THis stuff really isn’t any different than ads claiming that Bush will poison the environment or roll back civil rights. Same stuff – scare the base.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Christians have a right to feel threatened when they see their rights being taken away one by one.
Zeb,
Now we get into the realm of rights and entitlement. Just what right does a person have to have their religion given a special place in the school curriculum? I think the point of minority versus majority is non-issue here.
It is by tradition my friend! This country was founded by religious men and that tradition is slowly dwindling. The point of majority vs minority is the issue! virtually every poll taken will reflect that the majority of people would like prayer in school. The majority, as I stated in my previous post, are Christian and Jewish. That is our culture, our heritage.
Could I not practice my religion without doing it inside school? If I was devout, could I not have done this prayer at home? Could I not have prayed personally during a moment of silence? Could I not have read a bible during lunch?
Yes, all of those things are still available to you…for now.
Anyway, I am curious, could you describe some actual rights being removed? I mean, rights that are appropriate and deserved, not just customs that people would like to see continued.
Any traditional right that was there and is no longer available are “appropriate and deserved” in my opinion.
I believe some people of minority religion would claim that they have the right to freedom of religion too. Forcing them to endure the Lords Prayer when it does not reflect their religion may in fact be a violation of their rights.
Reread my prior post. No one will be forced to “endure” anyone elses prayer. They can simply leave prior, or show up 10 min late. This would work for everyone.
Isn’t it really about conflicting rights… and an appropriate adjustment to reflect the rights of religious minorities? Those that have had more than their “right” will feel a loss, but that doesn’t make it wrong.
It does in my book! I am a traditional guy and when you remove a tradition from out country (especially a religious one) I don’t like it. (Unless that tradition was inherently evil, slavery etc.)
Also, I will say, finding a way to respect all religions (as you suggest) would certainly solve the rights issue. It would be a more complex solution than the removal of religion from the educational and governmental bodies.[/quote]
I agree. More complex but well worth it for every American!
[quote]Lumpy wrote:
Only a dope can’t tell the difference is between BANNING THE BIBLE and not forcing every kid in public school sit through a group prayer session.
[/quote]
Where, in your entire life, have you EVER seen a child forced to sit through a group prayer session? And I’m not talking about a single prayer - you said a forced prayer SESSION, show me where that has occured.
I’d much rather a child sit through a prayer than to have my 11 year-old daughter sit through a class on how to properly apply a condom.
I’d rather have a daily reading of the Koran, the Bible, or the Book of Mormon than to have my 11 year-old daughter taught that giving a boy a good blow job is safer than sexual intercourse.
I’d rather have a poster of the Ten Commandments in the entry way of our schools than a 1-800 hotline for planned parenthood.
But that’s just me
rainjack:
I too have young children, and I applaud your post!
Well, then the majority should work on changing the rules instead of complaining when they are enforced. The rights of the minority don’t dissappear just because of the power of a majority.
Citizens have rights regardless of whether they are in the minority or not, and thank God for that! If you want to change the rights that citizens have or define a policy that reflects the rights of all, then go ahead.
Otherwise you may have to accept that customs are often inappropriate and over time have to be changed as people realize that.
Well, then the majority should work on changing the rules instead of complaining when they are enforced.
Vroom:
Who elected liberal judges to the bench? No one! That is one of the problems we are facing here in the United States. Liberal judges are enforcing their will upon the majority!
The only way to defeat them is to make sure that the people who are appointing them are a bit more conservative!
Zeb, you can’t blame liberal judges for everything you don’t like happening in America.
Judges look at the laws and do their best to interpret them within the confines of the constitution. If they feel the RIGHTS of minorities are being infringed, then they are correct in protecting those rights.
They are called rights for a reason.
The sacred majority does not overrule the constitution or the rights ensconced therein. The recourse of the majority is to change the rules to discriminate against minorities… which is not likely to fly any time soon. Sorry.
Lumpy -
I have repeatedly - and I mean nearly every single post you put up - demonstrated where your logic, facts, and arguments break down and fall apart. I have backed up my arguments with facts and truth. I have admitted the weaknesses of my side and responded to the various criticisms.
