I wonder if me and Jon would get along IRL....

He is a christian authoritarian
I am an atheist anarchist

Sounds like a sitcom. :D

If you two would make a reality series, I'd watch.

See, even with our differences, we find at least one small point to agree on.

Coming soon to FOX & Bravo: "The Really Odd Couple"

Well shit. Looks like .400's in trouble.

You could just kill him. That's pretty effective. Which, of course, you're probably cool with in your political ideology.

The irony is, if Jon were to boycott everyone that disagreed with his politics, he would be forced to live in a shack in Montana devoid of material possessions, à la the Unabomber.

I wonder if we would all feel the same about a public burning of the Koran in front of a mosque? How quickly would the ACLU rush to the defense of the Koran burner?

I would imagine very quickly. The ACLU is a very intellectually honest organization. (see: their defense of Rush Limbaugh)

The ACLU? Intellectually honest? I disagree. Their background is anything but, though they do take such cases sometimes for appearances sake. I have heard the head of the ACLU in Louisiana speak several times, and he is about the biggest anti-Christian bigot I have ever met. So I respectfully disagree with you.

I agree with this, the ACLU is pretty even-handed. In fact, back in college, I remember that the campus ACLU chapter was actually branded as a conservative group because of their stance against my college's hate speech policies...

Really? And I thought the ACLU's sole purpose was only to attack christianity....

(sarcasm off)

You're confusing "sole" with "primary".

Yeah, that must it...

Roll 'em all you want Sab, it's good for the ratings on our TV show.

*throws a book at Jon in slow motion*
Voice Over: Tensions boil....Tuesday at 9.

And in the clip, they show me wearing a t-shirt that says:
"Gun Control = Hitting What You Aim At"

And I'm wearing my "Government is a Parasite" t-shirt. :)

Indeed. That's why I'm a member. Sure many individuals tend towards the left. But it's good enough for Bob Barr and I sure don't consider him a liberal. It is the only organization out there that defends our free speech rights and rights against unwarrented searches and seizures.

AND they are the biggest anti-PATRIOT Act group out there. That enough got me sold.

So you agree that the ACLU is not being overly zealous in obtaining the removal of a veteran's memorial in the form of a cross that was erected some 70 years ago in Mojave National Preserve?

http://www.desertdispatch.com/2005/111339890147316.html

And you agree with the removal of a tiny cross from the Los Angeles city official seal (but not the removal of other symbols with a religious context)?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,121039,00.html

You agree that the ACLU is simply acting to preserve our freedom from religious tyranny in these cases?

Or do you agree with Mr. Cook who wants school board members in Louisiana arrested for engaging in an act of protest. Mr. Cook and the ACLU obtained an injunction preventing a Louisiana school board (elected governing body of a school district) from opening its sessions with a prayer. Board members decided as an act of protest to meet outside the board meeting room and pray before the start of the meeting, while abiding by the injunction against prayer opening the meeting. Rather than seeing this as a legitimate act of protest, Mr. Cook has demanded that the participants be arrested. One would think Mr. Cook would see the irony of his actions. But he does not.

The ACLU, some of its members anyway, have such a great anti-religious zeal that they might well be called secular puritans. And puritanism of any kind is bad for America.

JW, the ACLU is principled. One such principle is keeping church and state seperate. That, obviously, does not equate to a hatred of church. And being principled, to the organization it doesn't matter if the cross on the seal of LA is tiny or humongous. It is the principle of the matter.

Consider this recent action by the ACLU:
hxxp://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=15897&c=141

They fight for all religious freedom, it just so happens that Christianity does not need to be fought for as often because they are the dominant religion in the country.

Nobody will ever offend me for burning my flag. But I admit it never feels good to see Americans burn the flag. But I know they don't burn it because they hate America (well, not most of them anyway), they burn it to get on TV to make themselves aware of their little plight in the world.

They burn the flag for their own symbolic political gain. That is pathetic if you ask me, but yeah, I could care less if their is an amendment or not.

However, on the flip-side, I see no reason to oppose an amendment banning the desecration of our flag, either.

