http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005 by the authors Sun, 30 Apr 2006 17:21:09 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/04/27/032911.php#comment-360926 Blah. Blah. Blah. Why would any self-respecting homosexual want to live in Kentucky anyway? Let the Baptists have their beliefs. They won't be around much longer. Christ is coming back sooner than we think -- and I'll bet 50 to 1 He is pissed off! 360926@blogcritics.org Sun, 30 Apr 2006 17:21:09 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/04/27/032911.php#comment-359802 the government has no place in education or religion, but let's be realistic, that's how it is is and how it's going to be. Religion, as it stands is a kinda "you're either for us or against us" type of life choice. If the govt. is not with religion, it's against it. Redtard: I think you would have been more accurate if you had said "secular" indoctrination. I find it hard to believe that hardcore socialism is being taught in your average American high school (unless you are at Berklee High). "Secular" is a code word nowadays for anti-anything christian or conservative seeming. Secular used to connotate the absence of religious implementation, but because of all of the recent religion hatred, it simply means "not a part of THEM." 359802@blogcritics.org Fri, 28 Apr 2006 18:31:47 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/04/27/032911.php#comment-359791 This separation of church and state thing is being way overblown. If everyone was being taxed and 100% was going to Catholic schools then yes, the government would be establishing religion. If 50% of taxes come from Catholics and 50% of kids are in Catholic schools and 50% of the funding goes there then I don't see a problem that's government catering to the will of the people. Vouchers would eliminate the problem and function exactly as my 50% analogy. The problem is that liberal control freaks aren't happy allowing people freedom. They want to tax the shit out of everyone, including religious types, and force them to pay for liberal indoctrination at public schools. If liberals believe they have a right not to have to pay for religious education, then I should have a right to refuse to pay for their liberal socialist indoctrination. 359791@blogcritics.org Fri, 28 Apr 2006 17:44:03 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/04/27/032911.php#comment-359783 Thank you Richard. That was most informative. Just goes to show what kind of grief you get into when the government starts even recognizing religions. Just tends to confirm my skepticism of government being in the education business at all. 359783@blogcritics.org Fri, 28 Apr 2006 17:16:12 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/04/27/032911.php#comment-359779 In the good old days in Canada when we on had three religions, Protestant, Catholic, and others and before whe had our equivelant of a bill of rights and a constitution, we had something called the British North America Act which set forth all our rules and regulation from how many trees we could cut down to what monies were given over to funding what education. As this wonderful piece of legislation was written in 1794, before Canada was formed and the British were still worried about French Canada becoming a State in the Union, it was decided that certain protections had to be offered to the French Canadaians of Canada outside of Quebec to ensure the continuation of their culture. The result was that anywhere there were x number of Catholics or they made up a certain percentage of the population, they were guranteed their own school board up to grade ten and complete government funding. Inside Quebec there would be two school boards, Catholic and Protestant, which pretty much meant French and English. Somwhere down the line after Canada became a country provinces were handed the reins to deal with education. But the would still have to be governed by the rules of the good old British North America act and guarantee the rights of Catholics to have a Catholic education up to grade ten ( I believe grand 10 was selected as the cut off date initially because most people were 16 after that year and that's when public school became optional, therefore if you chose to go to school it was going to cost you to be something other than the mainstream) At some point when a govenerment of Ontario in the late seventies was facing a difficult election they decided to expand funding for Catholic schools until the completion of high school like all other public insitutions. Now of course that's become a real mess, because in the interim Candadians have discovered the "others" would like to be funded too. Why, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, and Hindus, argue should we not get the same rights as the Christian denominations. In Quebec they either have to go to private schools or go to schools in what is known as the Protestant Board of Education. If they are immigrants who were not native English speakers, they are forced to go to the French Catholic school system so they learn French as a second language not English (That's our language war not a religious war.) The only religious schools receiving funding from the governments in Canada right now are the Catholic Boards of Education. If you want to open a Babist or other specific Christian denomination grade or secondary school you won't get funding. Neither will you if you are any number of "other" religions. Why, because no government has the nerve to cut off something that has been assumed to be a right for over 200 years, and also doesn't want to be seen as doling out more money to special interest groups. The Catholic Schools are free to teach their students anything they want, even if it contrevenes our human right's codes of not preaching against anyone because of their race, creed, gender, or sexual orientation. But private religious schools, which don't receive any funding don't seem to enjoy the same imunity. Why am I telling you this in