This is your President

Well, maybe. I'll have to get around to double-checking on the evidence presented for it. Thing is, the theory would based on evidence - Ie. did Japan or did it not actually offer surrender with the condition of a request that Hirohito remain on the throne? If so, what more is they to say? I do recall being presented with such evidence, but whether it exists within my own library of books on World War II(most of which are actually centred upon the Eastern Front, and few of which account the Pacific Theatre) I cannot guarantee at present. Still, I must conjecture that my lecturers were more familiar with such evidence than I, accounting for their conclusion that the former theory be termed 'discredited'.

Any evidence TO that effect would surely be far more solid than a theoretical estimate of how many casualties would be incurred by a land-based invasion coupled to a somewhat dubious supposition that Japan was not likely to sue for peace without being subjected to either said invasion or an atomic bomb or two. A theorheticical forecast, admittedly one made by professionals, but nonetheless open to interpretation. No more valid than any warning against it predicting that it sets a dangerous precedent that future wars might also be settled in a like fashion by America's enemies, which seems to be a real possibility now. Just as surely as Saddam's missile strikes against Israel can be seen as an echo of Hitler's V-rocket attacks against Britain, it's also pretty well accepted that he'd also like to apply a nuclear attack upon the US as soon as he can.

 

He has walked out of the ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile) Treaty (effectively ending the government's participation in the worldwide effort to reduce/eliminate nuclear weaponry)

Well, his administration is pursuing a de-escalation of arms with Russia.

The only reason he walked out of that treaty is because it tired our hands as far as protecting ourselves from nuclear attack. ie Anti-ICBM missle program.

 

I would like to see the evidence of that fact. I have never heard that the Japanese offered a conditional surrender, but that they refused to even consider it (i.e. the Kamikaze attacks). Their whole culture saw that as a loss of face and suicide was prefered over that.

 

Ahhh yes, the nebulous defence known as "context". No matter how much material the church/state separationists quote, it is always dismissed offhand as being "out of context". Let us, for StarFire's sake, examine the "context" of the phrase in Jefferson's letter.

As church-state scholar Pfeffer points out, Jefferson clearly saw the letter as an opportunity to make a major pronouncement on church and state. Before sending the missive, Jefferson had it reviewed by Levi Lincoln, his attorney general. Jefferson told Lincoln he viewed the response as a way of "sowing useful truths and principles among the people, which might germinate and become rooted among their political tenets."

At the time he wrote the letter, Jefferson was under fire from conservative religious elements who hated his strong stand for full religious liberty. Jefferson saw his response to the Danbury Baptists as an opportunity to clear up his views on church and state. Far from being a mere courtesy, the letter represented a summary of Jefferson's thinking on the purpose and effect of the First Amendment's religion clauses.

--Americans United Myths Brochure; also see Myths, Misconceptions and Misunderstandings

Now then, let's examine the letter itself.

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, and Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Some warm words towards the association, but nothing yet pertaining to church/state separation.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.

Jefferson declares that religion "lies solely between Man and his God", and goes on to say that "the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions". In my mind, the "context" of this paragraph supports the phrase, rather than mitigating it.

Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

Nothing particularly relevant here--certainly nothing that renders the Wall "out of context".

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

Again, warm words--but again, nothing striking with respect to the "context".

That's it. That is the letter which StarFire presumes I've never read. I challenge the aforementioned to provide one quotation from that letter that shows the separationists' use of it is "out of context".

Ahh. Classic misdirection. Your attempt to label government funds given to religious organizations for purposes of charity as an approval of that religion, or even an underhand attempt by

 

Darkside_Spirit: Thanks. You pretty much summed it up. I couldn't have explained my position better.

 

*blushes* You're welcome. You were doing fine yourself--I just wanted to add my voice in your support.

 

Hey guys, don't worry--I haven't forgotten about you. I've been really, really busy over the past few days and I'm kinda sleep deprived. I actually wrote a reply on Tuesday morning, but it was so, well, DUMB (as in badly written) that I erased it even though it was maybe two pages worth.
I'll see if I can get to you tomorrow.

