Jedi Council Forums - This is your President

Jedi Council Forums » JC Community » The Senate Floor »

Locked Topic | Read Only Topic | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic

« 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 - Previous | Next | Reload

Author	Topic: This is your President
Jediflyer Registered: Dec '01	Date Posted: 5/25/02 10:03pm Subject: RE: This is your President
	The next thing Darth_Snowdog and his companions will be saying is that mothers should not feed there newborn children, saying 'These kids need to find food for themselves, we can't trap them in our way of doing things'. Wake up people. Seperating males from females in the classroom will not make one sex supperior to the other. Nor will it isolate them from one another completely. They can always go to dances, form interscholastic clubs, and the like. What it might accomplish is to take sex out of school. Now, you need to understand that I am not for mandating every school be changed to single sex. I think it would be nice if there could be a choice where each family can choose wether to send their kid to a coed or single sex school Also, a few other things. I would only start this single sex thing when middle-school began. They should still be able to intermix until that time. All the anti-single-sexers keep asking for data to support single sex schools. While I am not dedicated enough to go and find those numbers, I can tell you a few things about coed public schools. Teenage pregnancies are out of control, more than 50% of students who have graduated from highschool have had sex, and the graduates are overwhemingly stupid/illeducated. With all this in mind, I think there is also a burden on you to come up with some data supporting coed public schools and what they are accomplishing P.S. I think now would be a good time to change the title of this thread. -----signature----- As long as the differences and diversities of mankind exist, democracy must allow for compromise, for accommodation, and for the recognition of differences. -Eugene McCarthy There are no dialogues, only intersecting monologues -Mark Twain
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Saint_of_Killers Registered: Feb '01	Date Posted: 5/25/02 10:31pm Subject: RE: This is your President
	"What it might accomplish is to take sex out of school." Yeah I know I'm tired of seeing stundents banging eachother's brains out in the middle of class. Oh wait, no I'm not, because people don't have sex in school! Aside from the occasional over-hyped bj, sex doesn't take place in school buildings. It's where students meet people, and some have sex with some people they meet, but that's a part of dating for alot of people. And making schools single-sex ain't gonna take sexual tension out of schools anymore than it takes sex out of prisons. -----signature----- We enter into life naked and howling, covered with blood. The fun doesn't have to end there. Who to himself is law, no law does need, offends no law and is a king indeed Abraham failed the test. TAKE A BOW MISTER BUNNY!!!
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Darth_SnowDog Registered: Sep '01	Date Posted: 5/26/02 10:10am Subject: RE: This is your President - Date Edited: 5/26/02 10:10am (1 edits total) Edited By: Darth_SnowDog
	All the anti-single-sexers keep asking for data to support single sex schools. Of course... after all, it's our tax dollars you're wanting to waste, too. While I am not dedicated enough to go and find those numbers, I can tell you a few things about coed public schools. Funny how fundamentalists always use this same, tired retraction as a means of having to sidestep proof... of Creationism, of the Bible's exclusivity with God, of segregation being conducive to productivity... we have to do all the research for them, and then when we do, they constantly misinterpret it... Teenage pregnancies are out of control, more than 50% of students who have graduated from highschool have had sex, and the graduates are overwhemingly stupid/illeducated. PPOR on your assumption that coeducation has anything to do with teen sex. Generally, teens aren't having sex on school grounds last I checked. Matter of fact, the "morally superior" North Dakotans I grew up with have the distinction of not only being Republican, conservative Christian fundamentalists, and staunch supporters of "moral policing" of society, but they also bear the distinction of having the lowest per capita expenditure on public education, not to mention the fastest growing teen pregnancy rate in the nation (Data from U.S. Dept. of Education supports this... any doubts, call Wayne G. Sanstead, Supt. of Public Instruction at the North Dakota State Capitol). With all this in mind, I think there is also a burden on you to come up with some data supporting coed public schools and what they are accomplishing Burden on me? I'm not the one asking to plunge us back into segregation at the expense of all the taxpayers. First of all, I do think our schools are lacking numerous qualities that would improve education... but of all the factors that could be improved upon, I think that coeducation is mainly a political red herring... one that blind devotees of socioreligious conservativism have eaten up hook, line and sinker. All a politician has to do is utter the word "moral" and the tails go a-wagging.. without ever bothering to ask precisely what data supports these cockamamie conclusions. But hey, why question authority? I mean, after all... questioning authority is just wrong! It's wrong! It's better to live on your knees than to die on your feet, right? The point I'm trying to get you all to think about is... It's not wrong to doubt your transitory executive. If we were all supposed to rally behind him, even when his administration insists on engaging in filibustering that leads society nowhere except maybe backwards into the 18th century... We must ask why. We must ask for proof that these actions are anything but political fodder. We must question why they even thought of this, instead of addressing the issues which Mr. Bush, in particular, has demonstrated a pretty horrible record. Texas, if I recall correctly, ranked amongst the last three of the fifty states, under Bush's governorship, in its educational standards. Wow, Mr. Bush... so your answer to our problems is, not improving tools and resources, not increasing arts and humanities funding, not in making efforts to raise the bar for teachers, not one iota of the American people's time has been taken by the politicians to address these issues... but instead now we are