At least propose a federal law that states that any citizen that sees an American flag on fire is allowed to use any means neccessary to extinguish the flames (including requesting the fire department to blast the sons of bitches that wish to burn our flag :D ).

I agree with what I've read in the link about the Mojave Desert Cross memorial. As for the LA County seal... if they can show it is just historical, then they should be able to keep it. But I can see the reason to sue for removal.

And Mr Bigglesworth is correct. There are plenty of cases where the ACLU defends churches who face state discrimination.

Jim, I wouldn't worry about JIMG being representative of the majority of people here. You contribute well-thought out arguments to the topics you choose to engage in. I don't necessarily agree with you every time, but I respect the source.

I frequently disagree with Arlie on political issues, but I don't let that affect my decision on whether to buy his products. It's all about the quality of the product he generates.

As for JIMG himself, I do give grudging respect to the fact he's quite honest with what a complete nut job he is. To the extent that he's right - that his side is "winning" - I shudder to think about what that means for the future of this country.

As for Scissors, if this is truly his first post and not and not an alias for another poster here, I don't disagree much with his assessment. If it is an alias for another poster here, what a very, very weak way to attack someone. Not that it matters much, because if it is an alias for someone else here, they'll be banned soon enough.

Yeah, I think JIMG is a crackpott in many ways, but he has a sense of intellectual honesty with himself - and he's consistent. That's more than I can say for some of the others around here.

Thanks for the reply and I appreciate the comments. I think there are principled people within the ACLU. I also think there are Christophobic people in the ACLU, such as Joe Cook of Louisiana. I repeat - he is an anti-Christian bigot. I've heard too much from his mouth to think otherwise. And I will tell you he does the ACLU great harm in Louisiana by his inquisitorial zeal in attempting to eradicate Christianity from the public forum.

I also think that many times the ACLU is overly zealous in its attempt to remove all traces of religion from government. Many in the ACLU, as in the LA city seal case, refuse to acknowledge that Christianity is an important part of America's heritage.

As for the cases cited, I think the Mojave cross case is a classic bit of overkill. There is legalism and there is common sense. Who really -- really -- is offended by a cross put up in the 1930s by some veterans remembering their comrade? Who really -- really -- is harmed by allowing that cross to continue to exist?

And, frankly, who would refuse to concede that Christianity played an important role in the development of Los Angeles, both a positive and negative role, but an important role nevertheless? I believe the ACLU has more important things to do than to attack a tiny cross, one symbol among MANY, in the LA city seal. For example, they might start fighting to force the changing of some of the Christocentric city names in California. But perhaps that is down the road.

Thanks again for your comments, though I cannot agree with you. Yu have only to look at Louisiana to find bigotry and hate in the ACLU.

I'm always 12 hours late for these discussions. Anyways...




Jim: Shrill is probably a fair term. I've read a couple of your posts and said to myself "Wow, why does this guy dislike Christians so much?" (On a tangent - it's probably not really Christians that bother you, but religious people - not the same at all. I often feel much the same way, and I am a Christian) This opinion probably stands out more because A: you seem generally to be conservative, and B: you are an iconic figure here.

Jon: This is a message board. Jim is posting here as an individual, not officially. (Although, see below) If Jim used the official Solecismic site to put forth opinions you didn't like, that would be very different. Example: George R.R. Martin (whose books I love) used his official site to post what I felt were some rather asinine political remarks. Since he chose that particular forum, I have chosen not to purchase any more of his books. In this case, however, I think you have overreacted and should reconsider.


In short, yes. Ideally, most people should understand that in non-FOF-related threads you are posting unofficially. However, going by "Solecismic" does leave room for misinterpretation. Fair or not, some folks probably can't separate you giving a personal opinion from you speaking as the company. Maybe SkyDog would give you an exemption and let you post unofficially under another name so there is no confusion. You usually contribute something useful to the discussion and it would be a shame if you stopped participating because of this.

Joe Cook is an exception to the rule (and he's really just the executive director).. The rest of the ACLU in that stare aren't anti-Christian bigots. In fact, there are two different chapters in La, one in Shreveport and Joe Cook in New Orleans. The Board is not anti-Christian in the least.