Sorry

EDIT: For clarity, allow me to say that it was dumb because I was sleep deprived.

 

Spirit made some GOOD points...

 

Darth_SnowDog: How does diversity harm the individual's learning experience?

It doesn't.

Several of you have said homogeneity can enhance the experience... well, ok, other than "making it easier to concentrate", how does it?

Why would it have to do anything else?

In what way does diversity actually endanger the learning experience, other than forcing kids to learn and work in the same environment of "distractions" that will follow them for the rest of their lives?

Again, a schoolroom is hardly the limit of one's social experience. And again, classes which specifically develop interaction and perspective shouldn't be same-sex.

Even areas like math need diverse discussions, I believe... because our kids need to be encouraged to ask questions.

1. The Pythagorean Theorem will not change if a man or a woman doesn't understand it, and sitting next to someone of the opposite sex in no way enhances your understanding, though it might detract from it.
2. You can still learn to ask questions without someone from the other sex in the room.

I do not feel that our teachers in public schools make learning compelling, interesting and fun enough for our students... How about striving to improve teacher performance for once?

I agree with you.

Darkside_Spirit: Good argument. I essentially agree with you.

If a religious charity did come along that received some government money, used it for good causes, and didn't involve religion in that use at all, then it probably wouldn't be against the First Amendment. However, that is a totally unrealistic notion.

Shoot. You were doing so well, and then you've got to go and throw something completely insupportable in there. PPOR.

For a start, how are we to know?

How do we know that any organization that receives federal funding doesn't screw around with money?
The same rules should apply to everybody.

I'm cringing.

And I'm American. Mint?


Why discriminate against religion-based charity organizations more than plain ol' charity organizations?
Do they care less?
Are they more prone to embezzle money?
Are they more prone to otherwise misuse money?

If you answered 'yes' to any of these questions, you need to start doing some serious PPORing.
Admit it, guys--both of you (Darth_SnowDog and Darkside_Spirit) are so rabidly anti-Christian (anti-Religion in Darkside_Spirit's case) that you'd never agree to federal funding of any faith-based charity.
How baselessly biased and intolerant.

 

Hmmm, which decade are we in again? I seem to have lost my generation somewhere!

 

Is this where I do my victory jig, or would that be premature?

 

Why would it have to do anything else?

Why should we regress into segregation just because you can't concentrate? Plenty of people don't have a problem with it... so maybe it's just you.

Is the burden of proof on the accused or the accuser?

Again, a schoolroom is hardly the limit of one's social experience. And again, classes which specifically develop interaction and perspective shouldn't be same-sex.

And yet you call us un-Christian because we believe that a schoolroom also isn't the limit of spiritual experience such that we need to waste our students time exposing them to religious indoctrination.

I've always been amused at how people's perceptions of issues (e.g. the schoolroom's role) so easily change depending on which argument helps further their ulterior motives.

If they get the impression that gender segregation is beneficial when they're young, they will carry a bias with them into adulthood.

Basically, if the problem is that you can't keep your wick dry in the classroom... then pal, you need to grow up. If 800 girls were picking on you, that would be their problem, but their mere presence isn't a "wrong" thing... should we begin gender and ethnic and racial "cleansing" of the whole country? All our workplaces, all our places of worship, restaurants, bathrooms? Once we teach that it's ok for us to blame others for your problems, where does it stop?


I would agree to federal support of faith-based charities... if those religious organizations wish to pay taxes and be subject to the same laws, standards, expectations as every taxpaying individual and business.

If you don't contribute to the pot, why should the pot contribute to you?

Yes... I don't believe in welfare programs, or "saving" the homeless, either. The only ones who can "save" them, as if none of them have any idea how they got there in the first place, are themselves.

EDIT:

Moral of the story: If the problem is that we cannot practice moderation, how then does going to an extreme solve the problem?

This of course is what I dislike about Western philosophy and theology... the idea that life only consists of two extremes: passion and piety. Nowhere else in the universe, except in our minds, does this ridiculous, absolutist dichotomy rear its ugly head.