engaged in thinking about promoting an ideal that is absolutely contrary to the vast majority of psychological studies of the 20th century which reveal a consistently favorable outcome for diversity in schools, in the workplace, or any place else where learning and progress are critical. I'm not meaning to paint myself as a democrat, I am talking about the current administration because it's the current administration... not because I love Clinton or Gore or anybody. CheeseyWan suggested I suffer from "democratitis" and Maveric suggested I do lean heavily towards the democrats ideals. So, I'm then to assume you guys are members of the Fascist and/or Nazi parties because your ideals so closely resemble theirs? I love how presidents can sidestep their track record by pointing us in a completely diversionary direction of discussion (alliteration unintended)... Nevermind the fact that Bush's educational track record stands right up there with our friends in North Dakota, with numbers demonstrating that almost 1 in 3 teen girls will be pregnant by the age of 16, is quickly on its way to becoming the teen pregnancy capital of the world. This is also the state that, mind you, got slapped by the federal government for having a disproportionate amount of Native Americans in Learning Disability classes which, after a careful investigation by the U.S. Dept. of Education, the majority of these individuals had been found to be placed in LD classes by no other virtue than their being Native Americans. The biased thinking that led to that situation is no different than the unfounded bias that is tempting people to consider gender segregation. I mean, hey, those Native kids weren't getting any different an education. If anything, they were getting more help in learning than the rest of the students. I mean, separating them for no other reason than their ethnic background can't be wrong, if it maybe, without proof of course, might help them catch up to their peers... because Native Americans do learn better when they're not around Whites... they're just so rowdy and drunk and a bad influence on white kids... right? Pfeh. This country is going to hell... thanks to the gullibility of the American people. We bought it... we buy it every day. We believe the bullcrap our politicians have been selling us, because we put our faith in a transitory power-chaser... not the Constitution. As for Kimball's assertion about the Constitution and how to interpret the First Amendment... I'd like to know why I can't interpret the Bible as being a work of fiction, because it's not open to interpretation, yet you seem to know the best interpretation for all of us of the Constitution... despite the fact that numerous District and Circuit Courts, as well as the US Supreme Court have, for about 200 years, had the responsibility of interpreting the pre-eminent rights of the people... You know something tthey don't? Maybe we should just abolish the courts and make the President a monarch, who will make decrees and edicts by his own interpretation. It worked for the Holy Roman Empire, right? Jesus, people... start thinking for yourselves. Ask what even precipitated the idiotic chain of reasoning that led to thinking that somehow, without strong data to support it, came to the fore... out of all the millions of other education system improvements that Bush is not championing, much less even discussing (probably because he doesn't want any skeletons to come out of his Texas closets, with regard to education). -----signature----- I am boycotting theforce.net because of their homophobic, bigoted policy concerning fanfic romance. Others who believe this is bigotry should boycott all TFN, Lucasfilm and IGN products.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Cheveyo Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 5/26/02 10:13am Subject: RE: This is your President
	Kimball: What separation of Church and State means is that 1) there is no state-sposored church (as in one, official, state-sponsored/controlled church)... My point exactly. The key word here is sponsored. When an athlete is "sponsored", what happens? Their expenses are paid, id est, the athlete is funded. Sponsorship is synonymous with funding. That leads most people to agree that government-FUNDED programs for some religious groups violates the very premise of the first amendment. That leads into another Constitutional quote you cite in that paragraph: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Are you suggesting that, while it is notably unconstitutional to create or advocate laws which openly back an established religion, it is okay for the government to openly back said religion through presidential programs? I believe that's called hypocrisy. There is no religious discrimination when the government realizes its true role as a governing body and remains outside the (Christian-based--I say this because you never hear the President seeking to aid funding to other religions) theological arena. It and it's funding do not belong there. [/hr] Jediflyer: The next thing Darth_Snowdog and his companions will be saying is that mothers should not feed there newborn children, saying 'These kids need to find food for themselves, we can't trap them in our way of doing things'. What?? I would expect such an irrational response from someone like Pat Buchannan. I would only start this single sex thing when middle-school began. They should still be able to intermix until that time. I don't know which elementary school(s) you went to, but the first time I kissed a girl was in first grade, and had a girlfriend in 5th grade. Grade 2-6 was a veritable Dating Game at my school. Granted, no one was having sex then, but we were "goin' out", and we were quite aware of our hormones and gender differences. Teenage pregnancies are out of control, more than 50% of students who have graduated from highschool have had sex, and the graduates are overwhemingly stupid/illeducated. Are you suggesting there is a parallel between sexual experiences and academic stupidity?? What exactly do those "statistics" prove? I believe a better answer to the latter of your points is the education system, parent/child involvement, and resources. It's funny to think that when, a)your parents are involved in how/what you are doing, b)you go to school in a decent neighborhood where the school is adequately funded, and c)you are not reading from outdated textbooks that still say Columbus discovered America, chances are good that you will walk away with an above average education. All this despite your sexual proclivity. Now some may openly argue that the above paragraph is an unattainable utopia. Is it really? It all boils down to 2 issues. Schools need better funding and parents need to play a more active role in their child's life. Don't back ludicrous, ineffective experiments like "single-sex" schools that will eat up desperately needed funding. Put the money back in the schools. Teach the teachers. Pay them better, for the love of all that's holy! Look at the real problems, people. Stop grasping for scapegoats! -----signature----- I am a Founding Father. Want to know more? Just ask.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Darth_SnowDog Registered: Sep '01	Date Posted: 5/26/02 10:26am Subject: RE: This is your President - Date Edited: 5/26/02 10:41am (2 edits total) Edited By: Darth_SnowDog
