Any other skill or education they might gain is
beyond the scope of public concern, even if public money is supplied to the
parents so they can embark on these educational paths.
.

User: "Cary Kittrell"
Title: Re: Mr Strickland, Please read and try to understand	21 Jan 2005 11:48:04 AM

In article <FdKdnSTPV81CoWzcRVn-og@ez2.net> "Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> writes:

You are correct in this.

and that it
might even be permissible that government actually teach that religion
exists

It would indeed be permissible.

with practices such as reciting the Pledge with the words, one nation
under God,

Having children take a public vow which includes an affirmation
regarding a God, one God, is entirely different than merely teaching
kids that religions exists. It's the difference between teaching
them that there is such a thing as communism as opposed to
having them rise and sing the "Internationale" every day.
-- cary
.

User: "Don Kresch"
Title: Re: Mr Strickland, Please read and try to understand	20 Jan 2005 06:06:01 PM

In alt.atheism on Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:33:45 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
<spamcatcher@yahoo.net> let us all know that:

That's fine, but then the religio-tards shouldn't whine when
their pet "goddidit" idea isn't taught in school as fact.

I am all for diversity, even if it means I might hear something I reject. It
is hearing that which I reject that gives me the understanding of why I
reject it. Sometimes my rejection is rooted in acceptance of another view
point, sometimes it is rooted in my own ignorance. Either way, I am not
threatened by a message that opposes that which I hold important.

I am not arguing here that my belief is the one we should all have, I am
arguing that everybody's belief is just as valid to them as mine is to me.
If I succeed in silencing messages that I do not like, eventually my own
message is at peril of being silenced. In order for my message to be made, I
accept that other's messages must also be allowed to be made, even if I do
not agree with them.

Fine.

The Atheist Community is suggesting that their message is the only right
message

Well, it is. Just as a heliocentric solar system is the right
message for understanding that the earth isn't the center of
everything.

and that all other messages should never be allowed to see the light
of day.

Oh they can see the light of day, that's fine.

There should be no "public square", and frankly if there is, then
the atheist should be represented as well.

That is his choice, and he should suffer that
consequence in silence.

*****. That's like saying that the jews should have just
suffered in silence in the Warsaw Ghetto.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.

User: "Dana"
Title: Re: Mr Strickland, Please read and try to understand	20 Jan 2005 07:12:03 PM

Don Kresch wrote:

In alt.atheism on Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:33:45 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
<spamcatcher@yahoo.net> let us all know that:

That's fine, but then the religio-tards shouldn't whine when
their pet "goddidit" idea isn't taught in school as fact.

It is not taught in school as being fact, hell religion is not even
allowed to be mentioned at school, let alone be taught. This is the root
cause of the increased intolerance towards religion we are now seeing.

I am all for diversity, even if it means I might hear something I
reject. It is hearing that which I reject that gives me the
understanding of why I reject it. Sometimes my rejection is rooted in
acceptance of another view point, sometimes it is rooted in my own
ignorance. Either way, I am not threatened by a message that opposes
that which I hold important.

I am not arguing here that my belief is the one we should all have, I
am arguing that everybody's belief is just as valid to them as mine is
to me. If I succeed in silencing messages that I do not like,
eventually my own message is at peril of being silenced. In order for
my message to be made, I accept that other's messages must also be
allowed to be made, even if I do not agree with them.

Fine.

The Atheist Community is suggesting that their message is the only
right message

Well, it is.

Well no you are wrong. The secular humanism your side wants to preach is
the same secular humanism that murdered over 6 million people because of
their religion during WW2. It is the same secular message where Margaret
Sanger, founder of planned parenthood, did not want black people and
other people in society to be able to reproduce.
The same message where cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal is considered a hero to
the left because he murdered a white cop.

and that all other messages should never be allowed to see the light
of day.