 

Why should we regress into segregation just because you can't concentrate? Plenty of people don't have a problem with it... so maybe it's just you.

No one said that it would be mandatory. If it would help some children concentrate, and they CHOOSE to take part, who are you to forbid them to do so? I suffer from ADHD, making it hard for me to concentrate on one thing at a time. In school, many of my teachers and administrators made different arrangements for me on some of my assignments. (My work was still held to the same standard as my classmates.) This included being allowed to type reports (before computers were common) and other accomidations. Do you think that was wrong?

Plenty of people don't have a problem with concentration, so maybe it's just me (and the millions of others who suffer from ADD).

Basically, if the problem is that you can't keep your wick dry in the classroom... then pal, you need to grow up. If 800 girls were picking on you, that would be their problem, but their mere presence isn't a "wrong" thing... should we begin gender and ethnic and racial "cleansing" of the whole country? All our workplaces, all our places of worship, restaurants, bathrooms? Once we teach that it's ok for us to blame others for your problems, where does it stop?

You are trying to equate a VOLUNTARY program with a MANDATORY one. No one has said anything about forcing anyone to take part in same-sex education. Trying to equate a voluntary program with ethnic clensing is an unfair comparison to make.

Tell me, do you support forcing the Boy Scouts to accept women? How about forcing the Girl Scouts to accept men? (The BSA does allow women to join its Explorer program, but not regular scouting. GSA does not allow any men to join.) There are clear benefits that many people have received because of the same-sex environment in the BSA and GSA. (Again, note that these are voluntary organizations. No one forces you to join.) Many Boy and Girl Scout troops are sponsored by government-funded organizations (like schools).

I would agree to federal support of faith-based charities... if those religious organizations wish to pay taxes and be subject to the same laws, standards, expectations as every taxpaying individual and business.

You forget that most non-faith-based charities do not pay taxes either. Why should you put the religious ones to a different standard? That hardly seems fair.

It seems that you are using a double standard here.

Kimball Kinnison

 

No one said that it would be mandatory.

But it also would have to be agreed upon by the taxpayers... after all, this would mean more classrooms, more resources, more money... Not to mention you're attempting to solve a problem by creating several other ones. It would be a far better use of those resources to expanding the budgets of the arts, music, literacy, math, sciences and other programs rather than creating unnecessary redundancies. But hey, it's best put to a vote.

I suffer from ADHD, making it hard for me to concentrate on one thing at a time.

Millions of people suffer from clinical depression. The solution isn't just in removing everything depressing from their lives... but in restoring the chemical balance of their brains. Correcting serotonin reuptake, in this case, is attacking the problem at the source... not the symptom.

We are a nation of people who love the instant gratification of symptomatic treatment... and we don't have the patience to cure many of our ailments at the source.

You are trying to equate a VOLUNTARY program with a MANDATORY one. No one has said anything about forcing anyone to take part in same-sex education. Trying to equate a voluntary program with ethnic clensing is an unfair comparison to make.

Tell me, do you support forcing the Boy Scouts to accept women? How about forcing the Girl Scouts to accept men? (The BSA does allow women to join its Explorer program, but not regular scouting. GSA does not allow any men to join.) There are clear benefits that many people have received because of the same-sex environment in the BSA and GSA. (Again, note that these are voluntary organizations. No one forces you to join.) Many Boy and Girl Scout troops are sponsored by government-funded organizations (like schools).

And no one forces your kids to go to a public school. I don't tell the BSA or GSA what to do, but then I don't participate in their organizations, I don't fund them, etc. My tax dollars are going into the schools, whether or not I have kids. If the schools offer segregated learning, my tax dollars pay for it. I don't want my tax dollars paying for segregated learning. That's the issue... let's not confuse what I'm saying here.

BSA and GSA can do whatever the hell they want with their money... but the schools can't just do whatever the hell they want with the taxpayers dollars without our consent.

You forget that most non-faith-based charities do not pay taxes either. Why should you put the religious ones to a different standard? That hardly seems fair.