That is good to hear. Of course I don't hear much about the ACLU in Shreveport, perhaps because they have common sense. And, reading between the lines, apprently you are familiar with Joe Cook. Joe may just be the executive director, but he seems to drive the agenda in south Louisiana. And let me add that there are legitimate concerns about some of the things going on in Tangipahoa Parish relating to imposition of religion in the schools. Joe is not entirely wrong. However, I believe the joy he shows in doing his job and his obvious dislike for Christians does the ACLU a disservice and leads many people like me who agree with him in principle on many -- but not all -- issues, to distance ourselves from him. I honestly believe he hates Christianity and that it shows in his words.

As for the issues, if you are familiar with some of those things, I agree with most of the actions taken by the ACLU in Tangipahoa except attempts to prohibit an opening prayer at school board meetings. They are, after all, an elected body. I think prohibiting ANY speech by an elected official at a public meeting, even a prayer, violates that official's rights. I would suggest that when an elected official is arrested for uttering a prayer in a public meeting of an elected body -- as Joe Cook has demanded -- that we have lost freedom, not gained freedom.

Great point. I believe in God and while I interpret Jesus different than most Christians, I am still a Christian in ideals.

But my interpretation beyond that is my own and I keep it to myself, I'm no missionary. But those who are the loudest missionaries tend to be offensive. Be it their zeal to promote born-again Christianity or their zeal to promote religious atheism. I view both sides with contempt and mistrust. That's the reality. The seperation of Church and State is interpreted by me as what should be the seperation of Religion and Religious Politics. I'd rather not have my right wing constituants running on a Christian platform and I'd rather not have my left wing opponents running on an atheist platform. But there's a difference between what we would like and what we actually get.

We probably have to agree to disagree, as I don't believe there's any legitimate reason to separate the actions of a person & the actions of a company when the person owns the company. Who I am privately & who I am professionally is essentially the same person, I don't believe those are (or should be considered) two separate entities. Just a difference in our philosophies I guess.

Now, though, you've forced me into a search


I loved the old Wild Cards series he put together, but I'll have to see what the commentary was to get a grip on that myself.

Let me just correct one thing here: I don't dislike Christians or religious people. That's a ludicrous accusation.

I dislike attempts to erase the separation of church and state, as our founding fathers intended (and I will refrain from posting at length quotes that show that intent, in detail).

We are in an unusual time, when legislators are often expected to wear their religion on their sleeves. That makes me uncomfortable, because the result is the occasional piece of legislation that attempts to force religion on the rest of us.

That, I oppose. I think that it's incredibly narrow-minded to assume that I dislike Christians based on that opinion. I have never posted that I dislike religious people. I'm married to one. My father-in-law is a former Christian preacher. I don't dislike them.

I think what's happening is that some people view any non-religious viewpoint as a personal attack. Which is not what's intended.

I'm not going to post under another user name. Ben and I actually discussed this a long time ago, and I decided it was a wimpy thing to do. I don't have respect for people who open a second account because they feel strongly that something needs to be said, but won't say it themselves. So I won't do it myself.

We're in strange times and this is a difficult subject. We have a recent former president (Bush 41) who believes that atheists shouldn't even be considered citizens of America. Obviously, many Christians are extremely sensitive to any non-religious statement.

I think it's pretty clear from reactions like this that the "Solecismic" posts stand out too much. If people read "I hate Christians" from what I wrote yesterday, there's just no way for me to participate here as an equal. So many times, I've been frustrated when what I thought was an ordinary response to an item ended up hijacking the entire thread.

I'd been gauging my participation based on my own reaction to Marc and Arlie's responses to topics - they're not shy about their opinions, and that hasn't changed how I feel about their respective companies in any way. But I guess there's a significant percentage of people here who don't feel that way.

I can't run a business if people feel I hate them just because I make a statement disagreeing with their viewpoint. I will stay out of controversial topics from now on.