User: "Shadow Walker"
Title: Re: Mr Strickland, Please read and try to understand	20 Jan 2005 07:45:21 PM

Dana wrote:

Don Kresch wrote:

In alt.atheism on Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:33:45 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
<spamcatcher@yahoo.net> let us all know that:

<snip>

That's fine, but then the religio-tards shouldn't whine when
their pet "goddidit" idea isn't taught in school as fact.

They mention religion, they don't mention specifics or
details... ask any school child if it was the Pilgrims
who landed at Plymouth rock, they will know.
They will mention religion, but they won't teach
its precepts, nor Proselytize.
<snip>

The Atheist Community is suggesting that their message is the only
right message

Well, it is.

Well no you are wrong. The secular humanism your side wants to preach is
the same secular humanism that murdered over 6 million people because of
their religion during WW2.

That wasn't Secular Humanism, that was a form of Christianity.

It is the same secular message where Margaret
Sanger, founder of planned parenthood, did not want black people and
other people in society to be able to reproduce.

You are mentally ill, Margret did NOT care if people reproduced,
she just didn't want them to reproduce irresponsibly, or
by accident. And she certainly had no intentions of making
them "not be able to reproduce".

The same message where cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal is considered a hero to
the left because he murdered a white cop.

By the left, you mean the radical _non-violent_ people ?
I don't think so.
Here is the reason people are rallying behind this
individual..
"Mumia Abu-Jamal is an award-winning Pennsylvania
journalist who exposed police violence against
minority communities. On death row since 1982,
he was _wrongfully sentenced_ for the shooting
of a police officer. New evidence, including the
recantation of a key eyewitness, new ballistic and
forensic evidence and a __confession__ from Arnold Beverly
(one of the two killers of Officer Faulkner) points to his innocence!
Mumia had no criminal record."
Your nuts, the "left" is your personal boogie man,
hiding under the bed, ready to grab your feet,
if you let them hang over the bed.
Anything you don't like, or disagree with, you claim is a product of
the "left".
That's nutz.
.

User: "Cary Kittrell"
Title: Re: Mr Strickland, Please read and try to understand	20 Jan 2005 08:07:53 PM

In article <cspmui$btf$1@news.onecall.net> Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net> writes:

Dana wrote:

Don Kresch wrote:

In alt.atheism on Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:33:45 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
<spamcatcher@yahoo.net> let us all know that:

<snip>

That's fine, but then the religio-tards shouldn't whine when
their pet "goddidit" idea isn't taught in school as fact.

They mention religion, they don't mention specifics or
details... ask any school child if it was the Pilgrims
who landed at Plymouth rock, they will know.

They will mention religion, but they won't teach
its precepts, nor Proselytize.

<snip>

The Atheist Community is suggesting that their message is the only
right message

Well, it is.

Well no you are wrong. The secular humanism your side wants to preach is
the same secular humanism that murdered over 6 million people because of
their religion during WW2.

That wasn't Secular Humanism, that was a form of Christianity.

It is the same secular message where Margaret
Sanger, founder of planned parenthood, did not want black people and
other people in society to be able to reproduce.

Hang around; soon Dana will tell you that Margaret Sanger's writings
provided inspiration for the eugenics programs set up by that
noted Catholic, Adolph Hitler. When you point out that this
is odd, considering that the Nazis burned Sanger's books, and
further that Sanger reluctantly abandoned her practice of
being apolitical in public in order to denounce Hitler, you'll
receive only silence in reply.
-- cary
.

User: "Dana"
Title: Re: Mr Strickland, Please read and try to understand	20 Jan 2005 11:31:31 PM

Shadow Walker wrote:

Dana wrote:

Don Kresch wrote:

In alt.atheism on Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:33:45 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
<spamcatcher@yahoo.net> let us all know that:

<snip>

That's fine, but then the religio-tards shouldn't whine when
their pet "goddidit" idea isn't taught in school as fact.

It is not taught in school as being fact, hell religion is not even
allowed to be mentioned at school, let alone be taught. This is the
root cause of the increased intolerance towards religion we are now
seeing.

