Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I don't think anyone claims to have the "solution" to poverty.
Google 'solutions to poverty" Damn near everybody thinks they have the solution.
Who is it exactly that "promised" some benefit?
See there is the problem, there is no one to hold accountable. Billions of dollars are spent in the name of war on poverty, housing the homeless, jobs programs to find people jobs. Now the billions are gone but poverty, the homless and the jobless are still there with bells on. In a lot of cases they are there in greater numbers. And the schools have tons of money pumped into them but education quality goes down. I don't like that no one is held accountable. If you are going to get that kind of money, you need to make an accounting of what you did with every dollar. You may not be guilty of causing poverty, but where does all the money go? We are talking shit tons of money being spent. You may be right, there probably aren't easy solutions, so could we pumping money into an endless pit.
You think that the cure for poverty in the inner city is just more republicans in local government? Let's try it out and then in 20 years when south central LA is still a shithole we can then blame the republicans.
Of course I never said that. But my point is that the democrats think government is going to provide the solutions to these problems, the conservatives and libertarians say govt not only doesn't solve the problems, in some cases they make them worse. If republicans or libertarians were in power they wouldn't claim that the government could fix everything.
This is exceedingly silly especially since we already know that the best solution to a bad school is to send in a team of Morgan Freeman, Edward James Olmos, and Michelle Pfeiffer to whip everyone into shape.
I thought the best solution was to send ever increasing amounts of money to terrible schools with no accountability.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ah damnit, you got me. I was trying to make the exact point that you two are the only ones to share that point of view. What a crazy coincidence that you found each other too. Soulmates, I guess.
See Post #15
Link to post
Share on other sites
My opinions are not uninformed. Do you think that akoff and myself are the only two people who share opinions similar to these?
I think your opinions are completely uninformed and no, sadly, lots of people think like akoff. I'm still laughing at his assertion that all Democrats are found in three professions.Your understanding of constitutional law as it relates to religious freedom and the first amendment is painfully uninformed.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think your opinions are completely uninformed and no, sadly, lots of people think like akoff. I'm still laughing at his assertion that all Democrats are found in three professions.Your understanding of constitutional law as it relates to religious freedom and the first amendment is painfully uninformed.
I didn't see a lot that was wrong about his opinions on religious freedom. I'm pretty sure that those who would limit the exercise of religious freedom are on the wrong side of this one. Yes, I know that the court has said that religious freedom doesn't really mean what it says, but they also say that growing food and eating yourself is interstate commerce. There have been a lot of egregiously bad decisions since FDR tried to pack the courts, and it will take decades to reverse them all.
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the beauty of opinions. I think religion, especially Christianity, gets a pretty sweet deal in America and I think the courts have been more than fair on every issue besides school prayer which is one of those liberal issues I've never understood.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think your opinions are completely uninformedYour understanding of constitutional law as it relates to religious freedom and the first amendment is painfully uninformed.
:club:
That's the beauty of opinions. I think religion, especially Christianity, gets a pretty sweet deal in America and I think the courts have been more than fair on every issue besides school prayer which is one of those liberal issues I've never understood.
Are you being serious? That surprises me. I think the libs actually have grounds for no organized prayer in public schools if for no other reason than camplaining that your time is being wasted praying when that time payed for by your tax dollars should be spent learning. Now the 10 commandments not being allowed on the wall, or a bible verse hanging on a banner, I don't see what is offensive about that. You could have passages from the Koran, and other religions too. As long as they are appropriate for children, then I don't see the problem.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think your opinions are completely uninformed and no, sadly, lots of people think like akoff.
If you mean thinking independently and willing to observe what is working and not working objectively…and make changes as needed – well than the list is way too short. It amazes me to that we can look at 40 plus years of welfare and liberals systematically destroying the family structure of the poor and yet thinking like me is bad… I believe in standing on your own 2 feet, be responsible, care for and raise your family with values, work hard and save your money….if there was more of that in this country we wouldn’t need the welfare system that exists today. You may be well educated Cane but you are arrogant, condescending and blinded by your own ego….however for a liberal Jewish lawyer educated in the Ivy I guess you are running to expectation.
Link to post
Share on other sites
If you mean thinking independently and willing to observe what is working and not working objectively…and make changes as needed – well than the list is way too short. It amazes me to that we can look at 40 plus years of welfare and liberals systematically destroying the family structure of the poor and yet thinking like me is bad… I believe in standing on your own 2 feet, be responsible, care for and raise your family with values, work hard and save your money….if there was more of that in this country we wouldn’t need the welfare system that exists today. You may be well educated Cane but you are arrogant, condescending and blinded by your own ego….however for a liberal Jewish lawyer educated in the Ivy I guess you are running to expectation.