	Cheveyo: Very well said. I have a problem with people who can't think for themselves trying to rationalize why everyone else shouldn't think for themselves, either. I guess it reminds me of that old saying... you know... the one about the blind leading the blind. In this case, it's the blind trying to gouge everyone else's eyes out, in an attempt to leave us with no choice but to be led by the blind. All apologies to Stevie Wonder... I mean, the man is black and he's an artistic genius. What are the chances! (and I'm pretty sure he went to an integrated, coed school, too.) An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it. - Gandhi -----signature----- I am boycotting theforce.net because of their homophobic, bigoted policy concerning fanfic romance. Others who believe this is bigotry should boycott all TFN, Lucasfilm and IGN products.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Cheveyo Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 5/26/02 10:57am Subject: RE: This is your President
	I like that quote! Thanks for sharing, SnowDog. -----signature----- I am a Founding Father. Want to know more? Just ask.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Kimball_Kinnison Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 5/26/02 11:02am Subject: RE: This is your President - Date Edited: 5/26/02 11:06am (1 edits total) Edited By: Kimball_Kinnison
	As for Kimball's assertion about the Constitution and how to interpret the First Amendment... I'd like to know why I can't interpret the Bible as being a work of fiction, because it's not open to interpretation, yet you seem to know the best interpretation for all of us of the Constitution... despite the fact that numerous District and Circuit Courts, as well as the US Supreme Court have, for about 200 years, had the responsibility of interpreting the pre-eminent rights of the people... You know something tthey don't? I have never said you couldn't interpret the Bible however you please. I also never said that I knew something that no one else did. The views I've expressed have been argued by judges and constitutional scholars over the past 200 years. (That's part of why there is still quite a bit of argument over the issue today.) Maybe we should just abolish the courts and make the President a monarch, who will make decrees and edicts by his own interpretation. It worked for the Holy Roman Empire, right? Why do you insist on trying to exaggerate my claims to make them seem utterly ridiculous? Just because my views do not agree with yours, or the views of the scholars you agree with, does not mean that I am opposed to the Constitution or democracy. I happen to hold a different interpretation of the Constitution, one that is also supported by many scholars over the years. My point exactly. The key word here is sponsored. When an athlete is "sponsored", what happens? Their expenses are paid, id est, the athlete is funded. Sponsorship is synonymous with funding. That leads most people to agree that government-FUNDED programs for some religious groups violates the very premise of the first amendment. That is not always the case. A State-sponsored religion would be one in which the religion has the full backing of the government. Look at other nations that have an official, state religion, like England (the Anglican Church) or Argentina (the Catholic Church). Those nations place certain obligations on all citizens with respect to the state-church, regardless of thier own religious beliefs. You also need to realize that many religious charities are separate organizations from the churches that support them. The Latter-day Saint Foundation is separate from the LDS Church, although funded by them. Many other churches operate their charitable actions the same way. Are you then suggesting that if an organization receives ANY funding from a religious source it should not receive any government money? How about if it has a religious leader on its board? How about if that leader is also an elected representative in the government? Where do you draw the line? Are you suggesting that, while it is notably unconstitutional to create or advocate laws which openly back an established religion, it is okay for the government to openly back said religion through presidential programs? I believe that's called hypocrisy. No, I am saying that there is NOTHING in the Constitution that forbids the government from working WITH a religion in accomplishing its goals. Take the example of aid to Europe after WW2. As I mentioned, the LDS Church gathered and distributed food, clothing and other supplies to people in Europe. However, we lacked the resources to transport the goods there, so we went to the US Government for help. They provided trains to transport the goods from Utah to the East Coast, ships to transport the supplies to Europe and got European governments to help provide trucks and trains to deliver the supplies to distribution points. Most of that transportation was provided at the expense of the US taxpayers. However, aid to Europe was on the list of things that the US wanted to do as well. Working with the LDS Church reduced the total cost to taxpayers and sped up the timetable for delivering the supplies. Their interests coincided. It was only logical to work together. There is no religious discrimination when the government realizes its true role as a governing body and remains outside the (Christian-based--I say this because you never hear the President seeking to aid funding to other religions) theological arena. It and it's funding do not belong there. The government has funded the Red Cross and other relief agencies. I can understand the desire to keep government funds from being used for proselyting (and I agree with that). However, if the money is not used for proselyting, please explain to