I didn't say the charity organizations should pay taxes... I said the religious organizations with which they associate should.

I'm not making it a battle of semantics... I don't know what to say about charities paying taxes. I really am saying that religious organizations that fund charities themselves should pay taxes, and not reap either directly or indirectly the benefit of being able to indoctrinate at the taxpayers' expense.

 

I'm not making it a battle of semantics... I don't know what to say about charities paying taxes. I really am saying that religious organizations that fund charities themselves should pay taxes, and not reap either directly or indirectly the benefit of being able to indoctrinate at the taxpayers' expense.

Not all faith-based charities use their charitable actions for proselyting. Let me provide you with an example, namely my own church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS).

The LDS Church has a completely separate fund used for charitable actions. This fund is very closely administered. When sending out relief (on a large scale, like to disaster victims), the only "proselyting" that occurs is a small note in the box of food/clothing/supplies that states that the items were provided by the LDS Church.

The Church operates canneries and welfare farms to help supply the donated materials. These facilities are volunteer-run and can be used by people of any faith to purchase food-storage supplies at cost. The only proselyting there is the Church's name on the building and the Church logo on the food labels (required by law).

THe Church as routinely worked with other organizations (religious and not) as well as the US Government (and others) in delivering supplies to disaster victims. In some cases, the Church also provides is buildings as distribution centers. The primary purpose of the aid is to HELP the people, not to proselyte to them.

At times, people will ask questions about the Church while they are aid. Whould you suggest that we should not be allowed to answer a question just because we may have received a little aid from the government?

I think you need to distinguish between ACTIVE proselyting and PASSIVE proselyting. I agree that it is wrong to actively proselyte.

Kimball Kinnison

 

The Dark Side clouds everything....

 

Indeed.

 

Why should we regress into segregation just because you can't concentrate? Plenty of people don't have a problem with it... so maybe it's just you.

This is about learning basic skills, generally through repetition. It's better to pick up these skills without distraction, even if you have to apply them later while distracted, than to be distracted also while learning them in the first place.

should we begin gender and ethnic and racial "cleansing" of the whole country? All our workplaces, all our places of worship, restaurants, bathrooms? Once we teach that it's ok for us to blame others for your problems, where does it stop?

C'mon. Use your noggin and quit purposefully muddling the issue by taking my statements out of context.
If there is an actual problem, why not fix it? Learning to deal with problems that won't go away is important, but if you take that to an extreme (as you do) it would justify not fixing ANY problems.
If some guy is using a chainsaw at 3:00 in the morning, should I deal with 'my' problem or tell him to shut it off? I tell him to stuff it, of course, because I don't get any real benefits from lying awake. Just as it makes more sense to remove distractions from an environment which encourages learning, often through basic repetition.

But it also would have to be agreed upon by the taxpayers... after all, this would mean more classrooms, more resources, more money...

Not necessarily. You're still dealing with the exact same amount of students.

Not to mention you're attempting to solve a problem by creating several other ones.

PPOR. How do single-sex classrooms create problems?

I don't want my tax dollars paying for segregated learning. That's the issue... let's not confuse what I'm saying here.

And I don't want my tax dollars paying for abortions, but it's going to happen. It completely sucks.

 

Kimball:

Not all faith-based charities use their charitable actions for proselyting. Let me provide you with an example, namely my own church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS).

The Church most synonymous with the very word "proselytization" doesn't try to "spread the word" through their charities? This I have a very hard time believing.

The LDS Church has a completely separate fund used for charitable actions. This fund is very closely administered. When sending out relief (on a large scale, like to disaster victims), the only "proselyting" that occurs is a small note in the box of food/clothing/supplies that states that the items were provided by the LDS Church.

And Enron had inside partnerships to hide their debts... "closely administered"... Sorry if I have a hard time taking anyone at their word on issues like this. I don't even give my money to any charitable organizations, because I don't trust where it all goes. If I want to help people, I find more direct ways to do it.

The Church operates canneries and welfare farms to help supply the donated materials. These facilities are volunteer-run and can be used by people of any faith to purchase food-storage supplies at cost. The only proselyting there is the Church's name on the building and the Church logo on the food labels (required by law).