Its amazing that the war on drugs and anti abortion laws have had nothing to do with keeping the poverty levels where they are...also amazing that the liberals are destroying the family structure of the poor cus you know liberals are clearly responsible for divorce rates. I believe in standing on your own 2 feet etc. But I believe society in general should do what it can to ensure we don't keep raising a society of people that are in the habit of being poor.. Calling anyone arrogant, condescending and blinded while claiming to have all the answers and claiming that one party is responsible for all the woes is laughable.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Now the 10 commandments not being allowed on the wall, or a bible verse hanging on a banner, I don't see what is offensive about that. You could have passages from the Koran, and other religions too. As long as they are appropriate for children, then I don't see the problem.
First of all, no one ever does put passages from the Koran and other religions too when this happens. But whatever set of religions you choose, you will not really have all religions represented, and representing any of them is exclusionary to people with no religion. Will you satisfy the Wiccan in the class by adding a Wiccan phrase? Have an atheist phrase too, negating all the others? It's just a can of worms that public institutions should completely avoid. A public institution should have no position with respect to religion.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Its amazing that the war on drugs and anti abortion laws have had nothing to do with keeping the poverty levels where they are...also amazing that the liberals are destroying the family structure of the poor cus you know liberals are clearly responsible for divorce rates. I believe in standing on your own 2 feet etc. But I believe society in general should do what it can to ensure we don't keep raising a society of people that are in the habit of being poor..Calling anyone arrogant, condescending and blinded while claiming to have all the answers and claiming that one party is responsible for all the woes is laughable.
the problem is that it hasn't worked, the primary result was to make it worse. when you take away responsibility from people to survive it is a downward spiral. I don’t claim to have all the answers but what we are currently doing in my opinion has not only failed but accelerated and most likely compounded the problem by several times. I do believe the Democrats have the poor exactly where they want them…. Drinking the Kool-Aid believing they can’t survive without help from big brother….and the problem will only get worse. I have seen nothing to indicate it will change in the foreseeable future.
Link to post
Share on other sites
:club: [/b]Are you being serious? That surprises me. I think the libs actually have grounds for no organized prayer in public schools if for no other reason than camplaining that your time is being wasted praying when that time payed for by your tax dollars should be spent learning. Now the 10 commandments not being allowed on the wall, or a bible verse hanging on a banner, I don't see what is offensive about that. You could have passages from the Koran, and other religions too. As long as they are appropriate for children, then I don't see the problem.
unlike the nonsense Jewish lawyer stereotypes you get from akoff (who manages to think "independently" and yet parrot word for word conservative talking points at all times), people usually don't and should not fit into neat little boxes. I'm not liberal on all issues and the ban on school prayer never made any sense to me. You go to school to learn. Learning about different cultures and how to act in different situations is a part of school. Funerals, weddings, etc.....you will hear prayers as an adult and you learn to just stand there and be respectful. Of all the things religion is associated with, prayer is the one that is completely innocuous. I don't think we should be praying up a storm in school (because time is better spent learning) but saying the lord's prayer at a school assembly or whatever should not be a federal crime.
Link to post
Share on other sites
the problem is that it hasn't worked, the primary result was to make it worse. when you take away responsibility from people to survive it is a downward spiral. I don’t claim to have all the answers but what we are currently doing in my opinion has not only failed but accelerated and most likely compounded the problem by several times. I do believe the Democrats have the poor exactly where they want them…. Drinking the Kool-Aid believing they can’t survive without help from big brother….and the problem will only get worse. I have seen nothing to indicate it will change in the foreseeable future.
I agree that it hasn't worked, the reason it hasn't worked could go round and round. Conservatives in large part say they don't want the government giving hand outs, raising taxes and giving to the poor etc etc. However, when it comes to social policy ie drug control laws, abortion laws they want the government involved while these issues have a huge effect on the poor and keeping the poor poor. I don't believe that the dems have "the poor exactly where they want them" nor do the reps however they are where they are do to both parties.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree that it hasn't worked, the reason it hasn't worked could go round and round. Conservatives in large part say they don't want the government giving hand outs, raising taxes and giving to the poor etc etc. However, when it comes to social policy ie drug control laws, abortion laws they want the government involved while these issues have a huge effect on the poor and keeping the poor poor. I don't believe that the dems have "the poor exactly where they want them" nor do the reps however they are where they are do to both parties.
u r just blinded by ignorance and condescension. You are also probably jewish.
Link to post
Share on other sites
First of all, no one ever does put passages from the Koran and other religions too when this happens. But whatever set of religions you choose, you will not really have all religions represented, and representing any of them is exclusionary to people with no religion. Will you satisfy the Wiccan in the class by adding a Wiccan phrase? Have an atheist phrase too, negating all the others? It's just a can of worms that public institutions should completely avoid. A public institution should have no position with respect to religion.
