Norfolk...disturbing.
- Thread starter Darksoul
- Start date
Empty Hands
Senior Master
What, no blastocyst plushies?!?
bushidomartialarts
Senior Master
Disturbing but not surprising.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2003
- Messages
- 9,998
- Reaction score
- 206
Well, that principle isn't Congress making law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... so unless the District has written policy against the religious overtones and the prayer group I'm not sure what the horror is all about.
The only "Separation of Church and State" that exists is with Congress. "Congress" does not, the last time I checked, mean Town Halls, Mayoral Offices, Courthouses, School Buildings, Municipal Parks, the White House Lawn, etc...
The only "Separation of Church and State" that exists is with Congress. "Congress" does not, the last time I checked, mean Town Halls, Mayoral Offices, Courthouses, School Buildings, Municipal Parks, the White House Lawn, etc...
Empty Hands
Senior Master
Nope. Lemon v. Kurtzman, SCOTUS, 1971. The decision concerned a Pennsylvania law about schools. Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU (1989) concerned a religious display at a courthouse. Glassroth v. Moore was allowed to stand by SCOTUS in 2003, which prevented Roy Moore's Ten Commandments display in his courthouse. McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky (2005) also held Ten Commandment displays in Kentucky courthouses unconstitutional. Abington Township v. Schempp (1963) held that a mandatory recitation of the Lord's Prayer in schools was unconstitutional.
I don't think the religion is what everyone is finding disturbing though. I think it's the plastic fetus dolls.
David43515
Master Black Belt
That`s what I don`t understand. Why did they lead with the fetus dolls when the vast majority of the story is about the bible study invitaions?
Frankly, I don`t see what the big deal about the fetus dolls is. The article shows the message on the packaging and it`s not religious or even overtly pro-life in my opinion. It simply says that babies don`t start out as crying screaming poop machines, there`s a stage before that too.Just like frogs start out as tad poles and chickens actually grow inside the egg. What are we supposed to be teaching 3rd and 4th graders? That the stork brings babies? Or that thier mothers find them under cabbage leaves?
The simple fact that someone could use the dolls as a visual aide to teach a pro-life message doesn`t mean much of anything. They could be used just as easily to teach a pro-choice or a very neutraly centered biology lesson. I would think that martial artists especially would understand that logic.After all, just because we practice a martial art that supposedly has killing and cripling techniques in it doesn`t make us violent thugs bent on handing out beatings, does it? (Well......not as a group anyway. :whip1
Frankly, I don`t see what the big deal about the fetus dolls is. The article shows the message on the packaging and it`s not religious or even overtly pro-life in my opinion. It simply says that babies don`t start out as crying screaming poop machines, there`s a stage before that too.Just like frogs start out as tad poles and chickens actually grow inside the egg. What are we supposed to be teaching 3rd and 4th graders? That the stork brings babies? Or that thier mothers find them under cabbage leaves?
The simple fact that someone could use the dolls as a visual aide to teach a pro-life message doesn`t mean much of anything. They could be used just as easily to teach a pro-choice or a very neutraly centered biology lesson. I would think that martial artists especially would understand that logic.After all, just because we practice a martial art that supposedly has killing and cripling techniques in it doesn`t make us violent thugs bent on handing out beatings, does it? (Well......not as a group anyway. :whip1
I think a teacher or Administrator pushing ANY type of agenda is wrong. Making sure the information is made avalible is fine, chairing a commitee after school is concluded for the day is fine, making sure that the kids have the right to express themselves and explore their options is ideal ( and yes include religion/ theology as well as pro-life reasoning ) but making info available does not equate to shoving it down someones throat. Handing out fetus dolls to elememtery kids falls into the Later catagory. This is a PRIME example of organised religion coercing with fear when it can NOT teach with reason. Of couse it does this to those whose ability to use logic and reason are not fully devoloped, children as young as 10. Nice.
It's too bad. I studied Theology ( I had to take some humanities, they made me) and found the rituals and symbolism intricate and beautiful. It made a great deal of social and political sense as well for the time they were devoloped. Damn ingenious in fact. It supprising how silly and outright stupid some religions are now, how self terminating they are, and that they don't learn from the mistakes made in the past. Ohhh look Darwin in Action. Ironic huh?:shrug:
lori
It's too bad. I studied Theology ( I had to take some humanities, they made me) and found the rituals and symbolism intricate and beautiful. It made a great deal of social and political sense as well for the time they were devoloped. Damn ingenious in fact. It supprising how silly and outright stupid some religions are now, how self terminating they are, and that they don't learn from the mistakes made in the past. Ohhh look Darwin in Action. Ironic huh?:shrug:
lori
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2003
- Messages
- 9,998
- Reaction score
- 206
Hmm. Interesting. So, the SCOTUS has ruled that all those People/Places are considered Congress. Thats... Intelligent of them.
But seriously, I am aware of those rulings, or others like them, and the arguments about the Framers additional writings that are used to support them. Regardless, it's still not what the constitutions SAYS. A "fictional" seperation of Church and State that is NOT in the document was used to argue those cases, and upheld. I would be hypocritical if I said this was ok, while making some of the Second Amendment arguments I have made based soley on the wording of the document.
I'd buy that if that was the focus of the article, but that was a lead, and most of the article was NOT about the fetus dolls.
No, the Supreme Court has ruled that the principle underlying that clause in the First Amendment extends beyond the Congress, and that government in general cannot endorse or support one religion or religious principle. The idea has certainly been taken further than I think it was intended, as it's reached the point that the mere mention of religion is apparently the same as endorsing or controlling the practice thereof.
