Hi Dragan,

Sorry for the delay in responding. Tamar's been beating me up <g> and I've also been very busy...


>>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.
>
>Yeah right, the #558379. The longer it gets, the more I feel I should write in response, and the more I postpone the reply, and then it eventually got stale. Still, I fail to see how "Bible has never been intended to be comprehensive; only a genealogy of the blood line of Christ" fails to mention any other children by Adam and Eve, and if the "fact" that god created them is so important, why is no other creation of humans mentioned anywhere else? Not important for the story? Did not take part in Christ's bloodline?

Well, those children weren't in the geneolgy I guess. As far as any other people being created not being mentioned maybe that's because there weren't any? <g> The bloodline of Christ is important. Actually, it's a very facinating story. Remind me some day and I'll post a link or directly answer as to why. Had Jesus been born of normal sexual interaction between Joseph he would not have been qualified for the position of King as Joseph had God's curse on his bloodline.

>
>Anyway, I'll try to make this shorter by skipping some of what you answered to others.
>
>>>>>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.
>
>To be afraid? C'mon, outside religion there's no big force which threats you with eternal punishment, and there's nobody to tell you that 99% of what you do is a sin. It's called courtesy, i.e. as much as a teacher in a class with some Jewish and/or Muslim kids will not tell them to eat pork, and will also not try to tell everybody to eat fish on Friday, the same teacher should simply tell the children that "this is a Christian song, so whoever wants to sing along... next time we'll do an interesting Zen story" etc. Not pretending it's "this is how we all do things around here", but just saying what it really is.

Well, it seems that people are confusing "teaching about" or "exposing to" to "forcing". As far as the teacher explanation thingy goes why not just give a general announcement that the kids aren't required to sing along if they object. Again, sacrificing a majority viewpoint for a minority one can be as equally 'bad' as the opposite...

>
>> 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.
>
>"Dirty"? No, church is a business, faith is a person's private matter, the only dirty thing is recruitment of members, which, IMO, includes subtle techniques such as inclusion of folklore etc.

Well, sadly you're all too correct that (most) churches are businesses. I'm sorry that is your impression and can only assert that they aren't really all that way. I think it's very normal that churches reflect their environment..

>
>> 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.
>
>OK, next time I tell you that you should not try to get a state employee to take sides with one of the points of view (religious, antireligious, agnostic), you have carte blanche from me to feel offended and use that in the dispute.

*chuckle*

Thanks! <g>

As do you. However, IMO neither of us has the right to use that as a reason for demanding our way.
>
>>>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.
>
>Rewind, re-read, requery() and try to understand. On one hand, we had a kid which asked "teacher told us to sing this, parents said I shouldn't, what do I do". Now if teacher didn't ask them anything of the kind, or applied a diversity approach ("and now kids, we'll learn a few winter songs from several cultures"), what's the supposed question your kid should ask? The one quoted above is the best I could come up with.

*sigh* Why not stop singing any song as someone will be bound to be offended. THat is the logical end here.

>
>>>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".
>
>Because it's one religion only, and the non-religious approaches are also omitted. And it's all coming from a state employee we both pay.

So the choice is to open the singing to all groups or no group then. I say all and you are saying none, correct?


>
>> 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?
>
>Judging by the state of education around here, some would say it already happened :).

ROF'L! In this we are joined at the hip and in total agreement. More evidence that politically correct positions are intellectual garbage. You're taking my side then??? <g>

>
>> "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'.
>
>Content pushing should be at least a two way street, if not more than two. If kids are presented with one point of view only, how can they make an educated judgement? In socialism we were at least taught about the full history of human thought, including Christianity and Islam (though I did object to total absence of Eastern thought). Actually, the our philosophy professor was a graduate priest; he had to take a few more exams to graduate philosophy.

You are assuming that the kids are only seeing one point of view. I do not recall suggesting that this would be good? With whom are you having this discussion? <g> I seem to remember that I'm arguing for more inclusion, not total removal...

>
>> 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.
>
>The nice thing about the science is that the goals are moving - you achieve some, prove or abandon one theory, and create the next version thereof. No dogma and nothing sacred (pardon the pun). While some of the extrapolations of evolution are unproven (like the "missing link" thing), it works quite well otherwise. Again, there's no finite truth in science. Its only constant is permanent development and change. Even logic may be replaced with something better someday.