me the difference between the Red Cross and a religious charity. Why should one receive funding while the other does not? If it is just because of religious beliefs, then that is religious discrimination (discriminating against a group for its religious beliefs or association). If you choose to make that argument, then you must argue against giving financial aid to any charity. That way all charities are considered equal before the law. While you may not have heard the President refer to anything other than a Christian-based charity, that does not mean that they would be the only ones supported. If you note what I have said, I support funding religious charities that follow the exact same rules as all other charities. A religious charity should not be allowed to use government money for proselyting any more than a secular charity should be allowed to use government funding for political donations. Kimball Kinnison EDIT: spelling and bolding -----signature----- You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Cheveyo Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 5/26/02 12:28pm Subject: RE: This is your President
	That is not always the case. A State-sponsored religion would be one in which the religion has the full backing of the government. Look at other nations that have an official, state religion, like England (the Anglican Church) or Argentina (the Catholic Church). Those nations place certain obligations on all citizens with respect to the state-church, regardless of thier own religious beliefs. First and foremost, we're not looking at other nations. We're concentrating on the USA, a nation who seems to pride itself on being differerent than the policies of other nations. Secondly, It is you and those who believe as you do that make this line so ambiguous. The line is very clear. the government is not to associate itself--through sponsorship or any other means--with any particular religion. As a ruling body, it must remain neutral. Even you should be able to see the need for this. When the government begins deciding to back certain religious groups, as the Bush administration has planned to do (see Bush's 'Faith-Based Initiative'), this opens the door to 1st amendment violations, not to mention the sociological ramifications. It has been noted senators both DEM and REP that churches who obtain funding would be blatently discriminating against those in their community who do not attend church. That is, quite frankly, saying, "If you are not a follower of Christ, not only are you condemned to hell (what they preach now), but you also cannot be saved or helped through government-funded programs... unless of course you join the church whose community programs are funded by DC and the tax-payers. Well, then you can be saved! While you may not have heard the President refer to anything other than a Christian-based charity, that does not mean that they would be the only ones supported. If you note what I have said, I support funding religious charities that follow the exact same rules as all other charities. A religious charity should not be allowed to use government money for proselyting any more than a secular charity should be allowed to use government funding for political donations. For this, Kimball, I commend you. Not all Christians are as open to the existence of other religions. An example of these people is our current President. He has made very clear his standing on religion. "Christianity is the heart of America," he says. The initial programs (I'm still looking for the article) he proposed to open up for grant consideration were Christian-based organizations. I don't believe there were any other religions represented. That may have changed in the last year... I don't know, as the press has let it fall into the cracks. Now... what about the topic at hand, specifically, single-sex schools? -----signature----- I am a Founding Father. Want to know more? Just ask.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Kimball_Kinnison Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 5/26/02 1:28pm Subject: RE: This is your President
	It is you and those who believe as you do that make this line so ambiguous. The line is very clear. the government is not to associate itself--through sponsorship or any other means--with any particular religion. As a ruling body, it must remain neutral. Even you should be able to see the need for this. To me, the line is not ambiguous at all. It is quite simple: as long as an organization follows the same rules as everyone else, it should have the same opportunities and rights as anyone else. Religious beliefs should not enter into the equation at all. In a previous post, I used a non-religious example. If the KKK or a group of Neo-Nazis (to provide two examples) were to request government funding for charitable acts (like the Red Cross), then I would say yes, as long as they meet the same criteria as anyone else. The Constitution is not a document designed to exclude different groups from participating in towards the common good (although it did in earlier times). It is an inclusive document. It does not set different rules based on a person's sex, race, religious or political beliefs. It is designed so that, quite simply, these things should not matter. If you start excluding one group based on their religious beliefs (or lack thereof), where do you stop? We are all promised equal protection and consideration before the law. For this, Kimball, I commend you. Not all Christians are as open to the existence of other religions. Thank you. I have too many friends who are good people (from almost any religion you could name) to believe otherwise. The initial programs (I'm still looking for the article) he proposed to open up for grant consideration were Christian-based organizations. I don't believe there were any other religions represented. That may have changed in the last year... I don't know, as the press has let it fall into the cracks. Most religious-based charities in the US are Christian charities. It is only logical to start with the largest group and work down, since they are probably (but not definitely) the best established and organized. However, I would be opposed to any system that would exclude a group simply for its beliefs. As long as there are clear, unbiased standards (as in not requiring certain beliefs and requiring all money to be carefully accounted for), I say let any organization that meets those standards have an equal chance to participate. Now... what about the topic at hand, specifically, single-sex schools? Well, that was not the only