Official Church and State Discussion

I bet you find a plethora of links for "Play it again, Sam." which doesn't make it correct. The way I said is a logical fallacy; you cannot eat your cake and have it too. When you have your cake, you eat it; that's normal. When you eat your cake, you don't have it butyou want it.

E_S

 

I finally get that phrase. I thought it meant that you could have your cake, but you couldn't eat it or something. Your way makes much more sense Ender.

 

E_S's version of the idiom is the most accurate, as that's how it was originally posed in the mid 1500's ("wolde you bothe eate your cake, and haue your cake?" -Thomas Heywood, Proverbs (1546)); however, in the early 1800's, the idea somehow got reversed to the way we say it today.

To me, it's like saying, "I could care less." (A personal pet peeve of mine--if you could care less, then you do care somewhat; on the other hand, if you couldn't care less [the true intended meaning], then you cannot possibly care any less about it than you do. That is to say, you don't care.)

People say both, even though they're technically and grammatically wrong.

But enough about English history and grammar correction...

 

Kimball, that analogy of yours might be convincing, except the majorities in Iraq and South Africa weren't in power and were actively supressed. Christians here aren't persecuted, supressed, or out of power. In fact, they wield a great deal of power in this country. But I guess you didn't say Christians were persecuted here.

And, as usual, you seem to have missed my entire point.

Even if someone is not in the minority, they can be persecuted:

Persecute - To oppress or harass with ill-treatment, especially because of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs.

There are those who persecute Christians, who actively try to "oppress or harass with ill-treatment". Strictly speaking, if any number of Christians are "harassed with ill-treatment" in the US, then Christians are persecuted in the US.

Persecution has nothing to do with who is in power or not. Just like there is no difference between a Christian or a Jew persecuting a Muslim, there is no difference between a Muslim, Jew, or Atheist persecuting a Christian. Persecution can happen on both the individual, or the collective level.

Yes, there are those who choose to persecute Christians, and who try to use the political or judiciary systems to do so. Look at the legal attacks on the Boy Scouts. The Boy Scouts are a private organization with a strong basis in Judeo-Christian values, and there are people who are actively trying to harass them into changing their policies. How many lawsuits have been filed against them on the basis of their beliefs?

Kimball Kinnison

 

Don't they receive funding from the government? Doesn't that mean they have to live up to certain standards of non-discrimination?

As for the cake thing, , I do admit that the version Ender quoted removes some ambiguity, I'm just saying the other version is a lot more common, and it's meaning is generally clear from context.

But this really might be a different thread.

 

Don't they receive funding from the government? Doesn't that mean they have to live up to certain standards of non-discrimination?

Actually, last I checked, the Boy Scouts are a private organization, without funding from the government. They use public facilities at times, but that is no different than any other private organization that uses public facilities. I have seen churches that were allowed to use public facilities.

The military has had a close relationship with the Boy Scouts in the past, and that relationship has proven mutually benficial. The support given to Scouting from the military is a large part of recruiting efforts. Similar support is given to other organizations as well (the Boy Scouts just happen to be the largest).

Last I checked, the Atheism and the Homosexuality Boy Scout cases went to the Supreme Court, and in both cases the Boy Scouts rights as a private organization were upheld.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Don't they receive funding from the government?

What funding do the Boy Scouts receive from the government? I suppose one might consider the fact that some chapters meet at public schools as a form of funding, but I'm not sure if that applies.

For the longest time, we had an RPG club that was able to meet every other Saturday at our public library, but I don't think anyone thought we were being funded by the government.

 

Don't they receive funding from the government?

Yes they do, although they report that federal funding amounts to a "very small source of income" [Jan 2005 BSoA press release]

Doesn't that mean they have to live up to certain standards of non-discrimination?

That, or they do not obtain federal income.

As for the cake thing, I do admit that the version Ender quoted removes some ambiguity, I'm just saying the other version is a lot more common, and it's meaning is generally clear from context.

Yes, the way you said it is the most common, most well-known today. I'd not heard it said the other way before E_S mentioned, then I pulled out my trusty dictionary of popular proverbs and and sayings (random house). Stop laughing at me. It was a gift.

 

Which is why I said "The military has had a close relationship with the Boy Scouts in the past, and that relationship has proven mutually benficial. The support given to Scouting from the military is a large part of recruiting efforts. Similar support is given to other organizations as well (the Boy Scouts just happen to be the largest)."

There are many members of the military who are former Boy Scouts. The military has long recognized this, and encourages the relationship because it helps better prepare those scouts who do decide to join the military. For example, Eagle scouts could graduate basic training with an immediate promotion of one grade. This is similar to other automatic promotions that are offered (usually with a limit of no more than a total of one grade).

Kimball Kinnison

 

So what'd your dorky book say?! No, really, I like this crap too, and I'm curious. Ender's version is clearer, and I have to wonder why the inverted form has taken off. Are both listed?



Thanks for backing me up, KK.

 

As usual? Such contempt should be beneath you, Kimball. This is the type of negative stuff your post doesn't need. I'm tired of having to tell you that, as I'm sure you're tired of having to tell me again and again that I missed the point. I got your point, but as usual, you were the one who missed mine. (See, we can do without this as usual nonesense can't we? I dislike it immensely.)

You were using an analogy that I felt wasn't quite apt to the extent your connotation made it seem. Sure Christians can be persecuted. The President of the United States can be persecuted. Hell, I suppose even God herself can be persecuted. So what?

