Dragan,

Hi.. Sorry for the delay. I've been swamped...

>Doug, since you abandoned the other thread (you're not the first one who leaves when I ask "how many people did god create", I expected that), I really didn't want to move the whole thing here, but you've moved the playground to this location, so here I am.

Not what I recall. I recall answering your question (two - and I also mentioned the notion of a purer genetic pool as well, plus the length of lives lived at that time) and recall that you were the one who begged off of the discussion as you were "tired" and needed a break.

>
>>>However, the teachers and principal and other adults in a school are authority figures - when they say "We're now going to sing 'Silent Night'," the child whose religion prohibits him from singing it and who simply is uncomfortable singing it is put into an unreasonable position. "Teacher says to do this; Mom and Dad say not to. What do I do?"

Right, and so now the "authority figures" are influsncing children to be afraid of what others might find offensive. This cuts both ways I'd think in that you can support (via your presumed authority in the mind of a child) the notion that God is somehow 'dirty' and we can't talk about that here. Again, I see this as just a way for the minority to tyrannize the majority and I say that if they can use "offense" as their justifiction so can I. Simple really.

>>
>>So, then instead of your child asking that question you now force my child to ask the same question?

I'm not going to force a child to ask any question. Should they ask a question it's real simple; tell them we do this and that if they aren't comfortable with it they don't have to do it. Why are some shildren's 'feelings' more important than others?

>
>What question? "Why didn't the teacher tell us to sing 'Silent night'"?

?? Maybe they didn't want to? I don't quite understand your point.

>
>>Tell me how that is "fair"? ALl you are doing is making others do what you are asserting is "unfair". I fail to see the equity there. That's been my whole point but you seem to think you have special priviledges here and you get your way at my expense. (figuratively speaking)
>
>OK, why would the inclusion of attributes of one religion in the curriculum be fair, and why would the request for not pushing such content on the others be unfair?

No, why is the inclusion "unfair". That's the issue some are raising. Why take the approach of teaching nothing rather than something on the mistaken notion that it is better? "Pushing" is also a two way street. I am offended at all of the stupid existentialist thought being "pushed" on the children in schools and because I am offended Iit should stop; using this 'logic'. I also object to Darwinsim being pushed as fact when in fact it is to this day totally unproveable and those who are "in the know" are constantly moving the goal posts. I will not argue the issues but those are the facts.

>
>Having lived my life in a communist country, albeit the softest one with most liberties unimaginable in real-socialism countries, I have grown very sensitive to attempts of indoctrination. I almost wrote "brainwash" here, but I don't want to include TV and other media in the dispute. I specially don't want this done to my children.

Really? Well, you should see the indoctrination that goes on here all the time. Try going to a liberal arts college and starting a conservative club for example. That is if you want to see your old friend socialism alive and well.

>
>>I find it extremely unreasonably and unfair that you (again, figuratively speaking) are forcing me to abandon my faith solely on the basis that you don't like my position.
>
>If your faith forces you to push its content on others, you are asked only to abandon the pushing.

In the name of free speech? <g> You're not obligated to listen but you want me to stop speaking> I won't do that no matter how uncomfortable you are. Sorry. I am not asking you to stop speaking what you believe am I? No, I am not but you don't see the double standard here????

My faith, BTW, doesn't 'force' me to do anything whatsoever. Nothing at all. I want to share it but I'm not going to waste my time with those who don't want me to. You know the old proverb, "Thrtow a rosck into a pack of dogs and the one who yelps is the pne you hit." Well, why do you keep responding if it's of no matter to you? <g>

>
>>I also find it to be hypocritical in the extreme, particularly since this is now the tyranny of the minority. Sure, from a Constitutional point of view we have all been taught that a Democratic Republic (not a democracy, remember <g>) that it was instituted to avoid the tyranny of the majority.
>
>Do I have any rights to demand that my children be spared (protected?) from religious POVs being served by the state (school) to them before they are legally mature to decide for themselves (i.e. the age could be decided as "age of consent", or "drinking age" or "driving age", whichever)?

Yes, you have every right to ask that the State not "serve" up a religion. ABsolutely! That's far different than asking those in the school to stop expressing themselves. For example, not allowing kids topray at commencement when they want to.

>
>>No, free speech is not limited to the confines of my home. It is specifically included in the public square. Come on Tamar.. You know better...
>
>OK, so why don't the ABC's news readers (see the topic title) speak what they want? They are in a public square (though its sides are not exactly straight on my TV) and speaking.

No, ABC news is not in the public square (if I understand you properly here). They are a business. I don't think I'd have the right to barge into any business and start disrupting their business..

>
>>>Why should my child or Dragan's be forced to make himself or herself different. Our Constitution guarantees that the state will not establish a religion. I believe that having the school sponsor prayer (and I view singing of religious Christmas carols as prayer) is an establishment of religion.
>>
>>And again, why should your child's view force his view on my child? This sword cuts both ways. If it is 'wrong' for me to 'force' my pov on your child it is equally 'wrong' for you to be able to do that to my child as well.
>
>Exactly, but I don't see where Tamar is forcing you to do anything.

By not allowing my kids to sing what they might want to sing for example?

>
>>I believe you are entirely wrong in your interpretation that allowing various types of songs in a school is the establishment of a religion.
>
>So why don't they sing Hare Krishna in the school? The melody is equally simple and easy for kids to learn.

Maybe there's not enough interest? I don't know. But, if those who believe that wish to I say let them. Might do the other kids some good, even though I don't follow what they believe whatsoever.

>
>> It is the acknowledgement of one perhaps but until the state starts collecting tithes I think you're still confusing freedom of religion as freedom from religion.
>
>Right, they are not at the same level at all. Freedom of religion should include freedom from religion. How would freedom of religion be a real freedom if there was no optionbutton.caption="none"?

But freedom from religion doesn't include freedom of religion, does it? That's the rub and what I am objecting to.

>
>> Your faith (whether secular humanism or ?) has no right to prohibit me from expressing mine - even in the public square. If you are allowed to do that the next step is to assert that since the "public square" has been funded by the state that the expression of my faith there is somehow the government establishing a religion.
>
>No issue here, except that the teachers, who are ipso facto servants of the state, should not interfere with this - except to protect these freedoms, and to encourage the point of view that all the religious options (including .null. value) are equal. In that light, I still see singing Christmas carols as "some options are more equal".

So, when you protect your wallet that means you empty it out? <g> Protecting the right to religious expression isn't the same as removing that expression Dragan.

Maybe when the Hare Krishnas produce some good Christmas music propel will sing it? *shrug* & <g>


>
>>Well, at the rate this country is turning its back on God I suppose you may have a point. Too bad for us but another example on anti-God thought. What is so onerous in the sying, "In God We Trust"? Goodness gracious what a horrible thing to do? Trust in God..
>
>Wasn't a trust some sort of financial establishment? Maybe that's why these words can be found on dollars.

Well, 'trust' is one of those pesky english words that can have multiple meanings. Yes, it can mean a financial establishment. It can also have meaning with respect to human relationships as well.

>
>OK, I'm an outsider here, not a citizen of the US, so it's none of my business. If I was, I'd probably feel a second-rate citizen, having no god. If accepting "In God We Trust" is mandatory for becoming a citizen, they'll probably never let me in. So much for diversity.

If you choose to have no god that is your choice. However, I'd disagree based upon the notion that the highest passion of one's life is essentially their 'god'. It can be pleasure, position, power (you've probably seena lot of this in COmmunism) and so forth. It's kind of a issue of word definitions.

Thanks for your time Dragan. You are definitely a first class guy.