They mention religion, they don't mention specifics or
details... ask any school child if it was the Pilgrims
who landed at Plymouth rock, they will know.

They will mention religion, but they won't teach
its precepts, nor Proselytize.

<snip>

The Atheist Community is suggesting that their message is the only
right message

Well, it is.

Well no you are wrong. The secular humanism your side wants to preach
is the same secular humanism that murdered over 6 million people
because of their religion during WW2.

That wasn't Secular Humanism, that was a form of Christianity.

Wrong.
That was secular humanism.

It is the same secular message where Margaret
Sanger, founder of planned parenthood, did not want black people and
other people in society to be able to reproduce.

You know very little about Margaret Sanger and her involvement in the
same eugenics movement as Hitler, and of her out right hostility towards
blacks, and poor people.

The same message where cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal is considered a hero
to the left because he murdered a white cop.

By the left, you mean the radical _non-violent_ people ?

No, by people like you.

I don't think so.

Here is the reason people are rallying behind this
individual..

"Mumia Abu-Jamal is an award-winning Pennsylvania
journalist

No he is not, he is a thug.
But there you go holding up a cop killer as your hero.
And you wonder why America is rejecting the hate message from the left.
.

User: "Shadow Walker"
Title: Re: Mr Strickland, Please read and try to understand	21 Jan 2005 06:18:08 PM

Dana wrote:

Shadow Walker wrote:

<snip>

"Mumia Abu-Jamal is an award-winning Pennsylvania
journalist

No he is not, he is a thug.

But there you go holding up a cop killer as your hero.
And you wonder why America is rejecting the hate message from the left.

Oh, and all that contradictory evidence, doesn't matter,
since -you- have convicted him, huh ?
And, BTW, I don't know this guy from a hill of beans,
so your claim I make him into a hero, is pure garbage.
I merely quoted the site.
.

User: "Cary Kittrell"
Title: Re: Mr Strickland, Please read and try to understand	21 Jan 2005 12:33:59 PM

In article <10v14co7csff37d@corp.supernews.com> Dana <dana�.255.255> writes:

Shadow Walker wrote:

Dana wrote:

Don Kresch wrote:

In alt.atheism on Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:33:45 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
<spamcatcher@yahoo.net> let us all know that:

<snip>

That's fine, but then the religio-tards shouldn't whine when
their pet "goddidit" idea isn't taught in school as fact.

It is not taught in school as being fact, hell religion is not even
allowed to be mentioned at school, let alone be taught. This is the
root cause of the increased intolerance towards religion we are now
seeing.

They mention religion, they don't mention specifics or
details... ask any school child if it was the Pilgrims
who landed at Plymouth rock, they will know.

They will mention religion, but they won't teach
its precepts, nor Proselytize.

<snip>

The Atheist Community is suggesting that their message is the only
right message

Well, it is.

Well no you are wrong. The secular humanism your side wants to preach
is the same secular humanism that murdered over 6 million people
because of their religion during WW2.

That wasn't Secular Humanism, that was a form of Christianity.

Wrong.
That was secular humanism.

On further investigatin, it turns out Dana has some company in his
distaste for secularism:
"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such
schools have no religious instruction, and a general
moral instruction without religious foundation is built
on air; consequently all character training and religion
must be derived from faith . . ."
[ A. Hitler, signing the Concordat with the Vatican, April 26, 1933 ]

-- cary
.

User: "Shadow Walker"
Title: Re: Mr Strickland, Please read and try to understand	21 Jan 2005 12:57:40 PM

Cary Kittrell wrote:

In article <10v14co7csff37d@corp.supernews.com> Dana <dana�.255.255> writes:

Well no you are wrong. The secular humanism your side wants to preach
is the same secular humanism that murdered over 6 million people
because of their religion during WW2.

That wasn't Secular Humanism, that was a form of Christianity.