I know you probably don’t read my posts. You don’t read them because you would recognize that your arguments are weak, have no basis in truth, and are simply unsubstanited attacks. You constantly assume the conclusion and find facts to back it up. If you call pointing that up insulting you or not having respect for you, then so be it.
It’s not that I don’t have respect for you; it’s that I don’t have respect for your arguments or your style. You absolutely refuse to look at truth or valid arguments on the other side. My best friend is someone completely opposed to me politically. We doubtfully will ever agree, but we have mutual respect for each others arguments. I really wish you could get to that point. Unfortunately, you do what you must do with everything that doesn’t fit in with your previously assumed conclusions - skim over it and try to ignore anything that doesn’t go your way.
Getting back to the original accusation of the thread:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2004_09_21.shtml#1096055727
[Eugene Volokh, September 24, 2004 at 3:55pm] Possible Trackbacks
More about “Banning” the Bible:
A reader writes, apropos the Republican mailer whose cover suggested that the “liberal agenda” involved “Banning” the Bible:
[Begin reader email] I understand the legalistic impulse to look at the fine print but could you explain your readers how fine print regarding the precise intention of the word "banning" would invalidate that the mailer is dishonest? By contrasting the "gay marriage allowed" to the "Bible banned" in such a graphic manner, the mailer unambiguously creates the IMPRESSION (which is what it intends to do) that bibles will not will be allowed in Arkansas if "liberals" would have it their way. No fine print is going to change that. Surely creating such an impression is dishonest. [end reader email]
A reference to “banning” the Bible is ambiguous. It could mean utterly prohibiting it, subject to criminal penalties for private possession and distribution ? the literal meaning, but of course not a very plausible one. Or it could also mean, as this post points out (citing the usage by the American Library Association), excluding the Bible from some places, such as public school curricula, monuments in government buildings (e.g., Ten Commandments displays), and so on. It could also mean legally punishing certain uses of the Bible, such as workplace postings of anti-homosexual verses (perhaps under the rubrics of hostile work environment law, hostile educational environment law, or hostile public accommodations environment law).
Consider an analogy: Say that a Democratic flyer complained of a “conservative agenda” that involved “destroying a woman’s right to choose.” Literally, “right to choose” might be read as meaning the right to, well, choose things ? like one’s husband, one’s religion, whether to own a gun, and so on. But we wouldn’t condemn the flyer as dishonest, on the grounds that conservatives have no desire to interfere with many choices on women’s part. In context, it’s pretty clear that the flyer is referring to a particular thing that’s often labeled (though controversially so) as the “right to choose”: the right to choose to have an abortion. And many conservatives do indeed want to (whether rightly or wrongly) block women from being able to choose abortions, at least in many circumstances.
Before we condemned the flyer, we’d have to see what it said on the inside: If it elaborated the cover claim as “conservatives want to reduce women to slavery, as property of their husbands,” then one would certainly condemn that as dishonest. If it elaborated it as “conservatives want to prevent women from being able to choose abortion,” then it would not be dishonest (though it might not be as nuanced as what a more careful academic analysis would provide). If it didn’t elaborate at all, then we’d ask how most readers would perceive the statement ? especially keeping in mind that readers expect political mailers to involve some degree of hyperbole and oversimplification ? and if we concluded that they would perceive it as applying only to abortion, we’d again say that the statement isn’t dishonest.
Likewise here. “Right to choose” is somewhat less ambiguous than a reference to a book being “banned” ? the purely literal meaning of “right to choose” (right to choose generally, as opposed to abortions in particular) is more rarely used than the purely literal meaning of “banning” books. Still, in context, I suspect that most people seeing a claim that the “liberal agenda” involves “bann[ing]” the Bible would understand it as referring to something less than a criminal prohibition on all possession of the Bible; rather, I suspect that they’d probably see it as something more like the American Library Association’s definition, or some other more modest meaning. The insides of the mailer could confirm this suspicion, or rebut it. But without seeing the insides, I don’t think that we can condemn the mailer cover as dishonest.
BB, what kind of mealy-mouthed crap is that?