My latest editorial...

[riff]

Written in response to a journalist who wrote "Church and State are Inseperable."

The first amendment to the United States' Constitution begins with the clause, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." The words say what they mean. In very plain language, our founding fathers agreed that the United States' would not
make any laws that dictated to the population a state-sponsored or "official" religion of the United States. Additionally, they guaranteed us that the govenment would
not interfere with the desire of people to practice their own religion as they chose. It is this clause of our constitution that has become summarized with the familiar phrase
"seperation of church and state."

I fail to see what the big issue is surrounding this catch phrase. In my opinion, the entire debate surrounding "seperation of church and state" has become politicized
to the extent that it has almost become meaningless. The first ammendment plainly removes the government from religious dialog. This is not to say that elected
officials are prevented from expressing their own personal spiritual beliefs. It is simply to say that the government will not promote any particular religion or prohibit
the practice of the same.

Churches of all religions have enjoyed a prosperous history in the United States because they have been free to grow and flourish without government interference.
By the same right, people who are not oriented to expressing their spiritual beliefs in the setting of a church have been free to live and prosper without the
government telling them which religion "true Americans" should practice. The "seperation of church and state" principle, by which this portion of the the first
ammendment is known, appears to be working very well.

 

[unusuallyconfused]

Well said Riff. I think, however, in some respects that through the varied intrepretations of that 1st amendment that we have lost some moral guidance in the schools. Now I know that is surely up for debate, it just seems to me that there has been a significant amount of violence and chaos in the schools and wonder if there is any correlation. I'm not necessarily passionate on the idea since there are religious schools, I just wonder if that part of the equation could be something to look at before the days of school shootings, etc.....

It is worth thinking about, I believe.

 

[Todd]

Well said Riff. I think, however, in some respects that through the varied intrepretations of that 1st amendment that we have lost some moral guidance in the schools. Now I know that is surely up for debate, it just seems to me that there has been a significant amount of violence and chaos in the schools and wonder if there is any correlation. I'm not necessarily passionate on the idea since there are religious schools, I just wonder if that part of the equation could be something to look at before the days of school shootings, etc.....

It is worth thinking about, I believe.

heres a research project;


study out school violence and mischief prior to 1963

then

study school violence after 1963 to present

then

study what happened in 1963 and see if it the whole picture doesn't come into view

 

[Mischka]

OK, Todd. Explain why atheism is the downfall of modern civilization. I'd like to hear this.

 

[Todd]

OK, Todd. Explain why atheism is the downfall of modern civilization. I'd like to hear this.

did I say anything about atheism?

 

[Mischka]

You've mentioned about five or six times about Madeleine O'Hare's rise in 1963 and the subsequent fall of society. So if you're not referring to that, what else happened in 1963 that was so pivotal?

 

[Todd]

You've mentioned about five or six times about Madeleine O'Hare's rise in 1963 and the subsequent fall of society. So if you're not referring to that, what else happened in 1963 that was so pivotal?

Your the Lawyer you tell me

 

[unusuallyconfused]

You've mentioned about five or six times about Madeleine O'Hare's rise in 1963 and the subsequent fall of society. So if you're not referring to that, what else happened in 1963 that was so pivotal?

I can see the Mischka/Todd debate going for the jugular. Actually Mischka, what is interesting about Madeleine O'Hare is that her son that she did not want to have religion turned out to need religion (I believe he choose Christianity)in his adulthood and didn't seem to complimentary toward his mother. Makes you wonder.

 

[Todd]

You've mentioned about five or six times about Madeleine O'Hare's rise in 1963 and the subsequent fall of society. So if you're not referring to that, what else happened in 1963 that was so pivotal?

I can see the Mischka/Todd debate going for the jugular. Actually Mischka, what is interesting about Madeleine O'Hare is that her son that she did not want to have religion turned out to need religion (I believe he choose Christianity)in his adulthood and didn't seem to complimentary toward his mother. Makes you wonder.

No I am not going after any jugular but if she wants mine she can have it

*tilting neck fulling exposing the jugular for slashings*

I just enjoy statistics, I found out about 1963 long before I ever hear of Madame, she just coincides with 1963. But it really isn't her

 

[Mischka]

No, Todd, I'm not doing your dirty work for you. Get that hampster moving on its wheel and explain why atheism is such a bane on society.

And unusuallyconfused, Madeleine was not exactly cut from the perfect mother mold. I bet her son turned to religion more to get back at his mother than because of spiritual lacking. I've seen many children turn away from the chosen religion of their parents, for any number of reasons. But if he did need spiritual guidance, more power to him.

 

[Todd]

No, Todd, I'm not doing your dirty work for you. Get that hampster moving on its wheel and explain why atheism is such a bane on society.