Wrong.
That was secular humanism.

On further investigatin, it turns out Dana has some company in his
distaste for secularism:

"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such
schools have no religious instruction, and a general
moral instruction without religious foundation is built
on air; consequently all character training and religion
must be derived from faith . . ."

[ A. Hitler, signing the Concordat with the Vatican, April 26, 1933 ]

ROTFLMAO!

-- cary

User: "Cary Kittrell"
Title: Re: Mr Strickland, Please read and try to understand	21 Jan 2005 12:25:07 PM

In article <10v14co7csff37d@corp.supernews.com> Dana <dana�.255.255> writes:

Shadow Walker wrote:

Dana wrote:

Don Kresch wrote:

In alt.atheism on Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:33:45 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
<spamcatcher@yahoo.net> let us all know that:

<snip>

That's fine, but then the religio-tards shouldn't whine when
their pet "goddidit" idea isn't taught in school as fact.

It is not taught in school as being fact, hell religion is not even
allowed to be mentioned at school, let alone be taught. This is the
root cause of the increased intolerance towards religion we are now
seeing.

They mention religion, they don't mention specifics or
details... ask any school child if it was the Pilgrims
who landed at Plymouth rock, they will know.

They will mention religion, but they won't teach
its precepts, nor Proselytize.

<snip>

The Atheist Community is suggesting that their message is the only
right message

Well, it is.

Well no you are wrong. The secular humanism your side wants to preach
is the same secular humanism that murdered over 6 million people
because of their religion during WW2.

That wasn't Secular Humanism, that was a form of Christianity.

Wrong.
That was secular humanism.

That's no doubt the reason that the SS had "Gott mit uns" on
their belt buckles.
-- cary
.

User: "Shadow Walker"
Title: Re: Mr Strickland, Please read and try to understand	21 Jan 2005 12:56:35 PM

Cary Kittrell wrote:

In article <10v14co7csff37d@corp.supernews.com> Dana <dana�.255.255> writes:

Shadow Walker wrote:

Dana wrote:

Don Kresch wrote:

In alt.atheism on Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:33:45 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
<spamcatcher@yahoo.net> let us all know that:

<snip>

That's fine, but then the religio-tards shouldn't whine when
their pet "goddidit" idea isn't taught in school as fact.

It is not taught in school as being fact, hell religion is not even
allowed to be mentioned at school, let alone be taught. This is the
root cause of the increased intolerance towards religion we are now
seeing.

They mention religion, they don't mention specifics or
details... ask any school child if it was the Pilgrims
who landed at Plymouth rock, they will know.

They will mention religion, but they won't teach
its precepts, nor Proselytize.

<snip>

The Atheist Community is suggesting that their message is the only
right message

Well, it is.

Well no you are wrong. The secular humanism your side wants to preach
is the same secular humanism that murdered over 6 million people
because of their religion during WW2.

That wasn't Secular Humanism, that was a form of Christianity.

Wrong.
That was secular humanism.

Wrong. It was Xianism. You saw the Furers -own- words.

That's no doubt the reason that the SS had "Gott mit uns" on
their belt buckles.

Exactly. :)

-- cary

User: "Gray Shockley"
Title: Re: Mr Strickland, Please read and try to understand	21 Jan 2005 09:29:02 PM

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:25:07 -0600, Cary Kittrell wrote
(in article <csrhe3$klf$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>):

That's no doubt the reason that the SS had "Gott mit uns" on
their belt buckles.

