Cobol - [OT] WBC Nutjob

Author

[OT] WBC Nutjob

LX-i

2006-04-20, 9:55 pm

(I know, another OT thread - it's marked so you can skip it...)

Given our recent discussions regarding WBC, I thought that some of you
might like seeing Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes give a verbal smackdown
to one of the WBC-ers...

http://www.wimp.com/religious/

I think I just gained a whole new respect for Alan Colmes... :)

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or
a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine

Pete Dashwood

2006-04-21, 6:55 pm

"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:20bae$44483566$45491de7$16077@KNOLO
GY.NET...
> (I know, another OT thread - it's marked so you can skip it...)
>
> Given our recent discussions regarding WBC, I thought that some of you
> might like seeing Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes give a verbal smackdown to
> one of the WBC-ers...
>
> http://www.wimp.com/religious/
>
> I think I just gained a whole new respect for Alan Colmes... :)
>

I had a look at that and found it surreal. The frozen smile on her face, the
absolute belief that her position is the correct one. It is chilling. It
makes me wonder how many people secretly support her. Pleased to see it is
just one family in a nation of 300 million...

Pete.

Chuck Stevens

2006-04-27, 6:55 pm

"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:4at6u9Fuu907U1@individual.net...

> I had a look at that and found it surreal. The frozen smile on her face,
> the absolute belief that her position is the correct one. It is chilling.
> It makes me wonder how many people secretly support her. Pleased to see it
> is just one family in a nation of 300 million...

The problem is, as I see it, that the views of the Reverend Fred Phelps and
his family (I believe the person in this interview is his daughter) must be
treated just as deferentially by the United States as the views of the most
conventional and traditional religious group.

For example, let's say the school board chooses a Southern Baptist to lead
the students in an "invocation" at a high school event. Once you open that
door, not only must the requests of the likes of Catholics and Unitarians
and Buddhists and Baha'i to have the same right to offer such an invocation
based on *their* world-view be accommodated, so must the requests of likes
of Phelps and anybody else who asks for the opportunity.

To do otherwise sanctions one religious perspective over another.

-Chuck Stevens

2006-04-27, 6:55 pm

In article <e2r6qi$1k84$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com>,
Chuck Stevens <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:
>
>"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:4at6u9Fuu907U1@individual.net...
>
>
>The problem is, as I see it, that the views of the Reverend Fred Phelps and
>his family (I believe the person in this interview is his daughter) must be
>treated just as deferentially by the United States as the views of the most
>conventional and traditional religious group.

Consider, Mr Stevens, the Great Wisdom manifested by those who hold that
the value of 'deference' in your statement above should be as small as
possible... consider the modest rephrasing of 'the views of (group a) must
be treated with the same deference OR LACK THEREOF as the views of the
most conventional and traditional religious group'.

DD

Pete Dashwood

2006-04-28, 7:55 am

"Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote in message
news:e2r6qi$1k84$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com...
>
> "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:4at6u9Fuu907U1@individual.net...
>
>
> The problem is, as I see it, that the views of the Reverend Fred Phelps
> and his family (I believe the person in this interview is his daughter)
> must be treated just as deferentially by the United States as the views of
> the most conventional and traditional religious group.

And that's why you shouldn't mix the Church and the State.
Tolerance of all religions? Absolutely.

Freedom for people to practise their beliefs, PROVIDED it does not break the
law or involve public acts offensive to other people? Certainly.

Rights for all religions to impose their will on the population at large?
Definitely not.

>
> For example, let's say the school board chooses a Southern Baptist to lead
> the students in an "invocation" at a high school event.

I don't know what an 'invocation' is (apart from the Satanistic and OOP
meanings :-)) but I don't see why religious observance should be tolerated
at school at all. OK, some people pray 6 times a day and have to face East
to do it. There is no reason why they should inflict this on everybody else.
They can withdraw to a private room and observe the demands of their faith
in private.