original topic at hand, but it seems to be the one left. I'll quickly say my piece and then go back to lurking. First, the proposals I have seen would not create public single-sex schools, but classrooms. If it is something that is optional and has a definite potential to benefit some people, I would say go for it. However, that would be on a limited scale within existing systems. I.e. one or two classes in a school, not an entire single-sex school. The key here is to make it optional, so that those who believe they would benefit from it can do so while those who do not wish to are not forced to. There are many similar programs used in schools across the country that are optional and separate students based on one criteria or another. For example, in Williamsburg (where I started High School), there is a School of the Arts attached to Bruton High School. It is an optional, magnet school that uses some alternative teaching methods to teach theater, writing, art and dance. That program greatly enriches the educational opportunites of those who participate in it (my sister graduated from that program). In fact, it was found that students in that program, even those with poorer grades entering it, did significantly better in their classes after entering the program. I have no problem with a program along those lines. As far as single-sex classes, if there is enough interest in a locality to support the idea, then I say go for it. If it is optional and enough taxpayers want it, why not? It is not as if we are forcing anyone to participate (or forcing anyone "to the back of the bus"). Kimball Kinnison -----signature----- You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Maveric Registered: Oct '99	Date Posted: 5/26/02 1:30pm Subject: RE: This is your President
	Maveric: You're forgetting three things... 1. The 10th Amendment of the US Constitution (Bill of Rights). No, I understand the state rights amendment gives to the states those powers that are neither denied them nor are delegated to the federal government as long as a federal judge agrees. The problem is, that rarely occurs. 2. Article V of the US Constitution. That the constitution can be amended? No, I am aware of that as well. I take it you mean that the constitution is a living document that can be changed when 2/3 of the states agree on it. If I took a gun and placed it at your temple and told you to vote yes on something you did not agree with or else I would pull the trigger would you do it? That is what the federal government did to the south after the civil war with the 13, 14 & 15 amendments. Is that democratic? Maybe by Cuban standards. 3. Democracy as a concept transcends the Republic. I refer to a republican form of government, not a Republic. The difference is that those best able to vote are allowed to do so. Texas, if I recall correctly, ranked amongst the last three of the fifty states, under Bush's governorship, in its educational standards. 47. It was 50 prior to his adminstration. Some improvement is better than none. Maveric suggested I do lean heavily towards the democrats ideals. So, I'm then to assume you guys are members of the Fascist and/or Nazi parties because your ideals so closely resemble theirs? I consider myself more of a moderate, thank you. And you know what they say about making an assumption. Of course you are making a big enough one out of yourself in this thread already. Jesus, people... start thinking for yourselves. Ask what even precipitated the idiotic chain of reasoning that led to thinking that somehow, without strong data to support it, came to the fore... out of all the millions of other education system improvements that Bush is not championing, much less even discussing (probably because he doesn't want any skeletons to come out of his Texas closets, with regard to education). So, you are saying that in Texas he made no improvements in education? Where is your evidence? How about the $3,000 a raise for every school teacher? That may not be much where you are but I assure you in Texas that is a hefty raise. How about the mandatory tests that insure students are learning what they are supposed to? I admit there has not been a lot of change but as a professor who sees an abundance of freshmen every year I can tell you first hand that the quality of students entering college are improving. Just because someone does not agree with you does not mean that they are idiots and apparently there are a lot of people that disagree with you on this forum. We think for ourselves everyday, and if we like the current adminstration, that is our perogative. -----signature----- Reading maketh a full man; conference a ready man; and writing an exact man. -Sir Francis Bacon
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Kimball_Kinnison Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 5/26/02 2:24pm Subject: RE: This is your President - Date Edited: 5/26/02 2:25pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Kimball_Kinnison
	Jesus, people... start thinking for yourselves. BTW, Snowdog, I thought you weren't Christian? If that is the case, then I find it unusual that you chose to use Christ's name as an exclamation. Last time I checked, Christians didn't run around using "Buddha", "Baal" or "Molech" as exclamations. Please show some respect for others' beliefs. While you may not believe that Christ is your savior, I believe that he is mine. Please do not use his name in that fashion. And yes, there are Christians who use his name in that fasion as well (I am not among them), but there are many who do get offended by its use in that way. If you feel the need to use some exclamation, might I suggest "Bob" (In the style of the Hitchhiker's Guide)? "Bob, people..." would probably not be offensive towards anyone, although feel free to pick any other phrase you want. Kimball Kinnison -----signature----- You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Cheveyo Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 5/26/02 4:24pm Subject: RE: This is your President - Date Edited: 5/26/02 4:26pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Cheveyo