-- cary

-----------------------------------------------------------
�I follow the path assigned to me by Providence with the
instinctive sureness of a sleepwalker,�
�But there is something else I believe, and that is that
there is a God. . . . And this God again has blessed our
efforts during the past 13 years.�
�God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and
then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did . .
.. .�
�Providence withdrew its protection and our people fell,
fell as scarcely any other people heretofore. In this deep
misery we again learn to pray. . . . The mercy of the Lord
slowly returns to us again. And in this hour we sink to our
knees and beseech our almighty God that he may bless us,
that He may give us the strength to carry on the struggle
for the freedom, the future, the honor, and the peace of
our people. So help us God.�
�To be sure, our Christian Cross should be the most exalted
symbol of the struggle against the Jewish-Marxist-Bolshevik
spirit."
�The Ten Commandments are a code of living to which there�s
no refutation. These precepts correspond to irrefragable
needs of the human soul.�
�Amongst the accusations which are directed against Germany
in the so-called democracy is the charge that the National
Socialist State is hostile to religion.�
�With a tenth of our budget for religion, we would thus
have a Church devoted to the State and of unshakable
loyalty. . . . the little sects, which receive only a few
hundred thousand marks, are devoted to us body and soul.�
�I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn�t do
my job�
Gray Shockley
------------------------------
Thanks to Bob Fitrakis
.

User: "Curly Surmudgeon"
Title: Re: Mr Strickland, Please read and try to understand	21 Jan 2005 04:31:34 AM

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:31:31 -0900, Dana wrote:

Shadow Walker wrote:

Dana wrote:

Don Kresch wrote:

In alt.atheism on Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:33:45 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
<spamcatcher@yahoo.net> let us all know that:

<snip>

That's fine, but then the religio-tards shouldn't whine when
their pet "goddidit" idea isn't taught in school as fact.

It is not taught in school as being fact, hell religion is not even
allowed to be mentioned at school, let alone be taught. This is the
root cause of the increased intolerance towards religion we are now
seeing.

They mention religion, they don't mention specifics or
details... ask any school child if it was the Pilgrims
who landed at Plymouth rock, they will know.

They will mention religion, but they won't teach
its precepts, nor Proselytize.

<snip>

The Atheist Community is suggesting that their message is the only
right message

Well, it is.

Well no you are wrong. The secular humanism your side wants to preach
is the same secular humanism that murdered over 6 million people
because of their religion during WW2.

That wasn't Secular Humanism, that was a form of Christianity.

Wrong.
That was secular humanism.

Shadow Walker is quite correct. Denials do not replace facts. Retake
world history in Jr. High and report back.
-- Regards, Curly
----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.curlysurmudgeon.com http://www.curlysurmudgeon.com/blog/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
.

User: "Dana"
Title: Re: Mr Strickland, Please read and try to understand	26 Jan 2005 04:33:38 PM

Curly Surmudgeon wrote:

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:31:31 -0900, Dana wrote:

Shadow Walker wrote:

Dana wrote:

Don Kresch wrote:

In alt.atheism on Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:33:45 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
<spamcatcher@yahoo.net> let us all know that:

<snip>

That's fine, but then the religio-tards shouldn't whine when
their pet "goddidit" idea isn't taught in school as fact.

It is not taught in school as being fact, hell religion is not even
allowed to be mentioned at school, let alone be taught. This is the
root cause of the increased intolerance towards religion we are now
seeing.

They mention religion, they don't mention specifics or
details... ask any school child if it was the Pilgrims
who landed at Plymouth rock, they will know.

They will mention religion, but they won't teach
its precepts, nor Proselytize.

<snip>

The Atheist Community is suggesting that their message is the only
right message

Well, it is.

Well no you are wrong. The secular humanism your side wants to
preach is the same secular humanism that murdered over 6 million
people because of their religion during WW2.

That wasn't Secular Humanism, that was a form of Christianity.

Wrong.
That was secular humanism.

Shadow Walker is quite correct.

No he is not.
.

User: "Shadow Walker"
Title: Re: Mr Strickland, Please read and try to understand	26 Jan 2005 04:25:52 PM

Dana wrote:

Curly Surmudgeon wrote:

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:31:31 -0900, Dana wrote:

Shadow Walker wrote:

Dana wrote:

Don Kresch wrote:

In alt.atheism on Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:33:45 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
<spamcatcher@yahoo.net> let us all know that:

<snip>

That's fine, but then the religio-tards shouldn't whine when
their pet "goddidit" idea isn't taught in school as fact.