That's not just with you, that is with everyone. Look at how some people attack the ACLU for 'hating Christians'. Whenever I talk about the separation fo church and state someone always accuses me of at least wanting to get rid of Christianity, if not an outright hatred of it. As a broad generalization (i.e., NOT every Christian), Christians have a persecution complex whereby if you disagree with them, you hate Christianity and are a closet Islam supporter. A good number of them can not fathom a religiously nuetral viewpoint, you're either with them or against them. A lot of tiny minority groups are like that, Christians are just unique in that they are the actual majority.

Which tiny minority groups are you referring to?

I think Marc doesnt participate as much as you do, but that's also because he's primarily on another board. As for Arlie, I bet the fact that this board leans fairly strongly to the right means Arlie is fairly mainstream around here. As it stands, I do wish you'd reconsider- I think Jon is fairly singular in his viewpoint and this issue and while I understand his stance (he believes the fueling the 'enemy" is not worth the utility of the game for him), most if not all the others here would not make that distinction - they don't view everyone in that cut and dried a fashion. I'd reckon Bubba, the biggest zealot around here, would probably buy your games unless you put the Star of David on them. Clearly though, its your decision, and if this message board participation cost begins to outweigh its benefits to you the individual, then not participating is the way to go.

Bingo. Instead of debating the issues, they resort to calling someone 'anti' something and hope it ends the argument.

How I meant that to be taken is that you have sounded that way. What I said could be taken both ways. Sorry. But read what you said: not "I dislike attempts to erase the separation of church and state", but "plastering their Christian god all over our money and schools". You've gotta admit, there is a bit of a tone there ;).





Not my feeling at all, but some will feel that way. My point is that I would not want my business to be percieved as anything but neutral politically, socially, and religiously. Also, don't restrict this to just religious people; see below.


While I understand your point, I hardly think using "Jim Gindin" (sorry if I botched your name) for non-game-related posts (or exclusively, for that matter) is hiding your identity or wimpy.


As many non-Christians cannot stand a Christian viewpoint, and many conservatives won't listen to a liberal viewpoint, and many liberals are angered by a conservative viewpoint. Let's not single out one particular group for a facet of human nature.


I'm sorry, but I think this is the case. Mark and Arles post under their names, whereas you post under your company name. I think there is inevitably going to be some association with the company and the product. Again, why not just post under your own name?

To summarize: I don't think you hate Christians; I do think you have said things with a tone of "distaste", let's say, that could offend. I personally think you are entitled to your opinion and are not answerable to me for it in any way. As long as you conduct yourself with some level of decorum (and don't use your official site to push potentially controversial opinions) I don't see why anyone would hold that against you as far as buying your products, and don't think they should. But: some people will. And the meat of your market is the folks on this board. Were it my livelihood, I would not want my company name associated with anything controversial.

After the election he had some remarks on the home page that are no longer there (at least I couldn't find them). Instead of just saying he was really disappointed with the results (or something sane), he posted something to the effect that he was too depressed to write, America was descending into fascism, religious zealots would rule, along those lines. Not so much that it made me mad as that if he's that big of a loon, I'm not giving him my money. (Apologies to other loons with similar viewpoints :D ) .

But you must balance that persecution complex against the 'that offends me so you have to stop it' complex that is becoming more and more prevalent in today's society. It gets tiring to hear that people are offended and traumatized and humiliated, by, for example, a hypothetical school board in a predominately Christian district putting "Christmas Holiday" on its calendar and demanding that it be renamed "Winter Holiday" or something to that effect, when it is obvious that the holiday is being taken because it is Christmas. Why not sue to prevent the system for taking the holiday if the very name of the holiday is an affront? Or is that step two?

Does that really traumatize and offend people? Give me a break. Perhaps if the ACLU and the such focused on more obvious issues rather than sometimes 'going off the deep end' and zealously attacking the most innocuous things, such as the Christmas Holiday, and declaring such things grave affronts to our constitutional liberties, fewer people would think that the ACLU was 'out to get' Christians.

People have even been offended and have sought legal action because someone innocently told them "Merry Christmas" or the such in the workplace. It borders on the absurd sometimes.