David43515
Master Black Belt
Sorry, but I can`t agree with that.Saying "This is what a baby looks like before it`s born" isn`t shoving an opinion down someones throat. It`s stating fact. It`s no different than me holding up a jar of tadpoles and saying "These are going to turn into frogs. This is what they look like before they grow legs."
If I start to talk about how cute they are and tell the kids that they prevent they spread of some diseases by eating mosquitoes, and close by saying that eating frogs legs is cruel, then you may have a point. But saying that teachers shouldn`t push ANY kind of agenda is both unrealistic and wrong. We don`t just open kids` heads and pour in facts. Part of a teacher`s job is to teach the manners and social mores of thier society.(It`s not nice to hit. Say please and thank you. Ask before you use someone else`s things. Put things back when you`re done. Shake hands and say you`re sorry. etc.) Another part is to push agendas that society agrees are important.
We teach kids to recycle and not pollute. We teach kids that people of other races, religions, and ethnicities are equal. We teach kids that peace is better than war. These are all someone`s agenda, and most of us agree that these are things we preffer our kids learn. But we also teach kids to think for themselves. They can`t learn to do that without being informed. And they can`t be informed unless they hear differnt opinions.
How in the world can you construe this as "organised religion coercing with fear when it can not teach with reason"? How does knowing what a fetus looks like instill fear? How is being forbidden to hand out a visual aide "teaching with reason"? And just for my own curiosity, why did you feel you had to justify the fact that you`d had some theology classes with the statement that "they made me" take some humanities? Did you honestly feel that we would somehow think less of you because you had? Or is that just how you feel about someone who might take a theology class by choice?
Actually, those plushies would be alright, what worries many is pictures and likenesses (dolls, if you will) of those 'parasitic hunks of meat' when they begin looking like real people.
chaos1551
Blue Belt
Seems people were upset when their boss advocated a religion in the workplace, and that workplace was government (tax) supported. Seems inappropriate to me. If you were concerned about your job and boss said, "Come on down to [Christian] prayer meeting," and you were, say, Muslim, how would you feel? A little conflicted, maybe? Angry for being put in a perceivably untenable position? In a private company, you wouldn't have recourse. The folks that work in the public school system, however, do have recourse.
The dolls were a proverbial straw on a camel's back to bring a culmination to the issues in that school. Call it what you will, the doll is a pro-life manouver in an of itself (considering the saying and how it was supposedly presented) and touches on sensitive issues in our community. I feel it was also quite inappropriate.
To generalize, if I was Christian I might not feel at all like I do. But I'm not. And neither are many others.
The dolls were a proverbial straw on a camel's back to bring a culmination to the issues in that school. Call it what you will, the doll is a pro-life manouver in an of itself (considering the saying and how it was supposedly presented) and touches on sensitive issues in our community. I feel it was also quite inappropriate.
To generalize, if I was Christian I might not feel at all like I do. But I'm not. And neither are many others.
Empty Hands
Senior Master
How far do you want to take this version of biblical literalism? The first amendment also says that "Congress" shall not abridge the freedom of speech, press, etc. By your just stated argument then, you should be absolutely fine with the police as part of the Executive branch shutting down critical press, dispersing protests without cause, and silencing free speech.
For that matter, what exactly is meant by "arms" in the 2nd? Tactical nuclear weapons, or only the arms present in the time of the framers, flintlock rifles/pistols and simple cannon? What is meant by "promote the general welfare" and what are the limits? What is even meant by the "people" considering the status of everyone except property owning white males when the Constitution was written? Your argument would also do away entirely with incorporated amendments, and all of our guaranteed freedoms would only apply by Federal action.
This is why we have courts, why they are tasked with interpretation of the Constitution, and why the bare text only goes so far. We run up against the limits of literalism almost immediately.
David, if you really want me to answer those questions I will. But you may want to look at a few of my posts in the Study where I state I believe in a devine design. Please do not make this personal, this is a debate, an exchange of ideas, surely you can be passionate without sliding into personal attacks.
Lori
Lori
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 9,929
- Reaction score
- 1,451
Knowing what a fetus looks like could certainly be part of a science class-if this was "sex-education" it usually requires parental consent. However:
It certainly seems to have a religious undercurrent......
Not appropriate for school: not part of science class, and certainly not part of social studies.
Especially for fourth graders.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2003
- Messages
- 9,998
- Reaction score
- 206
Thats part of why I say it would be Hypocritical for me to say "Well, it says congress, but means..." because I argue often that the 2nd says "Arms" which does NOT mean Flintlocks and Cannons, otherwise it would say the "Right to bear flintlocks and cannons"
It's imperfect, but I try and be consistent.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2003
- Messages
- 9,998
- Reaction score
- 206
Way back in the day when I was in High School I was made to read the Koran for "Change and Revolution" class... (That was the history class that came after Ancient Civ)
Damn them for expanding my mind. LOL.
The quote may be philosophical, but it hardly seems religious. One certainly doesn't have to be religious to make various observations that would lead them to believe that life begins before birth.
Empty Hands
Senior Master
That still doesn't answer my point that "arms" is not defined, and could include tactical nuclear weapons. Hence the need for interpretation, not literalism. If you want to get really literal, perhaps the Founders were protecting the People against unwanted amputations?
Also, again, you didn't answer my other points about the police or other aspects of government shutting down free speech because the "police" are not "Congress." How far do you go? Because you can only go so far before wandering into absurdity.