Well, rather than start another 10,000 message thread on the merits or lack thereof of Darminism <g> let me offer some links to you when you ask for them, ok? Evolution is fatally flawed and today most evolutionists are turning from it to (what's it called?) "The Gap Theory"? It's where there are sudden moves forward in an evolutionary sense. It's the only way to make the alleged timeline 'fit'.

>
>>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.
>
>At college age, students are rather mature,

Ha ha ha ha ha .. You're kidding right? <g>

> and already entitled to their own opinions. If they're allowed to carry guns, I'd presume they're also allowed to judge for themselves. Besides, they are tomorrow intellectual elite of the nation - and if you don't trust their judgement, then what? Will you try to replace them?

Perhaps college-aged students in the Eastern countries were more mature but here?? *chuckle* I hardly think so. But, yes, they have every right to their opinion as anyone else IMO.

>
>Besides, the whole idea of socialism was grossly polluted by what was happening in the Eastern block and China. The whole thing needs a new theory. Marx expected socialism would win in developed countries first - and it won in the half-feudal Russia instead, which caused a great detour, without ever finding the original road. If you want a good socialism, you have to do it yourself, and maybe these students are a good germ of some future socialism-the-american-way. Even if it happens, I don't expect it in the next fifty years or so.

Well, socialism was the replacement of God by the State, pure and simple. Doesn't work. Never will.

Why?

People are selfish, not noble. Socialism requires a nobility that cannot be imposed upon others. The goals of Socialism are IMO quite laudable for the most part. The practice is a failure for the reason already given.

>
>>>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>
>
>No, in the name of you being a teacher, being paid by us, or an ABC speaker which has all the benefits of free speech while sitting in front of the camera and reading the news.

Well, I see nothing wrong with more content rather than less. I guess you think an empty book teaches better than a full one? <g>

>
>> You're not obligated to listen but you want me to stop speaking
>
>If I'm a student in your class, I'm told by pretty much everybody that I should listen. And as a parent of a nine-year-old and a taxpayer (albeit not a citizen) I'd prefer the teacher to stay with the curriculum, and not with any religion's agenda; teaching the contents of the curriculum is what they're paid for, as much as the ABC speaker is paid to read what is written for him.

For goodness sake Dragan. You make it sound like they're going to strap the kids in their seats. <g> I'm not suggesting that a math clas sbe about counting the blessings of God, though that's not a bad things to do.. <g>

>
>>I won't do that no matter how uncomfortable you are. Sorry.
>
>And I'll petition the school boad to get someone unbiased instead of you. Sorry.

No problem. I am biased. I have an opinion. I have the right to speak it, as do you. I will fight for your right to speak your mind freely though we may be in great disagreement. THat's the whole point IMO here. We're silencing people in the name of free speech and it's grossly wrong IMO.

>
>>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????
>
>I see the double standard: whenever we start speaking about what a teacher should do and what not, you get started about free speech. I was teaching for five years, and I did take good care not to say what I think each time. My freedom of speech was limited by my job: my speech was a tool I used in my work, and I had a job to do. If some sorts of speech would deter the effects of my work, I had to avoid them.

No.. I think a teacher should teach the curriculum but if that could include spiritual analogies I think they have the right.

>
>>My faith, BTW, doesn't 'force' me to do anything whatsoever. Nothing at all.
>
>No peer pressure? What would happen if you didn't visit your church for a couple of years, and/or didn't give a dime to it?

Well, they would pray for me. They would call to make sure I was doing alright. They could care less about what I give. We do not take collections were I attend except perhaps when a visiting musical group or speaker should visit. We have a little box on the wall at the back of the chursh and no one really pays much attention to it. I know because I'll occasionaly help count the donations. Now, you are qute correct that most churches aren't like this. I think they are approaching this incorrectly and many times aren't trusting God but are doing some flim-flam emotional appeals.


>
>>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>
>
>Scientific curiosity. I'm trying to learn how a believer's mind works, how do they keep up with the discrepancies etc. Besides, this is a nice intellectual pastime, and I have the habit to engage in such disputes once in a while. Last time it was several years ago, and most of the participants were neophytes. Talking with someone who grew up with faith had to be different - another intellectual challenge.