It is not taught in school as being fact, hell religion is not even
allowed to be mentioned at school, let alone be taught. This is the
root cause of the increased intolerance towards religion we are now
seeing.

They mention religion, they don't mention specifics or
details... ask any school child if it was the Pilgrims
who landed at Plymouth rock, they will know.

They will mention religion, but they won't teach
its precepts, nor Proselytize.

<snip>

The Atheist Community is suggesting that their message is the only
right message

Well, it is.

Well no you are wrong. The secular humanism your side wants to
preach is the same secular humanism that murdered over 6 million
people because of their religion during WW2.

That wasn't Secular Humanism, that was a form of Christianity.

Wrong.
That was secular humanism.

Shadow Walker is quite correct.

No he is not.

Yes, he is, and has backed it several times.
If you are Xian, why is it you make your bed with the
Father of Lies ?
.

User: "Jeff Strickland"
Title: Re: Mr Strickland, Please read and try to understand	21 Jan 2005 05:20:18 PM

I am sorry to have started something that I did not intend to start. The
direction this discussion is going is not intended, and there is nothing to
be gained.
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:9gh0v0dfeof18octocbe75960e1r6qghkv@4ax.com...

In alt.atheism on Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:33:45 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
<spamcatcher@yahoo.net> let us all know that:

Religious diversity is at the core of our country's values. Not religious
oppression. Diversity means that we, including our children, will

encounter

religion, perhaps every time they turn around. My children and my

neighbor's

children are very resilient and they understand their religion might not

shared by the other kids on the street, but they do not sit around

whining

about the fact that they might be exposed to one another's religion.

That's fine, but then the religio-tards shouldn't whine when
their pet "goddidit" idea isn't taught in school as fact.

I am all for diversity, even if it means I might hear something I reject.

is hearing that which I reject that gives me the understanding of why I
reject it. Sometimes my rejection is rooted in acceptance of another view
point, sometimes it is rooted in my own ignorance. Either way, I am not
threatened by a message that opposes that which I hold important.

I am not arguing here that my belief is the one we should all have, I am
arguing that everybody's belief is just as valid to them as mine is to

me.

If I succeed in silencing messages that I do not like, eventually my own
message is at peril of being silenced. In order for my message to be

made, I

accept that other's messages must also be allowed to be made, even if I

not agree with them.

Fine.

The Atheist Community is suggesting that their message is the only right
message

Well, it is. Just as a heliocentric solar system is the right
message for understanding that the earth isn't the center of
everything.

and that all other messages should never be allowed to see the light
of day.

Oh they can see the light of day, that's fine.

The government is not allowed to pass any law respecting an establishment

religion, this means any law about religion. No pro-religion laws and no
anti-religion laws. Religion must be allowed to be present for no other
reason than it exists. There must be no religious test to see who is
suitable to have the benefit of law on thier side, or who should suffer

the

scorn of law. Government can not scorn those that deny religion, but it

must

not silence those that embrace religion. If one opts to deny religion,

there

might be a consequence that he is not represented in the public square
during the Chistmas season.

There should be no "public square", and frankly if there is, then
the atheist should be represented as well.

That is his choice, and he should suffer that
consequence in silence.

*****. That's like saying that the jews should have just
suffered in silence in the Warsaw Ghetto.

Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.