In a free society, we will routinely encounter things we don't like. But we can't function if we start litigating over everything we don't like.

I'll add in closing that many people, including on this forum, seem to see the church state-separation issue as black or white, and think everyone else is forever wrong on the subject. But it doesn't work that way.

And which "obvious" issues is that ACLU not focusing on that it should? AFAIK, they are leading the fight against the PATRIOT Act.

What's wrong with putting 'winter holiday' instead of 'Christmas holiday'? Who does that hurt? I agree that people should not be 'offended and traumatized and humilated' by it, but nobody is going to be 'offended and traumatized and humilated' by calling it the 'winter holiday' instead. So why not call it that instead of using potential divisive terms? It's a practical matter to have school off because of Christmas, not a religious matter. Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanah (sp?) were made holidays in my local district because there were too many students that just didn't show up on those days. With Christmas though there are several other holidays which deserve to be recognized.

But there, you go, see. Why does it have to be divisive? Why can't we accept honestly that in many school districts, the holiday is being taken because it is Christmas, not because it is some other holiday. Why can't we be realistic about it? I'm a Christian. But if I were in a majority Jewish community, I would not be offended by a Yom Kippur school holiday, nor would I consider it divisive. 'Divisive' is simply a code word, and we are back to scrambling to ensure that we never do anything that offends anyone. Why can't non-Christians simply accept that Christmas is a major holiday in America and go on about their lives?

BTW, the ACLU in Georgia caused at least one school district to change the name of its Christmas holiday to Winter Holiday by threatening a lawsuit. The district caved rather than spending its limited funds to fight the threatened suit.

As for the Jewish holiday you mention, the ACLU has sued in at least one school district to prevent the observance of Jewish holidays, even though the district claims high absenteeism is the reason for the holidays. Link: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/...y.aspx?id=2437

I think the ACLU can make better use of its finite resources.

Any resources used for less important matters takes resources away from more important matters, such as the Patriot Act.

You'll have to ask a Christian why they have to be divisive (again, not ALL Christians), I've never quite understood that myself. A good number of them are intent on sticking their way of life onto other people, and those of us that don't want to live our lives like they do don't like it.

Then don't buy any Christmas presents. bah-humbug!

I don't. But you seem to imply that the 'Christmas spirit' can only be attained if one is Christian, but it most definitely can be attained by anyone. And I am sure you are well aware that Christmas has hardly any of its intended religious meaning anymore. It's more about Santa than Jesus, and who doesn't love a jolly fat man?

A large majority of 'hot chicks' from what I understand.

Agreed, but is it really upsetting people to hear "Merry Christmas" instead of "Merry Winter Holiday"?

"'Merican"

We flipped our finger to the king of england
Stole our country from the indians
With god on our side and guns in our hands
We took it for our own
A nation dedicated to liberty
Justice and equality
Does it look that way to you?
It doesn't look that way to me
The sickest joke I know

[Chorus]
Listen up man, I'll tell you who I am
Just another stupid american
You don't wanna listen
You don't wanna understand
So finish up your drink and go home

I come from the land of Ben Franklin
Twain and Poe and Walt Whitman
Otis Redding, Ellington,
The country that I love
But it's a land of the slaves and the ku klux klan
Haymarket riot and the great depression
Joe McCarthy, Vietnam
The sickest joke I know

[Chorus]

I'm proud and ashamed
Every fourth of july
You got to know the truth
Before you say that you got pride

Now the cops got tanks 'cause the kids got guns
Shrinks pushin' pills on everyone
Cancer from the ocean, cancer from the sun
Straight to Hell we go

[Chorus 2x]

---------

I say let the flag burn, if one chooses to do so. But then again, maybe that's because I'm 'The Enemy'. :p

This is just one mans opinion, that being my own. When i joined the service, the flag took on a very special meaning to me, it represents all those who have sacrificed thier lives so that others may live in freedom.

Now this may be a contridiction, but I want and would love for the Flag Burning Amendment to become law.