And they don't ever, not once, encourage prayer or hand out leaflets? Hmm... doesn't sound like any faith-based Charity I've ever seen. Of course, I could be wrong... but then again... you'd have to prove it. It's my dollars you're asking for, not the other way around.

THe Church as routinely worked with other organizations (religious and not) as well as the US Government (and others) in delivering supplies to disaster victims. In some cases, the Church also provides is buildings as distribution centers. The primary purpose of the aid is to HELP the people, not to proselyte to them.

So, uh... what's in it for the Church then? Oh yeah... warm fuzzy feelings. The same kind of warm and fuzzy feelings that led the Mormon Church to invest hugely in agricultural and real estate enterprises? The knocking on peoples doors because they are so "eager" to "spread the word" because it's their "obligation to save others from the darkness" sort of warm and fuzzy? Give me a break.

At times, people will ask questions about the Church while they are aid. Whould you suggest that we should not be allowed to answer a question just because we may have received a little aid from the government?

Yes. If you want the people's aid, which we aren't obligated to give, you should meet whatever prerequisites we so require.

1. What you assert about the unbiased, unproselytizing nature of your religion's charitable organizations, you can't prove because you have no clue what goes on behind closed doors... behind your back.

2. I don't believe that what you assume is true. I believe that you believe what you say, but I don't think you know the full truth.

3. This is a democratic society... putting your money where your mouth is means getting out and voting, writing your Congressmen about issues which concern you, etc.

4. Most people in America cannot be easily convinced that people, even charities, do something for nothing.

StarFire: This is about learning basic skills, generally through repetition. It's better to pick up these skills without distraction, even if you have to apply them later while distracted, than to be distracted also while learning them in the first place.

So why don't we separate all students and put them each in white rooms with noise cancelling headphones and a dummy terminal that spoonfeeds them lectures for 12 straight years? I'm thinking A Clockwork Orange or something of the sort.

Your idea about acquiring the skills "without distraction" is a moot point... since all human children develop cognitive and learning skills within their first six years, after which those habits are essential

 

The problem is teachers not doing their job. Fix that.

How about giving teachers the power to do so. Many of the teachers I know fear being sued or physically assaulted by their students. If you do not give the teachers the ability to enforce their rules, they cannot be effective.

 

I said nothing about enforcing rules. I'm talking about having the ability to keep their students engaged in and enthused about learning. We're very curious to learn at childhood... what is it, I wonder, about conventional school systems that causes children to lose this passion? In America, we set the bar too low for educators, in my opinion.

When the teachers are as dispassionate about teaching as I have seen them to be, and as uneducated themselves on the subject, its origins and understanding the underlying fundamentals thoroughly enough to teach in a more modular fashion... rather than by rote... How the hell can we expect our kids to pay attention in class at all?

 

The Church most synonymous with the very word "proselytization" doesn't try to "spread the word" through their charities? This I have a very hard time believing.

I served a mission, paying my own way. The money for missionary efforts is placed in a completely different account than those for charitable actions. The only time there is anything resembling an overlap is when missionaries take part as volunteer labor during disasters. The "Fast Offering" accounts (which fund the Church welfare programs) are a separate donation entirely and are administered by the Latter-day Saint Foundation, not by the Church directly.

And they don't ever, not once, encourage prayer or hand out leaflets? Hmm... doesn't sound like any faith-based Charity I've ever seen. Of course, I could be wrong... but then again... you'd have to prove it.

In Utah, it is not uncommon for groups from other faiths to help in the canneries, either so they can purchase the items (at cost) or to help in a disaster relief program somewhere. When the group is from (or organized by) a unit of our church, it is common for the activities to begin and end with a prayer. However, it is in no way mandatory for any group. If a group of atheists wanted to use the facilities, they could do so as easily as anyone else.