And unusuallyconfused, Madeleine was not exactly cut from the perfect mother mold. I bet her son turned to religion more to get back at his mother than because of spiritual lacking. I've seen many children turn away from the chosen religion of their parents, for any number of reasons. But if he did need spiritual guidance, more power to him.

Honestly this time it is not about atheism.

You can madame and atheism out of the entire 1963 and you should still see the picture forming.

 

[RisiaSkye]

Religion cures violence?

I'm not at all sure that I buy the argument that religion prevents violent outbursts from unstable people. What's the correlation? It's not as though the people committing the violence have no idea that what they're doing is wrong: even without a religious influence, they still have parents, peers, laws, and school regulations to clue them in on the fact that their violent actions violate the rights of others, cause permanent harm, and carry severe repurcussions. If they choose to disregard all of this, what reason do we have to suspect that religion will "fix" them?

Religious faith can be a great spiritual healer for the despondent and previously hopeless. However, in order for it to work, one has to be open to it. And there's no way to assure that the people who (arguably) could most use some spiritual guidance will actually hear and be affected by it.

Even if religion were some magical cure-all, whose religion do you mean? Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, Paganism, etc, etc. Which one do you introduce into the schools, and to what extent? Doesn't that violate the rights of others, in order to attempt to "save" a dangerous and disturbed few?


One last thing: What is the deal with the emphasis on 1963? Todd, what would you have us blame this on--JFK's assasination? The institution of the Vietnam draft? The racial hate riots that took place over a several year span as schools and other public spaces/institutions were integrated? The rise of second-wave feminism after Betty Freidan's The Feminine Mystique? Any of these things fit the chronology.

My point is this: trying to trace current instances of violence to a specific cause in the past is pointless, not to mention hopelessly naive. There's no single cause. Claiming that a few teenagers got it into their heads to shoot people in 1994-2001 because of something that happened when their parents were teenagers makes no sense, even if there's some kind of correlation. At most, whatever you're hanging this on is a factor, but it can't be the only one. People and events aren't that simple or predictable, even with the benefit of hindsight.

[/RANT]

 

[Todd]

Re: Religion cures violence?

One last thing: What is the deal with the emphasis on 1963? Todd, what would you have us blame this on--JFK's assasination? The institution of the Vietnam draft? The racial hate riots that took place over a several year span as schools and other public spaces/institutions were integrated? The rise of second-wave feminism after Betty Freidan's The Feminine Mystique? Any of these things fit the chronology.

Check the law changes in regard to schooling that began in 1963 as for the rest, those were not them.

 

[RisiaSkye]

Todd...

My point is this: trying to trace current instances of violence to a specific cause in the past is pointless, not to mention hopelessly naive. There's no single cause. Claiming that a few teenagers got it into their heads to shoot people in 1994-2001 because of something that happened when their parents were teenagers makes no sense, even if there's some kind of correlation. At most, whatever you're hanging this on is a factor, but it can't be the only one. People and events aren't that simple or predictable, even with the benefit of hindsight.

[/RANT]

I think maybe you missed the point I was trying to make about your emphasis on 1963. Does this clarify?

 

[morninggirl5]

Well said Riff. I think, however, in some respects that through the varied intrepretations of that 1st amendment that we have lost some moral guidance in the schools. Now I know that is surely up for debate, it just seems to me that there has been a significant amount of violence and chaos in the schools and wonder if there is any correlation. I'm not necessarily passionate on the idea since there are religious schools, I just wonder if that part of the equation could be something to look at before the days of school shootings, etc.....

It is worth thinking about, I believe.

Actually, the schools are implementing more programs designed to instill or clarify values in children today. Character Education is the current buzzword in schools, and teachers are spending instructional time teaching specific programs designed to instill respect, courage, honesty, etc. in students. I don't think the "lack of morals" being exhibited in school can be traced to anything that has happened in schools, but rather to the changing family dynamics and values the students are experiencing before they ever reach their first day of school.

 

[Todd]

Re: Todd...

My point is this: trying to trace current instances of violence to a specific cause in the past is pointless, not to mention hopelessly naive. There's no single cause. Claiming that a few teenagers got it into their heads to shoot people in 1994-2001 because of something that happened when their parents were teenagers makes no sense, even if there's some kind of correlation. At most, whatever you're hanging this on is a factor, but it can't be the only one. People and events aren't that simple or predictable, even with the benefit of hindsight.

[/RANT]

I think maybe you missed the point I was trying to make about your emphasis on 1963. Does this clarify?

For every problem there is a cause. The stated of the school situation as it now exists can be traced to a beggining point of 1963 cumulateing over the next 2 decades.

 

[Weird Harold]

Re: Todd...

I think maybe you missed the point I was trying to make about your emphasis on 1963. Does this clarify?