Having something on the wall doesn't take a position. If there is a poster on the wall with a quote from Gandhi does that mean the institution has taken a position on Hindu? No it has just quoted something that has inspired people. How about a quote from Mark Twain? Wasn't he an atheist? If there are bible verses on every wall to the exclusion of others then you have a point, but I don't think that is the case most of the time.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree that it hasn't worked, the reason it hasn't worked could go round and round. Conservatives in large part say they don't want the government giving hand outs, raising taxes and giving to the poor etc etc. However, when it comes to social policy ie drug control laws, abortion laws they want the government involved while these issues have a huge effect on the poor and keeping the poor poor. I don't believe that the dems have "the poor exactly where they want them" nor do the reps however they are where they are do to both parties.
You have a point about the drug wars, but what abortion laws are you talking about? I mean hell, we could kill the poor, then we would have less of them, but I don't think thats where we need to go. Abortion is legal, you know that don't you. I just don't understand what you are saying about the abortion laws. I am more cynical, I think many elitists actually do want to keep, not just the poor, but, as many people as possible dependant on government. Others are simply trying to help, but actually making things worse. The main point I am trying to make is not that if you elect republicans then they will fix these things, but that some of the thing libertarians and republicans(used to) stand for may actually help in these situation. Why not let the states take care of their poor the way they see fit. Some will fail miserable, like the Federal Govt has, others will have success, but you will have 50 different plans and word will get around what is working and what is wasting money.
Link to post
Share on other sites
You have a point about the drug wars, but what abortion laws are you talking about? I mean hell, we could kill the poor, then we would have less of them, but I don't think thats where we need to go. Abortion is legal, you know that don't you. I just don't understand what you are saying about the abortion laws. I am more cynical, I think many elitists actually do want to keep, not just the poor, but, as many people as possible dependant on government. Others are simply trying to help, but actually making things worse. The main point I am trying to make is not that if you elect republicans then they will fix these things, but that some of the thing libertarians and republicans(used to) stand for may actually help in these situation. Why not let the states take care of their poor the way they see fit. Some will fail miserable, like the Federal Govt has, others will have success, but you will have 50 different plans and word will get around what is working and what is wasting money.
I am aware that its legal but it is still a contested issue. The point being anything we can do (whether through education or what not) to elimate children having children the better chance we have on putting a stop to the cycle of poverty. I absolutely agree that some of what libertarians and republicans stand for may help as would some of what liberals stand for but like everything it would take a balance/working together which just isn't going to happen.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Having something on the wall doesn't take a position.
Of course it does. It says "this is good and right and we support it". Would the school put up a poster of Hitler? (*)Here is a quote from SC Justice Stevens on a related case involving school prayer: ""Regardless of the listener's support for, or objection to, the message, an objective Santa Fe High School student will unquestionably perceive the inevitable pregame prayer as stamped with her school's seal of approval."The same thing applies to a Bible quote put up on the school wall, it is absolutely hanging there with the school's seal of approval.
If there is a poster on the wall with a quote from Gandhi does that mean the institution has taken a position on Hindu?
If the quote contained Hindu theology (which Gandhi happened to rarely talk about), then yes it certainly would.
No it has just quoted something that has inspired people. How about a quote from Mark Twain? Wasn't he an atheist?
Obviously we talking about the content of the quote, not the background of the person who said it. If it was a Mark Twain quote that said "There is no god!" then it is out of bounds, but if it is a Mark Twain quote that says "Learning is great!" then it is acceptable. (Mark Twain's views on religion are not clear. ) If they want to include a quote from Mother Theresa that said "All children should learn math!" then go for it, but if she says "accept jesus christ" then, no. A Bible quote, by virtue of deriving from a religious text, is necessarily religious in content.
If there are bible verses on every wall to the exclusion of others then you have a point, but I don't think that is the case most of the time.