	Okay, it sounds like the argument has grown stale. No new information is being produced, and you are arguing the same points. Kimball, you obviously don't see that your statements are working against your argument. -you cite the rather innovative program at Bruton High School (something I would gladly stand beside you to applaud) as an example of a program similar to this single-sex classroom idea. It is nothing like this idea, as it seems there is no segregation happening. No Civil Rights violations. This example furthers my point that the tax-payer's money can do far greater good when distributed to programs that are known to work well, rather than patheticaly reaching out for sociological scapegoats. -re: Church/State seperation. We both agree that the line is very well defined. Yes? then why do read so much into it?! Everything you say is exactly what is NOT written in the 1st Amendment. It is cut and dry: "In this corner, we have Yehoshua of Nazareth, Buddha (who is not a god, by the way), Shiva, Nanih Waiya, Allah, Jehovah, ad infinitum... "...And in this corner, we have the United States Ferederal Government." See? Cut and dry. Religion over there, Government over there (points in the opposite direction). there is no, "Well, as long as they play along with all the religions equally, it's okay..." Nope, nuh-uh, wrong answer. The bottom line is that government has no business in theology. Period. -And to the remark about the KKK lending aid: That is a hypothetical statement taken to the extreme. Such organizations historically do not conduct "relief efforts" or offer aid to anybody. They perpetuate hate. Aid is not in their manifesto. If they were to decide to offer aid, it goes without saying that such assistance would come both with a price and with many discriminating provisos. -----signature----- I am a Founding Father. Want to know more? Just ask.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Kimball_Kinnison Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 5/26/02 7:11pm Subject: RE: This is your President
	you cite the rather innovative program at Bruton High School (something I would gladly stand beside you to applaud) as an example of a program similar to this single-sex classroom idea. It is nothing like this idea, as it seems there is no segregation happening. No Civil Rights violations. First of all, referring to it as "segregation" implies that it is imposed upon the students. If you note what I said, it would be a CHOICE, not a requirement. If it is optional, it no longer carries any Civil Rights violations. Second, you could argue (as I have heard many people do) that any such magnet program is a form of "segregation" because it separates students according to some criteria. I have heard that argument many times referring to GT programs, art programs, science programs and other, similar programs. (I also think it is a load of manure.) You seem to be very hung up on the idea that it is segregation. The problem with that is that you are forgetting that I have not advocated that they should force anyone into the program. Like I said earlier, if enough people in a single locality could benefit from such a program and they WANT the program, let them try it. This example furthers my point that the tax-payer's money can do far greater good when distributed to programs that are known to work well, rather than patheticaly reaching out for sociological scapegoats. When they first introduced SOA (the School of the Arts) at Bruton, many people fought against the program ("It's too expensive" "It'll never work" "There's no need for it" etc.). Some people claimed that the money could be better spent of other "more proven" programs in other schools in the York County school district. Others claimed that it was an attempt to spend more money on the "rich" school (Bruton was the newest, smallest and wealthiest school in the county), while ignoring other schools. The problem with limiting funding to "programs that are known to work well" is that until you TRY a program, you do not know exactly how it will work. They don't have any data to make any firm conclusions at this time. What that would suggest is to allow one or two school districts to implement this program on a trial basis and study what happens among those who choose to participate. -re: Church/State seperation. We both agree that the line is very well defined. Yes? then why do read so much into it?! Everything you say is exactly what is NOT written in the 1st Amendment. Allow me to quote again the relevant part of the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... There have been only two Supreme Court rulings respecting direct federal aid given to religious institutions (other than schools). Those are Bradfield v. Roberts (1899) and Bowen v. Kendrick (1988). In both cases, the Court upheld that it was constitutional to give aid to such institutions as long as they had a significant secular purpose and were not held to a more rigorous standard than secular institutions. In Bradfield v. Roberts, the Court found it legal to provide a federal grant to improve a Catholic hospital, because the institution, while religiously owned, had a significant secular purpose. In Bowen v. Kendrick, the Court found that just because a human service provider has a religious affiliation or a faith-inspiration, it is not necessary to conclude that the provider is "pervasively sectarian"--i.e., part of a category of providers that is ineligible for public funding. In fact, in Bowen, the Court specifically recognized the long-standing relationship between the state and various religious services. Essentially, the religious nature of a charity is not sufficient grounds in and of itself to deny federal aid to that charity. And to the remark about the KKK lending aid: That is a hypothetical statement taken to the extreme. Such organizations historically do not conduct "relief efforts" or offer aid to anybody. They perpetuate hate. Aid is not in their manifesto. If they were to decide to offer aid, it goes without saying that such assistance would come both with a price and with many discriminating provisos. Yes, it was hypothetical (hence my use of the word "if"). However, regardless of the beliefs of an organization, if that organization is obeying the laws, their beliefs should net be a factor in any decisions by the government about that group. Even in the US you are free to hate whatever group you want without breaking any laws. It is not your hate that is against they law, but certain actions that your hate may lead you to. As long as you obey the law, your beliefs are irrelevant to the government. Kimball Kinnison -----signature----- You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Darth_SnowDog Registered: Sep '01	Date Posted: 5/26/02 11:36pm Subject: RE: This is your President - Date Edited: 5/26/02 11:43pm (3 edits total) Edited By: Darth_SnowDog