I don't know what Todd is specifically after about 1963, but...

That era is when "peer promotion" began in the majority of US schools. It's also about when Corporal Punishment was outlawed. It's when "New Math" was introduced, and a lot of other "new-fangled ideas about teaching" along with it.

I personally trace the start of the decline of manners, civility, and "work ethics" to "peer promotion" and the associated "feel good even if you don't learn anything" teaching philosphy that grew from it.

The logic is thus:

In the early 60's, some children begin to learn that failure to perform brings no adverse response; those children grow up, teach their children the lessons learned, and some begin teaching in schools, reinforcing the perception that achievement isn't needed to get by.

The children commiting violence in schools, doing drugs, etc, are now the grandchildren of those first infected in the 60's.

"Peer promotion" is NOT the sole cause of society's decline, but the psycology behind it is a MAJOR factor in the failures of schools and society in general.

 

[morninggirl5]

Re: Re: Todd...

For every problem there is a cause. The stated of the school situation as it now exists can be traced to a beggining point of 1963 cumulateing over the next 2 decades. [/B]

While there may be a (or even several) causes for a problem, wouldn't it be better to work toward a solution for that problem instead of endlessly debating what the cause(s) are? Unless you're doing something to fix it, you are part of the problem.

 

[Todd]

Re: Re: Todd...

I think maybe you missed the point I was trying to make about your emphasis on 1963. Does this clarify?

I don't know what Todd is specifically after about 1963, but...

That era is when "peer promotion" began in the majority of US schools. It's also about when Corporal Punishment was outlawed. It's when "New Math" was introduced, and a lot of other "new-fangled ideas about teaching" along with it.

I personally trace the start of the decline of manners, civility, and "work ethics" to "peer promotion" and the associated "feel good even if you don't learn anything" teaching philosphy that grew from it.

The logic is thus:

In the early 60's, some children begin to learn that failure to perform brings no adverse response; those children grow up, teach their children the lessons learned, and some begin teaching in schools, reinforcing the perception that achievement isn't needed to get by.

The children commiting violence in schools, doing drugs, etc, are now the grandchildren of those first infected in the 60's.

"Peer promotion" is NOT the sole cause of society's decline, but the psycology behind it is a MAJOR factor in the failures of schools and society in general.

B - I - N - G - O

If I could hand out lit points you just got yourself an extra 250 points.

Congrats, Like I tried to say it has nothing to do with religion or atheism.

Thank you WH

 

[Todd]

Re: Re: Re: Todd...

While there may be a (or even several) causes for a problem, wouldn't it be better to work toward a solution for that problem instead of endlessly debating what the cause(s) are? Unless you're doing something to fix it, you are part of the problem.

Hypothetical, your a doctor, a patient comes in to you and says I am sick, Do you:

A> Just go to the medicine cabinent{sp} and grab a bottle of something and give it to him

or

B> Do you ask himn questions about what he did or ate , check his blood pressure, breathing and try and find out what it is ans what caused it.


Now to reality, you have a society that is sick, kids killing kids, death in the streets, woman abuse. Do you:

A> Try something {ritalin, Zomophor, etc.} and hope it works.

or

B> Trackdown the cause and try and repaitr the damage for present and future?

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

The first amendment to the United States' Constitution begins with the clause, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." The words say what they mean. In very plain language, our founding fathers agreed that the United States' would not make any laws that dictated to the population a state-sponsored or "official" religion of the United States.

The meaning of establishment clause of the first amendment isn't as unambiguous as you suggest, Riff. While the complete separation interpretation has been the most widely accepted, in recent years Chief Justice Rehnquist has repeatedly referenced the writing of several of the founding fathers which suggests an alternate interpretation. According to these texts, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion" was intended not to erect a complete wall of separation between church and state, but rather to prohibit the establishment of a single national religion or denomination, as is seen in England with the church of England.

There are other writings to the contrary which support the complete separation interpretation as well, but the meaning of the clause is much less cut and dry than you imply. I think many of the founding fathers would be happy to see the government and religion being completely divorced, but others would find that interpretation extreme. As the meaning is ambiguous and the founders' intent is also unclear, it's up to the court to determine which interpreation will prevail.

[Edited by Oliver Clozoff on 06-01-2001 at 08:45 PM]

 

[riff]

U illustrate my point.

America is better off because of the first amendment...

 

[RisiaSkye]

Re: Re: Todd...

My point is this: trying to trace current instances of violence to a specific cause in the past is pointless, not to mention hopelessly naive. There's no single cause. Claiming that a few teenagers got it into their heads to shoot people in 1994-2001 because of something that happened when their parents were teenagers makes no sense, even if there's some kind of correlation. At most, whatever you're hanging this on is a factor, but it can't be the only one. People and events aren't that simple or predictable, even with the benefit of hindsight.