It isn't the case ever because the Supreme Court has been clear that religion, prayer, etc. is not allowed in schools in any officially sanctioned way even if initiated by the students themselves. But before that was made clear, it was absolutely bible phrases or biblical prayers to the exclusion of others. The criteria used now were described by SCOTUS in Lemon v Kurtzman and are known as the "Lemon Test": 1. The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religionIf any of these three is violated, then the law is unconstitutional.(*) taking wagers on the chances we have another reductio-ad-absurdum-related misunderstanding
Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course it does. It says "this is good and right and we support it". Would the school put up a poster of Hitler? (*)Here is a quote from SC Justice Stevens on a related case involving school prayer: ""Regardless of the listener's support for, or objection to, the message, an objective Santa Fe High School student will unquestionably perceive the inevitable pregame prayer as stamped with her school's seal of approval."The same thing applies to a Bible quote put up on the school wall, it is absolutely hanging there with the school's seal of approval. If the quote contained Hindu theology (which Gandhi happened to rarely talk about), then yes it certainly would. Obviously we talking about the content of the quote, not the background of the person who said it. If it was a Mark Twain quote that said "There is no god!" then it is out of bounds, but if it is a Mark Twain quote that says "Learning is great!" then it is acceptable. (Mark Twain's views on religion are not clear. ) If they want to include a quote from Mother Theresa that said "All children should learn math!" then go for it, but if she says "accept jesus christ" then, no. A Bible quote, by virtue of deriving from a religious text, is necessarily religious in content. It isn't the case ever because the Supreme Court has been clear that religion, prayer, etc. is not allowed in schools in any officially sanctioned way even if initiated by the students themselves. But before that was made clear, it was absolutely bible phrases or biblical prayers to the exclusion of others. The criteria used now were described by SCOTUS in Lemon v Kurtzman and are known as the "Lemon Test": 1. The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religionIf any of these three is violated, then the law is unconstitutional.(*) taking wagers on the chances we have another reductio-ad-absurdum-related misunderstanding
We don't have much disagreement here. I don't agree that something from the bible should necessarily be excluded just because it originated there, just because something relates in some distant way to religion shouldn't automatically exclude it. Like you said, the quotation should be what matters not its source. I would agree that large portions of the bible would be inappropriate due to the law, but the vast majority of that excluded by law wouldn't be offensive.I ask you VB how long before we see this in the United States? Never? http://www.steynonline.com/4259/how-unclean-was-my-valley
Link to post
Share on other sites
I ask you VB how long before we see this in the United States? Never? http://www.steynonline.com/4259/how-unclean-was-my-valley
Probably never. It sounds like the Imam is basically just renting out the cafeteria for prayer services though; it doesn't look like this is part of the activities of the school in any way, although it could be perceived that way if it is during school hours and the school is arranging this with the mosque, so its tricky but I think this would constitute "entanglement".
Link to post
Share on other sites
We don't have much disagreement here. I don't agree that something from the bible should necessarily be excluded just because it originated there, just because something relates in some distant way to religion shouldn't automatically exclude it. Like you said, the quotation should be what matters not its source. I would agree that large portions of the bible would be inappropriate due to the law, but the vast majority of that excluded by law wouldn't be offensive.I ask you VB how long before we see this in the United States? Never? http://www.steynonline.com/4259/how-unclean-was-my-valley
Except that the source provides context. Lets say Mein Kampf said "Do unto others as you would have them do to you." Great saying (paraphrased), right? Great lesson too. Now, the next line in Mein Kampf might say "as long as they're Aryans, otherwise you should probably burn them." But no big, because you'd just leave that part out.This may be an exaggeration, but the Bible says many wonderful things and many hateful things too, in some people's opinion. You have to acknowledge one in the context of others. How do you "do unto others" but also stone a man who lies with another as if he was a woman? If you quote from a book that (some people say) advocates hate against homosexuals, how do you think the homosexual kids in that class are going to feel? Warm and fuzzy?The Bible should be excluded, not because it is the basis of religious beliefs, but because it contains many things that many people find hateful and/or offensive.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Except that the source provides context. Lets say Mein Kampf said "Do unto others as you would have them do to you." Great saying (paraphrased), right? Great lesson too. Now, the next line in Mein Kampf might say "as long as they're Aryans, otherwise you should probably burn them." But no big, because you'd just leave that part out.This may be an exaggeration, but the Bible says many wonderful things and many hateful things too, in some people's opinion. You have to acknowledge one in the context of others. How do you "do unto others" but also stone a man who lies with another as if he was a woman? If you quote from a book that (some people say) advocates hate against homosexuals, how do you think the homosexual kids in that class are going to feel? Warm and fuzzy?The Bible should be excluded, not because it is the basis of religious beliefs, but because it contains many things that many people find hateful and/or offensive.
In a public school setting I would probably agree that it is the best to err on the side of not being offensive. The hateful and/or offensive part is a whole different discussion. If a homsexual wants to say that Chritisianity is offensvie because it calls homosexual acts a sin, ok. If he wants them arrested for hate speech, no!
Link to post
Share on other sites
In a public school setting I would probably agree that it is the best to err on the side of not being offensive. The hateful and/or offensive part is a whole different discussion. If a homsexual wants to say that Chritisianity is offensvie because it calls homosexual acts a sin, ok. If he wants them arrested for hate speech, no!
By couching your response, you suggest that you discuss according to feelings rather than logic. It isn't trying to "err on the side of not being offensive." It is just not being offensive.The second part just means nothing. No one is suggesting anyone get arrested for hate speech. If someone says "do unto others" in a classroom, no one is being arrested for hate speech. Now, if a "Christian" starts quoting bible verses specific to anti-homosexuality in a hateful or aggressive manner, I'm quite sure that the fact that the verses happen to be written in a religious text does not make them any less hateful.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...