	As to Bush's record with education... I believe, if I'm not mistaken, he increased their ranking from 50th to 49th or 48th. Wow, such an improvement, George. Apparently it was too much to ask for you to shoot for even a B- or, hell, maybe even a C... but saying he made improvements by moving 2 notches up from the very bottom of the ladder is like saying I'm getting better at chess because now my bird only beats me 8 games out of 10. Why tout the "strides" you haven't made when you can simply admit you didn't succeed and need to try harder? Accountability is rarely a part of a politician's vocabulary. Considering the competition that outranked Texas in 49th and 48th places, prior to the Bush administration, his feat is as statistically significant an indicator of his efficacy as a champion of public education as it is to point out that placebos have had, in clinical trials, a success rate of 12 to 20 percent in treating bacerial exacerbations of chronic bronchitis. A monkey could have been at the steering wheel to get Texas from 50th to 48th. At any rate... the question of mine still stands... Why is it that we see no educated liberals supporting Bush? Is it because they're all reserved to being democrats? I myself am neither wholly liberal nor am I a democrat (or republican, for that matter). Or is it because his core constituency, his target market during the election, relied heavily on people incapable of questioning his sincerity, his record and his methodology/reasoning... inasmuch as Gore's campaign relied heavily on marketing to people afflicted with precisely the same apathy. If the idea comes down to spending taxpayers dollars on single-sex "classrooms"... Well, where's the clinical proof that it actually is the most feasible solution to academic performance and learning, compared to all the other choices that deserve equal, if not more, consideration of our available funds? Anyone care to PPOR? As to the issue of our government... it is a Republic. A "republican" form of government whereby "those best able to vote are able to do so" is, in fact, a Republic. If there is a discrepancy between the two, please point out to me how "those best able to vote" are those other than the elected legislators who make up the lawmaking body of a republic? As for my use of the name "Jesus"... well, there are a million things I could say that offend me for religious reasons... and I could claim pretty much anything. You'll just have to deal with it... or earn my respect. Kimball, though you say you have a great deal of respect for people of other faiths, and I am well aware that you are not one of the most radical theologians to grace these boards... I still cannot agree with this assertion wholeheartedly for the simple fact that I always detect a note of moral superiority whenever you color your religious commentary with only the great virtues of the Church of LDS. To me, it's only incidental that the LDS, so fiercely committed to subtler forms of cultural annihilation (i.e. "conversion") and rampant anti-religious derision otherwise known as "missions", weren't around at the right time in history to take part in the overt annihilation, assimilation and destruction of other cultures, religions, believers. If these were different times, the members of the LDS would pursue those ends perhaps even more fanatically. I am not saying that no religion is without fault.. but that is precisely why I keep my faith and my mind open. Because religions, to me, are as transitory as politicians. One after another, their seats of power wax and wane, and men of power shift their balance of interest in religions depending on what is the people's "flavor of the month." I guarantee you that if the majority shifted in this country towards Islam, Bush, as well as many other polticians both Democrat and Republican, would shift all their attention towards Islamic initiatives. If you believe that is somewhat impossible, given the current state of affairs... then ask yourself how it is that a country so opposed to totalitarianism helped install the Taliban government. As an individual, you will gain my respect based on the merits of your discussion... and so far, all I see is more filibustering. If you care to actually post proof of your assertions about single-sex classrooms or schools, instead of just posting assertions as proof, then we might find a common ground somewhere... but neither will you post proof, retract your assertions, nor at least come to a compromise. It seems absolutely important for you to stick to the absolutes that, coincidentally, sit exactly in line with the many other fundamentalist ideals of social "morality" emanating from the epicenter of your doctrine and the Christian conservative community--the perspective in which your thoughts have been saturated, whether intentionally or not... inasmuch as the permeation of Christian "idealism" has colored my own views of Christian fundamentalism. If you want me to respect your perspective on the use of the word "Jesus"... put yourself in my shoes for a while. Have you once even attempted to understand where I'm coming before you filibuster the actual discussion by biting on to my deliberately placed hooks of religious digression? Instead of belaboring the point about how great the LDS is, which only serves to further my impression of the egocentrism of religious institutions, do you ever even bother to ask why I have adopted the perspective I have? I often wonder where Christians get what I think are kooky ideas... but I try to remind myself those ideas are no more kookier than anyone elses... mine included. What I get from most Christian fundamentalists in response, however, is compassion from a soapbox... not as my equal, but ending every sentence of compassion with "... though I know that I'll go to heaven (i.e. I'm better than you)" as if Christians cannot coexist with others, but have to get in the last word to convince others... or moreover themselves... that they are as morally superior as they would like to think. -----signature----- I am boycotting theforce.net because of their homophobic, bigoted policy concerning fanfic romance. Others who believe this is bigotry should boycott all TFN, Lucasfilm and IGN products.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Kimball_Kinnison Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 5/27/02 7:01am Subject: RE: This is your President