I think maybe you missed the point I was trying to make about your emphasis on 1963. Does this clarify?

Originally posted by Todd
For every problem there is a cause. The stated of the school situation as it now exists can be traced to a beggining point of 1963 cumulateing over the next 2 decades. [/B]

Why, you ask, am I quoting the above paragraph AGAIN? Because Todd & WH both continue to insist that complex social problems can be traced to a single source. And, of course, there's bonus points in it if you can blame it on "damn liberals." Behavior is emphatically not a simple matter of cause and effect. If the changes in school systems are the cause of school violence, everyone raised under this system would the exhibit the same psychopathic violent behavior as the shooters, which obviously isn't the case. And even qualifying the claim by saying it only effects some people this way, someof the time in some circumstances doesn't address the cental problem with the argument.

People are not math equations. A (liberal education reform) + B (the political maturity of the boomers) does not = C (School shootings). Such a simplistic model leaves no room for other factors like the accessibility of weapons, the proliferation of psychotropic medications with extreme withdrawal side effects, "white flight" to the 'burbs and the alienation and anxiety it can cause the children whose parents move them into a completely different social world in the middle of adolescence, lack of parental involvement in children's lives, etc. etc.
Further, where's the space for personal responsibility in this model?

Not to mention that scapegoating education policy reforms that tried to eliminate violence (in the form of adults hitting students) creates a paradox in which only violence against children will keep children from committing violence against others. That's a logic I don't understand.

One final thought--school shootings weren't just invented in the 90's, as we all should know. So, do you think that Merriweather climbed the tower because all the education reform going on while he was in high school taught him that there were no consequences? Or because he knew that flunking out of college was going to mean being drafted? Or because he was a nutcase with a rifle and little sense of moral obligation? Is it really isolatable to a single cause? Even with the advantage of hindsight, it is impossible to say for sure, and that's the whole point.

 

[Barb Dwyer]

I think many of the founding fathers would be happy to see the government and religion being completely divorced, but others would find that interpretation extreme. As the meaning is ambiguous and the founders' intent is also unclear, it's up to the court to determine which interpreation will prevail

Bingo! And that is why it is critical to observe the makeup of the court with each incarnation. Their interpretations are pertinent until such time as a new case is brought before them to challenge an existing law. A fluid and flexible court can refashion or modify a previous ruling or can maintain the status quo depending on its composition.

 

[morninggirl5]

Re: Re: Re: Todd...

My point is this: trying to trace current instances of violence to a specific cause in the past is pointless, not to mention hopelessly naive. There's no single cause. Claiming that a few teenagers got it into their heads to shoot people in 1994-2001 because of something that happened when their parents were teenagers makes no sense, even if there's some kind of correlation. At most, whatever you're hanging this on is a factor, but it can't be the only one. People and events aren't that simple or predictable, even with the benefit of hindsight.

I think maybe you missed the point I was trying to make about your emphasis on 1963. Does this clarify?

Originally posted by Todd
For every problem there is a cause. The stated of the school situation as it now exists can be traced to a beggining point of 1963 cumulateing over the next 2 decades.

Why, you ask, am I quoting the above paragraph AGAIN? Because Todd & WH both continue to insist that complex social problems can be traced to a single source. And, of course, there's bonus points in it if you can blame it on "damn liberals." Behavior is emphatically not a simple matter of cause and effect. If the changes in school systems are the cause of school violence, everyone raised under this system would the exhibit the same psychopathic violent behavior as the shooters, which obviously isn't the case. And even qualifying the claim by saying it only effects some people this way, someof the time in some circumstances doesn't address the cental problem with the argument.

People are not math equations. A (liberal education reform) + B (the political maturity of the boomers) does not = C (School shootings). Such a simplistic model leaves no room for other factors like the accessibility of weapons, the proliferation of psychotropic medications with extreme withdrawal side effects, "white flight" to the 'burbs and the alienation and anxiety it can cause the children whose parents move them into a completely different social world in the middle of adolescence, lack of parental involvement in children's lives, etc. etc.
Further, where's the space for personal responsibility in this model?

Not to mention that scapegoating education policy reforms that tried to eliminate violence (in the form of adults hitting students) creates a paradox in which only violence against children will keep children from committing violence against others. That's a logic I don't understand.

One final thought--school shootings weren't just invented in the 90's, as we all should know. So, do you think that Merriweather climbed the tower because all the education reform going on while he was in high school taught him that there were no consequences? Or because he knew that flunking out of college was going to mean being drafted? Or because he was a nutcase with a rifle and little sense of moral obligation? Is it really isolatable to a single cause? Even with the advantage of hindsight, it is impossible to say for sure, and that's the whole point. [/B]

Bravo, you said that perfectly.