Well, point one out. Discrepancy that is. There are a few possible typos where some numbers appear to be different but I've seen nothing to damage the core messages. I'd suggest a separate thread but I'm happy to oblige.

>
>>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.
>
>I endorse the idea of three minutes silence. Even non-believers could use the time to rethink a few things; for those who believe prayer or meditation would help, they're equally welcome.

Well, three minutes of silence would work for me as well. Even one or two I suppose. At least that's a recognition that this is a huge part of some people's lives and far better than total removal.

>
>>>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?
>
>There's a difference between "they want to sing" and "teacher told them to". A good solution would be to have the teacher ask them what they want to sing, and once they're done with that, teach them some they didn't know - from other cultures/religions. Diversity and "blossom of hundred flowers", as late comrade Deng said :).

Why is the teacher not as much a part of the community as the kids? I guess, as a teacher's child, I grew up with a distorted viewpoint that the parents were involved in the kid's lives and so were the teachers...

>
>>>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.
>
>How do you expect any interest for something they didn't have a chance to know about? Broaden the offer - diversity, again.

Well, on one hand you want to kids to make the song suggestions and on the other (here) you seem to be suggesting that the 'authority' so do.

Ahem... <g>


>
>>>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.
>
>If A includes B, B cannot include A unless they are identical. Simple set theory. Freedom from religion is one option in the general freedom of choice, that's why I mentioned optionbutton. My view on freedom from religion is that anybody should have the freedom to have no religion at all, and should not be pressed to have one in any manner.

But you're misusing your logic by definition. You're suggesting that an empty glass (freedom from) may contain something. It cannot. Freedom "of" may contain some empty portions (freedom from) but it's the presence that is greater than the lack of presence. I quite agree that should you choose you have the right to reject the notin of God. I think it's a very foolish position to take but I respect your right to make the choice. Now, it's when you want to force your position (empty glass - from) on me (full/partially full glass - of) that I think is when you've gone too far. An empty room may not contain people but a room with people may have varying degrees of emptiness.

>
>>>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.
>
>Well, whoever steals an empty wallet won't be happy.

*chuckle*


>BTW, would you please stop putting words into my mouth? I didn't say I don't want the kids to sing "Silent night" in school, I said "I don't want the teacher to tell them to sing it", specially not without a single word of explanation, and with omission of any other sort of song at the time. There's a huge difference between "one of the songs for one of the various winter hollidays" and "the song we [all] sing for Christmas".

Well, I wasn't attempting to put those words in your mouth and I apologize. I'll make sure to let you know when you're attempting to put your thoughts in my head as well, ok? <g> Although, with all the empty space up there it has to be inviting... <g>

Still, what's the beef with a teacher doing this? I dunno.. It sure seems overly sensitive to me.


>
>>Maybe when the Hare Krishnas produce some good Christmas music propel will sing it? *shrug* & <g>
>
>I don't think they observe Christmas :)

<g>

Perhaps not.

>
>>>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.
>
>I'm not an one-liner, i.e. I can't name any single issue which could be described as my "god". Sorry for failing your definition :)

You might be surprised Dragan. Everyone has a master passion. It sould be anything. Manybe even dark beer... <g>


>
>Still, you haven't addressed the above feeling that I'd be a second-rate citizen in a country which has "in God we trust" written so many million times all around the place. Sounds equally bad as when the Patriarch of Serbian Orthodox Church once wished "merry Christmas to all Serbs of Orthodox Faith" - left a bitter taste. Are other Serbs less Serbs if they are not Orthodox? Along this line, are Americans who don't to subscribe to "in God we trust" lesser Americans?

That's all in your mind Dragan. Please do not try and make me feel equally insecure (I'm being a little facetious here to hopefully make my point).


>
>>Thanks for your time Dragan. You are definitely a first class guy.
>
>My time is cheap nowadays. I wish I had a first class job instead. Thanks for the patience shown toward a notorious unbeliever - and, believe me, you're one of the few around here who knows how to spell "definitely" (to differ from "definately" which is a seperate issue :).

Well, you're on dangerous ground when you compliment me on my speeling... <g>