> Once you open that door, not only must the requests of the likes of
> Catholics and Unitarians and Buddhists and Baha'i to have the same right
> to offer such an invocation based on *their* world-view be accommodated,
> so must the requests of likes of Phelps and anybody else who asks for the
> opportunity.

So why open the door at all?
>
> To do otherwise sanctions one religious perspective over another.

And we certainly wouldn't want that.... Next thing you know, you'll have
atheists burning Bibles and Qu'rans in protest at not being allowed to
demonstrate THEIR lack of faith...

Best avoided.

Pete.

Howard Brazee

2006-04-28, 7:55 am

On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 01:36:20 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:

>Freedom for people to practise their beliefs, PROVIDED it does not break the
>law or involve public acts offensive to other people? Certainly.

Quite often states have had laws that make such practice illegal - so
if you practiced that religion, you would be breaking the laws.

And there don't exist public acts that don't offend some other people.

In France people are offended by girls wearing head coverings to
school, so it made displaying religious tokens - including head
coverings illegal.

Chuck Stevens

2006-04-28, 6:55 pm

<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:e2rm2s$9u$1@reader1.panix.com...
> In article <e2r6qi$1k84$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com>,
> Chuck Stevens <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:
>
> Consider, Mr Stevens, the Great Wisdom manifested by those who hold that
> the value of 'deference' in your statement above should be as small as
> possible... consider the modest rephrasing of 'the views of (group a) must
> be treated with the same deference OR LACK THEREOF as the views of the
> most conventional and traditional religious group'.
>
> DD
>

.... which is precisely why having the laws support religious overtones or
perspectives as part of political or governmental activities or conventions
strikes me as bothersome. If the school board decides they want the local
Southern Baptist minister to lead the invocation at the beginning of this
w

's high school football game, you've got to allow the Apostle from the
Church of Christ "With the Elijah Message" (Established Anew 1929), the Guru
from Aum-Sat-Tat, and any local witch or warlock with the appropriate
credentials the same privilege. Same applies to all three branches of
government. If you're gonna support one religion's message, ya gotta
support 'em all.

-Chuck Stevens

Chuck Stevens

2006-04-28, 6:55 pm

"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:4bek2mFt2hlaU1@individual.net...
>
> "Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote in message
> news:e2r6qi$1k84$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com...
>
> And that's why you shouldn't mix the Church and the State.
> Tolerance of all religions? Absolutely.
>
> Freedom for people to practise their beliefs, PROVIDED it does not break
> the law or involve public acts offensive to other people? Certainly.
>
> Rights for all religions to impose their will on the population at large?
> Definitely not.
>
>
>
> I don't know what an 'invocation' is (apart from the Satanistic and OOP
> meanings :-))

In this instance I'm referring to the practice, common at least in my youth,
of having a local minister offer a prayer at the beginning of school
events -- assemblies, athletic contests and graduation ceremonies, for
example.

> but I don't see why religious observance should be tolerated at school at
> all.

Individual religious observance I have no problem with. It's formalized
religious observance institutionalized by government agencies that concerns
me.

> OK, some people pray 6 times a day and have to face East to do it. There
> is no reason why they should inflict this on everybody else.

I actually don't object to their doing so, so long as it does not disrupt
whatever else is going on. But any accommodation made to students who do
this must not only be applied to all students but also any similar
accommodation needed for practices associated with other religious practices
must also be provided.

> They can withdraw to a private room and observe the demands of their faith
> in private.

So long as the withdrawal itself does not interrupt the class and so long as
their absence does not delay the teaching process.

>
> So why open the door at all?

Bingo.

> And we certainly wouldn't want that.... Next thing you know, you'll have
> atheists burning Bibles and Qu'rans in protest at not being allowed to
> demonstrate THEIR lack of faith...

Yeah, well ... I don't worship either one. If you want to burn *your* copy
of either one, that's entirely your business. Burn mine (and yes, I have
both) and that's vandalism at least.

> Best avoided.

Precisely.

-Chuck Stevens

Sponsored Links