great lenght and tedium. To show what a convoluted mess government makes when it enters into the field of religious schooling. The answere is very simple I think. If you want to have your child educated according the word of your specific God's law, than you shouldn't expect anyone else to pay for it. Governments provide free grade school and secondary education for the general public with no specific denomination in mind. You want something else than get your church to pay for it, not the public purse. That should be the policy from junior kidnigarten to PHD. Politicians make decisions based on how many votes it's either going to win them or cost them in the next election. Do you really want to trust anything important like educational policy to that decision making policy. That way if anyone is stupid enough to go to a Baptist collage knowing full well that they aren't what you would call enamoured of the gay lifestyle, they can't punnisht the institution by threatening their funding, while at the same time, it will lessen the influence religious groups have over governments because they will not longer be able to blackmail them about the education issue. Okay I'm done, sorry for that Al, but it was great post and it flipped a switch and turned on the tap. cheers Richard 359779@blogcritics.org Fri, 28 Apr 2006 17:02:25 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/04/27/032911.php#comment-359646 Yes, there's no using common sense in the ham sandwich worst case scenario. Common sense dictates the aberrations of someone intent on outraging the situation are invalid, therefore there is no actual desecration. I should think actual desecration would stem from some more serious incident, such as someone assaulting or injuring another. That kind of deliberate violence would desecrate, but some snotty kid insisting on a ham sandwich...? This could be taken to extremes, such as what if a student comes in during Pesach with bread in his pocket and some falls out? Does THAT constitute desecration? It can get kind of silly. 359646@blogcritics.org Fri, 28 Apr 2006 13:08:31 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/04/27/032911.php#comment-359626 Ruvy, I think you just made the argument against religion. A ham sandwich should not have that kind of power. 359626@blogcritics.org Fri, 28 Apr 2006 12:50:47 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/04/27/032911.php#comment-359574 Dave #52 Absofuckinlootly! 359574@blogcritics.org Fri, 28 Apr 2006 12:13:15 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/04/27/032911.php#comment-359564 Ruvy, I think you just made the argument for not giving government money to religious institutions even stronger. The example you give of violating kosher laws is so ridiculous, that it proves that religion and secular government are inherently incompatible. Dave 359564@blogcritics.org Fri, 28 Apr 2006 12:06:39 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/04/27/032911.php#comment-359557 I love the idea of the government not directly funding higher education. Let the universities fund themselves through private donations and tuition. I am sure universities and colleges can get creative if government funding dried up. Sure tuition would be through the roof, but let the government give out millions in tuitions credits to students and their parents instead. This would be a great way to create competition among the colleges and universities. I do not however agree with doing this for K-12 education. I know racism and discrimination are slowly going away, but given the chance, I see parents bring it back up again. Given total freedom to send your kid wherever you want will recreate white schools, and black schools. And what about the parents that don't care? They'll send their kids to the closest school no matter how good or bad it is. I think we should switch to a K-9 public education system. Hit the kids hard with the basics, and then send them too more specialized schools as soon as they can pass the GED. Get kids in Community colleges and 4-year colleges at earlier ages. Or get them out working the bad jobs that nobody wants after 9th grade if they hate school so much. 359557@blogcritics.org Fri, 28 Apr 2006 11:58:35 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/04/27/032911.php#comment-359527 If I understand right, any college with students who get federally funded financial aid is considered to be government-supported and has to abide by affirmative-action laws, etc. 359527@blogcritics.org Fri, 28 Apr 2006 11:24:35 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/04/27/032911.php#comment-359502 I don't think any analogy is accurate in my opinion. The analogy of eating a ham sandwich is in no way related to a human beings propensity to relate to other human beings (orientation). Refraining from eating a sandwich is far different than refraining from reaching out to another human being for companionship, something that is fundamental to every human's very core. 359502@blogcritics.org Fri, 28 Apr 2006 10:55:21 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/04/27/032911.php#comment-359498 Maybe we should frame this a bit differently to see the problems involved. Let's take a hypothetical. Yeshiva University is a Jewish school in New York. This does not mean that you have to be Jewish to attend, but you have to be aware of certain restrictions - like a kosher cafeteria. And the federal government does give out money to the school in the form of scholarships for students. So let's say that some student decides to bring a ham sandwich into the cafeteria - and eats it there, making it very clear and public that he has brught pork into the cafeteria. In effect, he has desecrated the cafetereia, or at least a part of it, because it needs to kashered (made pure) once more and no Jew who does keep kosher can eat there until it is. He has damaged the place for the very people who built the school - and for doing so, the school demands that he pay for the kashering. The student refuses to do