When I see people burning the Flag in America out of "protest", I dont care what kind of "cause" they are trying to present, to me all they are doing is spitting and pissing on the graves and memories of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for thier country.

And thats my opinion, I dont try to get too political, thats just how I feel.

Well, if this does pass, they're basically opening a giant can of worms. Does this mean that anyone 'offended' by a certain thing can move to over-rule the 1st ammendment?

Sure, you may not like it if someone were to burn the US Flag, but if he damn well pleases to do so, and as long as he doesn't physically harm anyone else, why not let him?

We might as well ban strippers from picking up american currency with any part of their body not on their appendages. It makes me queasy. ;)

And some donors only give for certain projects. Plenty of them give for the ACLU to defend a seperation of church and state, and any little thing must be fought so that the slippery slope doesn't destroy that goal.

So, basically, to a lot of people that isn't a less important matter to them.

The very same could be said for some secularists. Just substitute 'secularist' for Christian. Joe Cook comes to mind. Reasonable people can make reasonable compromises. The problem here is that, like many issues in modern America, the extremists on BOTH ends and their lawyers drive the issues.

What slippery slope? In case you haven't noticed, in the past half century the slope has definitely favored those who believe in a rigid definition church-state separation.

I'll just close by repeating what I did to Mr. Bigglesworth. There are compromises that can be made. Unreasonable people on BOTH sides of the issue often refuse to make reasonable compromises.

Mr. Bigglesworth made the point for example of the reasonable accommodation of Jewish holidays by his school board because so many of the students were Jewish and were going to miss school anyway, and I responded that the ACLU has sued against such reasonable accommodation in one district. Who are the extremists in that case?

And is it really reasonable, for example, to try to pretend that a Christmas holiday break isn't really being taken because of Christmas? What the Georgia ACLU apparently wants is for people to PRETEND that the holiday is not about Christmas in that one district. Is that reasonable?

The slope can be slippery on both sides of the hill.

Sure, it's part of our political system. If a 2/3 majority in the Senate and the House both agree to an ammendment that impacts the 1st (and the states ratify it), then that becomes law. I don't know that I agree with this ammendment, but I think the ammendment aspect of our government is an important one.

Now, the thinking is that you won't get a 2/3 majority in both the House and Senate for any ole ammendment.

I agree. I find it extremely disappointing, however, nearly all of the recently proposed amendments being pushed these days are intended to deny rights that now exist, or that may possibly exist in individual states in the near future.

Actually that is not true. Since Lemon v. Kurtzman, the trend has been more accomodationist than the strict seperation of the 70s. It isn't fully accomodationist, but far less seperationist than it was 25 years ago. Cases such as Agostini, Rosenburger, and Good News Club are definetly not seperationist (the last one said that religious groups should be let in for after school programs if other organizations are).

I disgree. The fight has been to keep us from going further down the slippery slope toward total exclusion of anything of a remotely religious nature. The Good News Club case is a fitting example. Religious groups have had to fight to ensure that they receive equal treatment and that they are not singled out for exclusionary treatment. Many school and other governmental officials, fearing potential lawsuits, have gone overboard in attempting to eradicate even individual, voluntary expressions of religion from academia and the workplace. You read about these cases all the time, the chilling effect caused by fear of lawsuits that school cannot afford to defend.

Little Jessica brings a Bible story book to school to read during individual story time, and the teacher and principal freak out and prohibit her from bringing the book. Jason wants to mention God in his valedictory speech and the principal prohibits it, saying someone might be offended. The slope is going the way you want right now, not the other way.

Actually under seperationist logic of the 70s, things such as equal access cases would have been struck down as violating establishment clause. I think it already hit bottom and the recent cases have been just moving up from that bottom, using the equal access stuff to skirt the establishment jurisprudence.

That is what seperationists are try to do, get back to that bottom again. The slope is favoring the accomodationists the last 25 years, and the seperationists want to prevent the slope from going further that way.

Though with Locke v. Davey, the slope may have been reversed to go back down. But we don't know if it is an outlier or not.


I'm not a strict seperationist. But I disagree. Those examples you've said follow distinctly from the decision of the 70s. The allowing religious groups into schools under equal access, however, does not.