"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"

User: "Cary Kittrell"
Title: Re: Mr Strickland, Please read and try to understand	20 Jan 2005 12:08:53 PM

In article <e8CdnRfxOLX2cXLcRVn-oQ@ez2.net> "Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> writes:

The fallacy of this is that it's nothing like the actual case.
I have never heard any American atheist suggest that "all other messages
should never be allowed to see the light of day".
Atheists are generally loudly supportive of free speech. Most would
even agree, if reluctantly that you should be allowed to create and
disseminate virulent lies, such as the above, without fear of censorship.
And most would also agree that you should be allowed freely to rebut my
accusation that you have just now, intentionally and with malice
aforethought, knowingly propagatged a scandalous and defamatory
lie.
So please. Rebuke my accusation; show me where any atheist demands
that "all other messages should never be allowed to see the light
of day".
You may use this space ---->
-- cary
.

User: "Shadow Walker"
Title: Re: Mr Strickland, Please read and try to understand	20 Jan 2005 03:04:06 PM

Jeff Strickland wrote:

Nor does anyone else, until it is the Government that is forcing the exposure.

One basic assumption, that someone -is- silencing, someone else.
Bad assumption.
You are allowed to talk up your religion at home, or in your church,
until you turn blue in the face. The government isn't allowed to
proselytize, this is fundamentally not the same thing as "silencing".
The Xian favorite appears to be morphing the Government not being allowed
to proselytize, with "silencing their individual right to religious freedom",
this is the root of a base fallacy. -You- the individual have been denied
NOTHING, the Government has, not you.

The Atheist Community is suggesting that their message is the only right
message and that all other messages should never be allowed to see the light
of day. The falacy of this is that they need to restrict free speech in
order for their message to be upheld. But, if we uphold one aspect of
restricting speech, then where do we draw the line between acceptable speech
and that which must be restricted in order to make atheists happy?

What message do atheists have, that "is the only right one" ?
Do you mean evolution ? That isn't an atheists theory, that was
Darwins -scientific- theory, and Darwin -wasn't- an Atheist.
Or, are you trying to claim that -all science- is the "atheist theory",
and the opposite is religion.
Then you are in deep trouble, and denial, because over throwing
-that- lunatic perspective was the _end_ of the Dark Ages. We would
all still be serfs squatting in huts, and dying from the "demons"
of syphillus, and scarlet fever, and even "Gods wrath", the plague,
instead of what we have today.
The world is NOT flat. There are -no- pillars at the corners
of the world, holding it up. Matter of fact, there are no corners.
And finally, it -isn't- the center of the Universe.
Religions version of the world is -disproven-, period.
It is interesting, albeit WRONG, that Xians seem to think that Science
is an Atheists "religion", fact is many scientists in history were Deists.

The government is not allowed to pass any law respecting an establishment of
religion, this means any law about religion. No pro-religion laws and no
anti-religion laws. Religion must be allowed to be present for no other
reason than it exists. There must be no religious test to see who is
suitable to have the benefit of law on thier side, or who should suffer the
scorn of law. Government can not scorn those that deny religion, but it must
not silence those that embrace religion. If one opts to deny religion, there
might be a consequence that he is not represented in the public square
during the Chistmas season. That is his choice, and he should suffer that
consequence in silence. If he is a parent, he should take the lead in making
his kids comfortable with the choice he has made for them. Either way,
people make choices, and they should take responsibility for dealing with
them. The author of the story posted by you should have gotten parental
guidance on how to deal with this issue. Instead, it appears by her own
words that she suffered in silence and never told anybody, now as an adult
she seems to say that culture - religion - is somehow a taboo subject. It is
not.

But thank you for this.

Religion -isn't- a taboo subject, it is a taboo subject for
-Government-, and Government institutions. And public schools,
in this nation, -are- a government institution...
And the author is expressing the frustration of being forced
to conform to a philosophy she didn't believe...having no escape,
facing negative peer pressure, much like the world the Xians dream to create.
It scarred her.
There is a lesson to be learned from her experience.

<buckeye@exis.net> wrote in message
news:9k9tu01g32f4d65utsm9gulnu1p38ge0dg@4ax.com...

without

such an understanding. But there is a great gulf between teaching about

the

lies,

singing

in church, and the day began with prayers and hymns, followed by an hour

But

that

suf