And comparing "boy scouts" persecution to that of south africans or iraqi's is a little ridiculous. Its the context my friend. It's like saying "just like the fascist nazi's had the ability to persecute the jews, my fascist mother in law has the ability to persecute me." IT's the comparison of Sure Christians can be persecuted anywhere, it's not a very difficult concept to understand. But persecuting them by filing lawsuits is very different. It's a different level of persecution.

That's the only point I was trying to make. I agreed with your point about not needing to be in the minority to persecuted, that majorities can be persecuted too. I just felt it was intellectually dishonest to compare what you call "christian persecution" to the legitemate persecution of south africans and iraqi's.

Lawsuits are filed all the time, and last I checked, the Boy Scouts have been winning them. Where is the persecution again?

 

For the longest time, we had an RPG club that was able to meet every other Saturday at our public library, but I don't think anyone thought we were being funded by the government.

As in Rocket Propelled Grenade RPG?

 

You don't tell people if you're a member of that club...

 

Frankly, I wouldn't tell anyone I was a member of a Role Playing Game club either....

 

C'mon, it's not that hard to see the connections. Unfortunately, some people read passages of the Bible literally, instead of metaphorically, even though one Bible passage specifically said that God perceives the passage of time far more different than us mere mortals.

The problem is that evolution holds the universe to be billions of years old. According to the Bible, the Earth is 7000 years old or something like that. 13,000 if you count one day as 1000 years while God created it. Someone back me up on this.

 

Don't bother. Some Christians love to pretend that scientific knowledge was anticipated by the Bible. Never mind that historically Christians have believed that, oh, the Earth was flat, the sun revolves around the Earth, the Earth is 6000 years old...after they've persecuted scientists long enough, they eventually give in and claim the Bible endorsed the opposite.

In reality, the book of Genesis describes a flat earth which is situated beneath a dome of water called the Firmament. IMO, it's just total nonsense.

 

The problem is that evolution holds the universe to be billions of years old.

Evolution doesn't say anything about the origins of the universe. Evolution is only concerned with explaining the gradual development of new species of living organisms.

According to the Bible, the Earth is 7000 years old or something like that. 13,000 if you count one day as 1000 years while God created it. Someone back me up on this.

I don't know if this helps: "For in Your sight a thousand years are like yesterday that passes by, like a few hours of the night." (Psalms 90:4)

 

Actually, the meaning isn't dervied from the context of the words but the original. If you have cake, you eat it. Nothing unusual or unwieldy about that, which is what the phrase is saying. However, if you eat your cake you cannot have it - i.e. you cannot have the best of both worlds so you must choose cake or eating. It's one of those things someone changed to make sound "better" and ended up losing the meaning.

Mr44, teh gubernment paid for you to RP? But they could have used that money to rebuild NO and Iraq! I blame Bush!

E_S

 

Could we get back on topic, please?

I think the real reason this phrase is a bit dodgy is the use of the word 'have' as opposed to 'keep' or something. To 'have cake' is generally to 'eat cake'. But I do think that when the phrase is applied to an appropriate situation, its meaning is perfectly clear, regardless of which variant (the common one, or the E_S remix) is used.

 

As usual? Such contempt should be beneath you, Kimball. This is the type of negative stuff your post doesn't need. I'm tired of having to tell you that, as I'm sure you're tired of having to tell me again and again that I missed the point. I got your point, but as usual, you were the one who missed mine. (See, we can do without this as usual nonesense can't we? I dislike it immensely.)

And you seem to read far more comtempt into it than there really is.

I said "as usual" because I don't think I've ever posted any analogy without you trying to pick holes in it and saying it doesn't really apply, rather than actually discussing the point of the analogy.

Analogies are meant to illustrate specific points or principles (in this case, it was the point that you do not have to be a minority to be persecuted, nothing more). They never fit perfectly with the situation, because there are always differences (if there weren't, it wouldn't be an analogy).

Lawsuits are filed all the time, and last I checked, the Boy Scouts have been winning them. Where is the persecution again?

So, just because they keep winning the lawsuits, the lawsuits aren't being used to harass them? I have to call bunk on that. If anything, the fact that people keep filing lawsuits against them when they have consistently been winning is more evidence of harassment, not less.

Kimball Kinnison

 

I don't know what their record is, but they have lost some lawsuits, and as long as an organisation that receives money and other contributions from the government wants to discriminate against atheists and gays, they should face more.

 

The only sort of money or support that the government gives to the Boy Scouts is a part of the military's recruiting efforts. Are you saying that the military should not be allowed to use what has been a very effective recruiiting mechanism because of a private organization's policies? Or are you saying that a private organization should be forced to change its policies because the military finds it beneficial to support them in order to encourage people to join the military?

Or are you saying that because the Boy Scouts are allowed to use public property (as are many, many other private groups, including churches), they should be forced to change their policies? (Following that line of reasoning, we all use public roads, so the government should be allowed to tell all of us how to live our lives down to the smallest detail.)

Kimball Kinnison

 

I am saying that, yes. My tax dollars should not go to private groups that discriminate against atheists. Even if it's a really cool Jamboree that the Pentagon can exploit for recruitment purposes.

Isn't this the same question? Cos the answer's the same.

They deserve equal access to public property, as the ACLU maintains in its lawsuits against BSA. They don't deserve special treatment, such as school sponsorship or BSA programs used in the school, unless they decide to stop discriminating.

Kimball Kinnison[/quote]