The propaganda indicates that this banning of God in valedictory speeches (etc) is new and thus activist by judges, but they are actually follow decades old precedent.


An example: Bush's Faith Based Aid program.. in the 70s, it would have been quickly and easily struck down. Today, I think it'll stand.

MrBiggle now joins Flasch in making the most idiotic, ignorant posts at FOFC. :)

you must feel pretty silly considering that joninmiddlega described the very post you quote as a "spot on observation."

edit to add: http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/foru...1&postcount=70

Consider the source. ;)

Here's how I perceive it:
JiMGA is right-wing = true
right-wing is libertarian = false
totalitarian = false

Of course, I knee-jerk whenever someone misrepresents libertarianism, perception or not. Too many people here limit their views along a single spectrum.

I think you got mixed up in the equation somewhere, dropped a parenthesis or something.

He said:
-- Most people equate libertarian with right-wing, which I'd say is fair enough (never mind the diff's, that _is_ a common perception).
-- He said Me /= libertarian, Me = Totalitarian (which I later agreed with)
-- At no time do I think anybody said libertarian = totalitarian.

And after all that ... now I'm confused.
I think.
But maybe not, maybe I'm just confused about being confused.

;)

I seem to keep chasing after the tilted windmills of perception. Nothing to see from me so just carry on.

Well if my post was the most ignorant in FOFC history, then this must be a close second, because it is making the same point that I was trying to make :)

I would still have to disagree. As an educator, and reading the professional material, I believe many administrators are taking action of a preemptive nature just to prevent lawsuits, in many cases heavyhanded action that violates the rights of students. The hypothetical I gave you about the valedictory speech parallels many such cases where students' free speech rights are restricted when they want to mention God, because administrators are afraid of offending someone. I don't believe anyone would argue that a student cannot of his own volition mention God in a valedictory speech that the student writes and delivers himself. I don't recall even the ACLU filing suit in any case like that, but school administrators have acted out of fear of such suits.

I do believe that the perpetually offended are on the ascendancy, and that this bodes poorly for our constitutional rights. And I do believe some ACLU (take the case of the chapter filing suit against the school district that put the Jewish holidays in their calendar) chapters are on what can only be described as a witch hunt against any stray religious reference.

Nevertheless, I recognize that there are those on the religious right who continue to try to inject religion into our schools in an inappropriate manner.

Once again I think we can seek common sense solutions here, rather than having the puritans of both the left and right driving the issues.

I also believe that what you see as crystal clear is not nearly so clear as you make it out. The question, again, is where to draw the line. No right is absolute, nor is the separation of church and state absolute. It is all about where you draw the lines, and today's Supreme Court decision hailed as the final answer might be seen 50 years from now like we view Dred Scott or Plessy v. Ferguson today.

I appreciate the discussion, btw. I typically avoid such discussions on this board for reasons that are obvious, even in this thread.

Let me recommend a book, Religion and the American Constitutional Experiment by John Witte. It points out the history of both the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses. The Establishment Clause chapters indicate where how the Court has gone from accomodation to strict seperation and back to a neutral position (currently).

On the valedictorian speech, it depends on how it is done. All the cases I've seen involve an almost prayer. That will almost always be struck down, according to Lee v. Weisman because the student is compelled to be there (for all intents and purposes). Also seperationism is greatest in the public schools and has been since the 40s, because it is thought that young minds are impressionable.

Now you say this constant litigation keeps school administrators on their toes. But perhaps that is some of these peoples' intention. You say why don't they focus on important things, but if all the legislation has administrators shaking about allowing anything, isn't it working? They don't have to legislate everything, but enough things to get compliance.

I will check out the book.

However, the litigation doesn't just bring about compliance; it promotes an attitude in which administrators often go far beyond the legal requirements and become censors of free speech, in which students for example might be told to draw a Thanksgiving-themed poster of their own design for hallway display but then are told that their poster cannot be displayed because it has a religious theme. (actual case) Or in which a group of students who decide to meet during non-instructional time, i.e., recess, for Bible study, are told they cannot discuss the Bible at school, period. (actual case) So we end up with a chilling effect on free speech.