So, uh... what's in it for the Church then? Oh yeah... warm fuzzy feelings. The same kind of warm and fuzzy feelings that led the Mormon Church to invest hugely in agricultural and real estate enterprises? The knocking on peoples doors because they are so "eager" to "spread the word" because it's their "obligation to save others from the darkness" sort of warm and fuzzy? Give me a break.

Ok, what would you like broken?

How about the fact that the Bible commands us to help one another? Let me provide an example from my own experience.

On my mission, I served in Winnemucca, Nevada. At one point, while "knocking on people's doors", my companion and I cam across an elderly man who was shoveling manure. We offered to help him, and I spent about an hour doing some of the smelliest, dirtiest work I have ever done. We never even spoke to him again. He was not interested in our message. However, that was not why we helped him in the first place. I was on my mission to serve my fellow man in any way I could. For some that meant teaching the Gospel. For others, it meant shoveling manure.

One of my favorite scriptures from the Book of Mormon states "when ye are in the service of your fellow beings, ye are only in the service of your God." That is all the reason I need to try and help people.

1. What you assert about the unbiased, unproselytizing nature of your religion's charitable organizations, you can't prove because you have no clue what goes on behind closed doors... behind your back.

2. I don't believe that what you assume is true. I believe that you believe what you say, but I don't think you know the full truth.

Our church uses a lay ministry. Ordinary members are called to serve (without pay) in a wide range of positions. I have, personally, been in callings where I had to handle money for one or more organizations within the Church. I have experienced its auditing methods intimately. Each year, in our April General Conference, a report is issued to the Church by the Church Auditing Committee, an independent organization that audits almost all Church-run operations (except Church-owned businesses which are audited independently). The results of that report are publicly available and follow established auditing procedures.

Essentially, the argument that you have made is that you don't trust anyone, and so no money should be given to anyone. However, you do not have any EVIDENCE to support your claims, only your suspicions. I cannot prove that the Church does not use money jointly for charity and proselyting, because you cannot prove a negative. If you wish to make that accusation, the burden of proof lies with you, not me.

Kimball Kinnison

 

And my point, was that if you give the teachers the power and respect to do their job, they will be more motivated and concerned with insuring that their students learn the material.


But I guess you will misconstrue this as well.

 

Maveric: Depends... what do you mean by power and respect? Power of what kind? Respect from whom?

Kimball: Apparently you're missing my point.

Essentially, the argument that you have made is that you don't trust anyone, and so no money should be given to anyone.

No, if someone wants to give their money, they have every right... so why force everyone to give? What, are charitable people too lazy to write a check?

However, you do not have any EVIDENCE to support your claims, only your suspicions.

I never said I have evidence... just doubts. Then again, for what do I need evidence? To prove my opinion of charities?? I'm not asking anyone to agree with it. So go share your Federal Funds Wish List with your Senators and Representatives, not me.

I cannot prove that the Church does not use money jointly for charity and proselyting, because you cannot prove a negative.

Sure you can...

I can prove that I'm not a frog.
I can prove that I'm not dead.
I can prove that McDonald's isn't Burger King (weeeell... this may be a little tricky, depending on the last time they cleaned the grill...)

If you wish to make that accusation, the burden of proof lies with you, not me.

No accusation here... no more than your missionaries "accuse" us non-Christians of going down the wrong path, or being in dire need of Jesus' help in life.

At any rate... my original comment on charities was an aside. Instead of debating minutiae, how about getting back to the subject, Kimball?

Oh, how silly of me... I forgot that minutiae is all that's important in this world. Who said what on which mountain on what day to what people... nevermind the bigger picture.

"Welcome to God-in-a-Box, may I take your order?"

"Yeah, I'll have a Moses Big Mac, two JesusBurgers and a Ten Commandments Kids Meal to go."

"Thank you, drive thru."

 

My definitions of power and respect are to not tie the teachers hands so they may discipline the students who act out and put them in a structured, effective learning environment. If a teacher is constantly scared of being assaulted or sued for failing a child, etc.etc.etc. Granted, I am not implying that teachers should be dictators in their classes, (that's what college is for) but enough to control a class room. Reducing the number of students in a class would help as well, regardless of sex.