Judge outlaws prison group's Bible program

Come on, at least explain your answer a bit more. Don't dodge the issue. Take out all the references to you then. Say it's just an article you read in the paper about how the local Satanic priest is leading the school body in prayer before each assembly.

Reitsuki explained his view. I'm not a forum troll trying to get you to say something I can ridicule. I really do want to know what you think about this.

You know, trying to have any sort of logical discussion with Kevn is a bit like being on national television with a hangover, or perhaps watching infomercials at 4 in the morning.

It's horribly headache inducing and has a 0% chance of producing good results (according to the Probability drive).

As far as Kevn breeding goes, he's going to adopt, remember? But only if they're babies and only if they're from America.

No, I didn't assume that - in fact, I was leaning towards you not having an issue with it because of your replies about clergy in the military.

I was explaining that I personally see an inconsistency, and then soliciting you as to whether or not you see one too.

As far as what you're saying about "...provide for the needs of anyone who requests it" - that's part of the prison issue - it was an exclusively Christian program. Muslims and and adherents of other faiths had no program. This is where is becomes a can of worms, because we simply cannot cater to all religious needs, it's just not practical, financially or logistically, not to mention, I believe as Justic Black said in that quote posted earlier, that tax dollars simply should not be used to facilitate religion. Let them hold fund-raisers or what not to fund religious programs. Hell, churches are rolling in green, they get the tax-exempt status, let them volunteer, fund it, or both.

I am against exercise equipment, internet, and so forth, in prison. They can do calisthenics and read books. I am against anything beyond basic needs (food, shelter, and medical care) and education. I do fully believe in educating them, because a lack of opportunity for it is what got many of them there to begin with, and so that they can more easily integrate with society upon relase. Having 21 inch biceps does not help them integrate, in my opinion. By the way, some prisons have removed exercise equipment.

I already said (I think, at least words to the effect) that I agree that anything that you would term a "program" is probably a bad idea.

As to the impracticality - to a point, maybe, but I don't think it needs to be as complex as all that. There are a lot of specific demonimations of faiths in the world, but less so basic theological paths. I don't think the taxpayers dollar needs to stretch that far - realisticly, probably a very small number of people would be needed to tend to the faiths.

Now, as to the "prison and military are the same" thing - no, I don't agree there, really. Without going into this in much detail, because its kinda derailing this thread, if practicality only allows us to be fair to one group, I choose the military, without a second thought.

Not just any babies, either. Fresh-outta-the-womb babies.

Doubt its a bright move to get involved in all of this, but I'm bored at work.

When I see specials on television about Prison I get appauled at some of them. I've seen many prisons with better ameneties than motel/hotels. The "punishment" for many people in prison ends up coming from other inmates, and NOT the actual "prison" itself. Cable TV? Internet? Movie day?

Anyway .. to the original question .. I do not think Tax Dollars should be spent on any religion, regardless of whose it is or where it is. Religious organizations already take in donations and such to massive amounts ... why should money that could be used on far more socially conscious things by the government (HUGE leap in faith that the government would be socially conscious, but forgive me that please) be used to fund felons getting together to discuss a diety?

As was said before ... a private religious organization fills out the proper paperwork and starts a "holy-book-of-the-month group" on THEIR time, and the prisoners enrolled get no special treatment? Good for them, thats fine in my eyes.




As for Sex-Ed? Well .. the whole 'the parents should teach it' and then the school shouldn't have to arguement is ridiculous. Parents should be able to teach their children Math, Languages, Geography, et al ... but they CAN'T. They're either ignorant in their own knowledge, strapped for time, or quite simply ... "thats what school is for".

I personally am glad I was taught Sex-Ed. I learned valuable information. It *WAS* slighted toward the "Do not have sex" side of things with all the eeeevil information they give you (STD's, pain of pregnancy, those "lies that boys tell" .. but of course I went to a Catholic School growing up (no cracks about seeing me in my skirts BTW ... just pop in SL ... I wear one once a week or so for kicks) so it was all leaning toward abstaining, and we were NOT shown proper condom use (Took me quite a few tries to get that right .. but you guys don't seem to mind us fumbling around down there ).

Kids are curious. Once something catches their eye they want to know about it. Their own BODIES? .. they're stuck with them forever. I'm sure they have questions that need to be answered about them ... why not let those qualified to teach, teach them?

... but ... WTF do I know. I'm not this countries (the US) "target demographic" it seems. My views are always shunned off with bad words like "liberal" or not denoting "positive family values". I'm sure some people would rather I just "get my ass back in the kitchen where it belongs", too.

"Babies! .. Fresh Babies! ... get 'um while they're hot!"

If parents can not be trusted to teach their children the basics of sex, which they must already know, then what makes you think they are qualified to teach the child the basics of religion without the school. Are parents only able to teach religion and nothing more in your opinion?

This isn't directed specifically at you, Rei, but your comment above made me think of it... It's interesting to me that when you question religious faith and ideology the argument you often get back is that religion is a "personal thing." If it's so personal, why is everyone else asked to be so bloody accomodating to it? It shouldn't involve me at all, and certainly not any of my tax dollars. If religion is indeed personal, let's keep it that way... to ourselves.

Isn't that what Sunday School is for?

I do think it's not feasible to cater to all the myriad religions out there. Therefore the state shouldn't be involved in it, at any level.

I didn't say "prison and military are the same", I am a vet, and I hold no such thoughts. My point is that they are both state-funded institutions. Schools are too, and we see that religion is indeed controlled there too. They can't even have student led prayer at events. In the end, it's about consistency and fairness to me. There simply can't feasibly be a chaplain, a chapel, or other mechanisms in place, for every faith that any soldier, prisoner, student, goverment employee, and so forth may hold - not to mention, such programs are at their heart in opposition to the actual words of Madison, Jefferson, and other founding fathers, not to mention many Supreme Court interpretations of the constitution since.