I do not support this amendment. I love it when liberals burn flags. I especially love it when they burn flags and get media attention while they do it. It just ensures that their power (at least as elected officials) will continue to shrink. I say again, let them burn the flag, and let as many people as possible watch them do it!!!

Right, because only liberals burn the U.S. flag...

If recess is during school hours, chances are the Courts would strike it down as a violation of Establishment Clause (of the chances of it being struck down are greater the lesser in grade you go). Some may go beyond, but this one doesn't.

Btw, you've probably read the 10 Commandment Cases. It was struck down being displayed at the Kentucky Courthouse, but allowed at the Texas State Capitol. The allowance of it at the State House supports my point that the Court is looking at things more accomodationist than 25 years ago.

Your first point, are you saying that students cannot come together on campus at any time and discuss religion? I would say not even the ACLU argues that, since in the case I mention the school did not endorse or encourage the students. What you seem to be saying is that I as a teacher should be constantly monitoring my students to ensure that they don't talk about religion among themselves, even during non-instruction time, such as class change, recess, before and after school, lunch.

As for the split Supreme Court decision, I would also disagree. The court is simply affirming what we have known for more than 200 years, that Judeo-Christian teachings are an important part of our heritage, and that we do not have to pretend that they are not. Thus the ten commandments can be displayed, but not if it is displayed for the purpose of promoting religion rather than for recognizing heritage. One might well argue that the Declaration of Independence should not be displayed because it mentions the deity, and some people have argued as much.

Sorry, I'll amend my speech. I love it when kooks burn the flag, regardless of their poltical persuasion.

Yep. And there are cases on point which state that. Good News Club even says, IIRC, that this is ONLY ok because it is an after school activity, not during school hours.


Talking about religion is different than a Bible Study, which does require some classroom accomodation. At least it would in my high school.


And in the mid 70s, if people said they were displaying the 10 Commandments for historic purposes in the way Texas had it, it probably would have been struck down. That's why I say the Court is more accomodationalist now than it was 20-25 years ago, and I think most legal scholars (on the right and left) would agree.

I want to be clear on this. Are you saying that if I as a teacher on hall duty hear two students talking about Jesus in the hall between classes, that I am supposed to tell them to stop? That seems to be what your 'yep' is saying. If I observe a group of Muslim students going thru devotionals during recess, am I to tell them to stop? Are we to monitor our students to ensure that they don't discuss religion with each other at any time during the school day?

And I continue to disagree on the accomodation. There is a tremendous offensive now to remove religious references from public spaces. What you see as an attempt to establish religion is in many cases a backlash against the attempt to cleanse religious references from the public square.

hehe, that's a good question though. Are there any cases of Republican/Conservative groups burning the flag?

Plenty. Especially among militia groups.

No, they just burn crosses.




it's a tasteless joke people, calm down....

I'm not up to speed on militia groups. ??

I'm actually surprised. Go to Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming and do some research.

See, now I thought that was Democrats too. :)

nixed again. :mad:

how about other nation's civilians?

Hmmm, not familiar. Here's some Reuter's shots that are easily found on the internet.

USA - anti-government rally


Gaza City - just for reference


USA - anti-government rally


USA - anti-government rally


Here's one in Russia, where the true leftists reign supreme


Haven't found anybody in Idaho burning flags yet, but if they are anti-government militia's, I'm sure they burn the US flag too, that would make sense.

BTW, There is a great video of some jackass in the middle east setting himself on fire instead of the US Flag. It's nice to see after being bombarded by images of people around the world burning our flag.

I'm not sure why you see those anti-government pictures as the work of "liberals." Most of them appear to be the product of anti-globalization protesters who don't really fit in the typical right-left spectrum.

And how is one really "bombarded by images" when you actively seek them?

According to Dutch:

anti-goverment: obviously liberal/leftist
pro-big government: obviously liberal/leftist

Excuse me - anti-capitalist/free government. Better? :)