so and the school expels him. The kid sues the school for discrimination. This is not all that different from what happened at the Baptist school. Should a student who attends a religious institution, aware of what its restrictions are, be allowed to defraud the school through violating them, and should the school not be allowed to retaliate? That is the bottom line of my hypothetical, and the bottom line of what happened at this university. Y'all have fun with this. I'll be gone for the Sabbath. Shabbat Shalom, Reuven 359498@blogcritics.org Fri, 28 Apr 2006 10:42:25 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/04/27/032911.php#comment-359445 He had ample reason to be baring fangs pissed. If it'd been me, I'd have sent someone to kneecap Karl Rove & would have buried W in his own shit so deep he'd never be able to mangle another word. What IS appalling is the extent to which McCain is now pandering to BushCo & the same crew that savaged, slandered, & libelled him, in order to (he thinks) get the GOP nomination they're dangling at him. Instead of freezing W like he deserved, he ended up stumping for the bastard in the last election. I could have puked. So much for McCain's vaunted sense of honor. Meanwhile, Dave # 21 & 22 - I agree totally. No religious institution has any business being government subsidized, either by grants or by tax exempt status. A subject on which I totally agree with you: maybe there should be a commemorative plaque? ;) 359445@blogcritics.org Fri, 28 Apr 2006 07:49:39 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/04/27/032911.php#comment-359437 Dave... Come on, do you really think that McCain is sane? Not to get off the subject but McCain is an emotional rollercoster. Hero and all that aside, I have lots of buddies who are Vietnam Vets and to be perfectly honest with you, the guys who really went through the hell of it all, are all a bit crazy. Watching McCain during his last attempt at a presidential bid... really shook me up. He went from mild mannered sensible guy to launching/lashing/baring fangs pissed. I'm not at all comfortable with someone possessing that broadrange of emotional swing being so close to the button. Hillary is included in that group. VR 359437@blogcritics.org Fri, 28 Apr 2006 07:23:53 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/04/27/032911.php#comment-359435 "I can't figure out why more people havn't materialized religion (for tax reasons)..." --Nugget #38 I can't figure out why the Government allows abortion... it's killing of future tax payers! 359435@blogcritics.org Fri, 28 Apr 2006 07:17:47 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/04/27/032911.php#comment-359358 I don't know Nugget, you can never be sure with Dave But that's only my opinion 359358@blogcritics.org Fri, 28 Apr 2006 00:59:10 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/04/27/032911.php#comment-359356 #41 said what I was implying...i think. 359356@blogcritics.org Fri, 28 Apr 2006 00:55:17 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/04/27/032911.php#comment-359353 I would believe that. McCain ain't no slouch, and politicians are much better at forming alliances than your average "Survivor" cast member. 359353@blogcritics.org Fri, 28 Apr 2006 00:53:23 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/04/27/032911.php#comment-359352 Jet, as I've said before Falwell is on the slightly less insane side of the spectrum, so McCain is throwing him a bone so he can keep the real crazies off his back. Dave 359352@blogcritics.org Fri, 28 Apr 2006 00:52:40 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/04/27/032911.php#comment-359348 Al #35 SteveS, like myself, are more reactionary than bigoted. We're reacting to the hate, the venom, and the prejudice aimed visciously at us, and we've just built up an automatic defensive stance, which isn't always justified. Respectfully Jet 359348@blogcritics.org Fri, 28 Apr 2006 00:45:11 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/04/27/032911.php#comment-359346 #39, Yes Nuggett, it's name is Jerry Falwell. Would you believe that even John McCain is now bowing to him, and is planning to give the commencement address at Falwell's Liberty University, in order to garner favor for his Presidential bid in 2008! 359346@blogcritics.org Fri, 28 Apr 2006 00:42:37 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/04/27/032911.php#comment-359345 but dave, (comment #22), Walmart is my religion now, maybe wallyworld should be tax exempt!? I can't figure out why more people havn't materialized religion (for tax reasons)...I mean I guess alot of people have with the church and all....but the church thing is getting old and has always been obvious. What if I start a Powerbook club, a place to gather and worship images of Steve Jobs and perhaps share tech advice all the while calling it "religion." How is that not viable, and more importantly, tax exempt? Is there some statute in the US legislation that defines religion? 359345@blogcritics.org Fri, 28 Apr 2006 00:39:50 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/04/27/032911.php#comment-359344 Steve S apparantly must not realize that God wants enormous crystal cathedrals built in his honor and glory. 359344@blogcritics.org Fri, 28 Apr 2006 00:39:05 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/04/27/032911.php#comment-359337 That was a good analogy that Redtard came up with. My thinking is that if the baptist student at the anti-religous college were organizing prayer meetings, whatever, in an overt way, then yes, he should be booted. Same with the gay guy at the religous school. But if the gay, or the baptist is just discreetly carrying out his sexuality, or religon, then he shouldn't be booted. This true to life story though, is just gay activist's making trouble for everybody else. As they are forever want to do. There's no reason that a gay guy should want to go to this college. His high-school guidance counseler was negligent. 359337@blogcritics.org Fri, 28 Apr 2006 00:31:08 EDT