Again, I say let the churches run the programs. They have no problem staffing and funding missionary programs in some of the most remote corners of the globe - why can't they look after our wayward sons and daughters here at home?

Anyway, it's pretty much moot - we're moving slowly towards extrication of religion from all state run venues, and as I said earlier in the thread, I forsee a day when that will apply to the military as well.

We'll just have to respectfully disagree, which won't be the first time, nor likely the last.

Are you mandating Church now?

Yes, because I obviously said that. (Sarcasm intended, and hopefully conveyed.)

Parents "are allowed" teach their children whatever they please.
Parents "should" teach their children whatever they please.

I never once said parents should only be able/allowed to teach certain subjects.

Parents sometimes DON'T do so though.



Personally I find one of the largest roadblocks with education being a lack of varied opinions. I also feel the best tool a child has (or any of us really) when it comes to learning is our human curiousity.

... BUT ... Getting all your information from one source is foolish. If I was interested in something ... I would listen to my teacher, learn what they had to say and what the FACTS were ... and then find other sources to learn from.

Math, Biology, Geography, Health (including Sex-Ed) are all taught with FACTS. Religion as it is taughted to be taught in schools is not. (If the classes taught in school were "Introduction to World Religions 101" and you would learn the UNBIASED FACTS behind all the worlds religions .. ALL of them .. and it was taught as a History lesson and not a recruitment tool I would be all for it. Knowledge is good ... more is always better.)


Faith (*not* religion, Faith) is something that is completely subjective and should be left up to the individual to develop.

'Religion' in the historical sense can be taught. Structure can be taught. "Rules" and "rites" and "rituals" can be taught .. true faith cannot.

To force a child into a religion they may not wish to be a part of to me is a travesty. To walk WITH a child as they explore their personal faith is a blessing.




Catholic school made me what I am ... and I am better for it. NOT because I hug a specific diety at night when I go to bed and tell him/her/it to watch over me and my ilk ... but because it opened my eyes to the difference between faith and organized religion ... and showed me how fanatical people around me can take it.

Faith is personal. Religion is not.

Without diminishing the spirit of "agree to disagree", I will say that that statement doesn't really support your arguement to me - if anything, it hurts it.

I think you may be mistaken. The Republicans control all three branches of the government. As we speak bills and amendments are being negotiated that will allow for vouchers for religious schools, banning gay marriage and a host of others. Once in a while a left-leaning judge will do some nutty thing and force congress to either change the laws or seek to amend the constitution.

Don't assume the pendulum isn't swinging back. The harder the left push it to the left, the faster it will come back. And then it will swing even farther to the right.

Funny, that. I thought the three branches of the government were there as a system of checks and balances, not as a rubber stamp for whatever the Executive branch wishes to do.

Not even close. Stop being obtuse.

Not really. Student-led prayer at a SCHOOL function indicates a particular preferential bias made by the school. It doesn't matter who leads it, just that it is prelude to an actual school-led function is enough.

Students are free to gather on their own and pray. If the function were run by the FCA, one would expect a Christian prayer to initiate it. If it were a special event run by a Wiccan Coven, one would expect some praise to the Lord and Lady. It's when the event is run by the school itself that the school has to literally enforce its neutrality.

Uh, women have the right to vote, and blacks have "equality" because of the fact that the "rule of law" is ever-changing Kevn. Pretty ironic, you talking about bastardizing law and then citing examples of law maturing and becoming more fair and sensical.

And since when were Madison, Jefferson, and other founding fathers "activist courts"?

Did you even read, or worse yet, are you simply ignoring the material Antigone quoted?

Here, for review, because you are obviously in need of remedial study:

James Madison: "Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States."

Thomas Jefferson: "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."

You see that clause you keep holding onto there - “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,”? Then notice what Jefferson says in the VERY NEXT sentence. You can ignore it if it makes you feel better, but it will still exist, and people who actually give a damn about the ancient concept of separation of church and state, certainly won't ignore it.

And a little blurb about Justice Hugo Black from wikipedia (The justice who interpreted that clause as a guarantee of separation of church and state in 1947, who you label an activist):

"Because of his insistence on a strict textual analysis of Constitutional issues, as opposed to the process-oriented jurisprudence of many of his colleagues, it is difficult to characterize Black as a liberal or a conservative as those terms are generally understood in the United States. On the one hand, his literal reading of the Bill of Rights and his theory of incorporation often translated into support for strengthening civil rights and civil liberties. On the other hand, Black consistently opposed the doctrine of substantive due process and believed that there was no constitutionally-protected right to privacy."

Doesn't sound like an activist to me.

Sometimes.

I'm in agreement with you, but watch out, you will be assailed for suggesting children learn the facts of all religions, I have suggested it and have been attacked.

We have something in common. I too was a Catholic. Now I have a faith, but no organized religion.

Unfortunately, that's our current state of affairs. However, Kevn seems to think that Republicans are still on the upswing. I'd say that's inaccurate. If anything, his own observation works against him: Republicans are pushing as far to the right as they can, so on the backswing, a new era of liberalism will begin. We can only hope.

It's within the rights of the school system to prohibit ALL student-led prayer because it is a unilateral call to do so. However, such a ban also severely limits the FCA, thus angering parents, so most schools don't do this. There's some corruption, obviously, and that needs to be fought, but the law itself is rather stable.

No, I would say the pendulum is not yet to the center point, from the far left, from whence it came. Unless the left can stop the momentum it's going to move a lot farther before stopping at the far right.