	Snowdog, you are being extremely unfair towards me and others here. If you care to actually post proof of your assertions about single-sex classrooms or schools, instead of just posting assertions as proof, then we might find a common ground somewhere... but neither will you post proof, retract your assertions, nor at least come to a compromise. If you note what I said in one of my last posts, I said that there is currently a lack of sufficient evidence either way in the same-sex classroom debate. At that point, the logical option would be to study it further. That would involve choosing one or two school districts to run a trial program. Right now, it stands as a hypothesis. The next step is to thoroughly test the hypothesis. Isn't that the scientific method? It seems absolutely important for you to stick to the absolutes that, coincidentally, sit exactly in line with the many other fundamentalist ideals of social "morality" emanating from the epicenter of your doctrine and the Christian conservative community--the perspective in which your thoughts have been saturated, whether intentionally or not... inasmuch as the permeation of Christian "idealism" has colored my own views of Christian fundamentalism. That's funny, if you were to ask many "fundamentalist Christians", I'm not even Christian at all. I have had a wide exposure to many different belief systems during my life. I have chosen the one that I follow of my own free will. I have a deep respect for others' beliefs and I recognize that they all have some truth to them. I simply believe (my opinion, you are free to disagree) that I have found something that has a little more truth than the others. If you want me to respect your perspective on the use of the word "Jesus"... put yourself in my shoes for a while. Have you once even attempted to understand where I'm coming before you filibuster the actual discussion by biting on to my deliberately placed hooks of religious digression? And here I thought you were a more reasonable person than that. Why would you specifically want to add anything to your message that detracts from it? The way to convince others is through discussion, not argument. Your "hooks of religious digression" can only serve to offend and inflame others. Please stop that and show me the same respect towards my religious beliefs that I have shown towards yours. As for my use of the name "Jesus"... well, there are a million things I could say that offend me for religious reasons... and I could claim pretty much anything. You'll just have to deal with it... or earn my respect. Kimball, though you say you have a great deal of respect for people of other faiths, and I am well aware that you are not one of the most radical theologians to grace these boards... I still cannot agree with this assertion wholeheartedly for the simple fact that I always detect a note of moral superiority whenever you color your religious commentary with only the great virtues of the Church of LDS. ...Instead of belaboring the point about how great the LDS is, which only serves to further my impression of the egocentrism of religious institutions, do you ever even bother to ask why I have adopted the perspective I have? And here I thought you wanted proof. You had some mistaken ideas about how all religious charities operate. I happened to have an example from my own experience that shows that not all religious charities act in the way you describe. I am LDS. It is what I have first-hand experience with. Would you expect me to use examples that I don't have as much knowledge and experience with when I have a much better example available? I expect that any examples or information that you give come from your own personal perspective and experience (either through study or hands-on). I would not expect you to provide examples you know nothing about and I filter my impressions of you accordingly. That's also why I am very open about the fact that I am LDS. It allows you to see which side I am coming from and then evaluate my examples accordingly. If that has given the wrong impression, I apologize, but if you expect me to give examples, I will continue to give them from my own experience. Please simply take that under consideration as you read my posts. To me, it's only incidental that the LDS, so fiercely committed to subtler forms of cultural annihilation (i.e. "conversion") and rampant anti-religious derision otherwise known as "missions", weren't around at the right time in history to take part in the overt annihilation, assimilation and destruction of other cultures, religions, believers. If these were different times, the members of the LDS would pursue those ends perhaps even more fanatically. First of all, having served a mission myself, I can tell you that they are not "anti-religious derision". It is an attempt to share our beliefs with those who want to listen. Missionaries are constantly told that if someone says "no thank you", we are to move on. Second, the LDS Church has a very much different perspective on "overt annihilation assimilation and destruction" of other religions. In US history there is only one religion to have had persecution against it made legal. In 1838, Governor Lilburn Boggs of Missouri signed an executive order stating that the Mormons needed to be driven from the state or killed (that order stood until 1976, when it was officially recinded). While not on the same scale as the Holocaust, it had the same purpose. Having experienced that as a Church, we would not wish that upon anyone. I often wonder where Christians get what I think are kooky ideas... but I try to remind myself those ideas are no more kookier than anyone elses... mine included. What I get from most Christian fundamentalists in response, however, is compassion from a soapbox... not as my equal, but ending every sentence of compassion with "... though I know that I'll go to heaven (i.e. I'm better than you)" as if Christians cannot coexist with others, but have to get in the last word to convince others... or moreover themselves... that they are as morally superior as they would like to think. There is no need for you to go on such a diatribe like this against me. I've not made any such comments to you or anyone else here (except once in the Mormonism thread, where it was part of an ongoing joke). You can have whatever problems you want with other Christians, but don't just lump me in with them. I have not done those things that you are accusing all Christians of (in fact, I have been the victim of the exact same treatment from many "fundamentalist Christians" because I'm "worse than an unbeliever"). Please, let's try to keep this a more civilized topic and not make it into a bash/defend religion thread. Kimball Kinnison -----signature----- You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History

« 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 - Previous | Next | Reload

Jedi Council Forums » JC Community » The Senate Floor »