I Just Thought This Was Funny

[1369]

Link (http://blog.au.org/2006/12/falwells_flub_j.html)


A group of Pagans in Albemarle County, Va., was recently given permission to advertise their multi-cultural holiday program to public school children – and they have the Rev. Jerry Falwell to thank for it.

The dispute started last summer when Gabriel and Joshua Rakoski, twins who attend Hollymead Elementary School, sought permission to distribute fliers about their church’s Vacation Bible School to their peers via “backpack mail.” Many public schools use special folders placed in student backpacks to distribute notices about schools events and sometimes extra-curricular activities to parents.

School officials originally denied the request from the twins’ father, Ray Rakoski, citing a school policy barring “distribution of literature that is for partisan, sectarian, religious or political purposes.”

A Charlottesville weekly newspaper, The Hook, reports that Rakoski “sicced the Liberty Counsel on the county,” and the policy was soon revised to allow religious groups to use the backpack mail system. Liberty Counsel is a Religious Right legal group founded by Mathew Staver and now affiliated with Falwell.

Some local Pagans who attend Thomas Jefferson Memorial Church, a Unitarian-Universalist congregation in Charlottesville, decided to take advantage of the new forum as well. They created a one-page flier advertising a Dec. 9 event celebrating the December holidays with a Pagan twist and used the backpack system to invite the entire school community.

“Have you ever wondered what ‘Holidays’ refers to?” reads the flier. “Everyone knows about Christmas – but what else are people celebrating in December? Why do we celebrate the way we do?”

The flier invites people to “an educational program for children of all ages (and their adults), where we’ll explore the traditions of December and their origins, followed by a Pagan ritual to celebrate Yule.”

It concludes, “Come for one or both parts and bring your curiosity.”

Many members of this congregation are strong supporters of church-state separation who don’t believe public schools should promote any religion. But they were also unwilling to cede the field to Falwell and his fundamentalist allies. Falwell opened the backpack forum, and the Pagans were determined to secure equal time.

Suddenly not everyone was pleased by the open forum. Jeff Riddle, pastor of Jefferson Park Baptist Church in Charlottesville, wrote on his personal blog, “If the school allows the Baptist or Methodist church to send home a note to its students about Vacation Bible School, it also has to allow the Unitarian Church to send home a note about its ‘Pagan ritual to celebrate Yule’….This kind of note adds weight to the argument that it is high time for Christians to leave public schools for reasonable alternatives (homeschooling and private Christian schools).”

Another conservative Christian blogger in the county complained about finding the flier in her child’s folder. Apparently unaware of Falwell’s role in bringing it about, the blogger who goes by the name Cathy, noted disclaimer language at the bottom of the flier noting that the event is not connected to the school and wrote, “They [the school officials] aren’t endorsing or sponsoring this? Then it shouldn’t have been included in the Friday folders. The Friday folders have never been used for any thing other than school work and school board and/or County sanctioned/sponsored programs.”

She then fumed that a “pagan ritual” is “an educational experience my children don’t need.”

Well, Cathy and Jeff, it’s a new day. Your pals Falwell and Staver have opened up this forum, and now everyone gets to use it. Isn’t that what you wanted all along – freedom of religion? That freedom means all religions – even ones you don’t happen to like.

Cue Bouton anti-organized religion/anti-GOD/general hatred response...

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Allow me.

http://simpsonovci.com/postavy/postavy_nelson_obr.gif

[DarkReign]

It is funny though, especially that idiot Cathy character.

[boutons_]

"what else are people celebrating in December?"

Primarily end of year shopping $revenue. The Business of America is $Business, 24x365

"high time for Christians to leave public schools"

good riddance

“an educational experience my children don’t need.”

... but Fallwell/Robertson is one they do need, got it.

:lol

[101A]

I live in a "College" town.

LARGE UU congregation.

Their pompous self-righteousness is surpassed by none; not even the loudest of bible-thumpers. They are OH so enlightened.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Cathy's blog.

http://callherblessed.blogspot.com/

[ChumpDumper]

"Only 17 praying days till Christmas!"

:lol

[DarkReign]

Cathy's blog.

http://callherblessed.blogspot.com/

GTFOH

As if this dimwit needed some forum to express her views to the world.

Oh, wait...

[DarkReign]

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/628/1920/320/I%20voted.jpg

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Riddle's blog:

http://jpbcstylos.blogspot.com/2006/12/happy-holidays-pagan-evangelism.html

[FromWayDowntown]

It's the embodiment of the slippery slope in the church-state arugment. If you want to allow some religion into public school (whether by flier or prayer, or something in between) it seems to me that you cannot say that one religious group should be preferred over others. Christians don't have some inherent right to occupy the field when it comes to matters of religious message.

But it seems to me that the uproar that has occurred in this case is almost inevitable if you start opening the door. Christians who favor the use of their religious iconography and means of proselytizing in schools tend not to be very amped about allowing other groups having the same opportunity.

What I think is the most ironic part of Cathy's upset here is that I'd hazard a guess that her view is that if you're not Christian, you should just suck it up and not participate when the school-mandated prayer time or Bible reading occurs. But, when faced with something from another religious group, her decision isn't one to just throw away the flier that she disagrees with -- instead, she seems willing to protest the fact that a message concerning a pagan ritual could be transmitted through the school.

[xrayzebra]

Just let me say: "Merry Christmas" everyone.

And I might add, our country was founded on Christian principles, whether you like
it or not.

[FromWayDowntown]

Just let me say: "Merry Christmas" everyone.

And I might add, our country was founded on Christian principles, whether you like
it or not.

Nothing stops you from practicing your religion, xray. Put a huge "Merry Christmas" sign in front of your house and stand on a public street corner singing Christmas hymns. The Constitution absolutely protects your right to do those things.

But I don't understand why you feel you need the power of the government behind you to convey that message. Isn't it better for all of us if the government stays out of religion (by not using its power to endorse particular views) and lets each of us decide for ourselves how, when, and where to practice a particular faith?

[1369]

Just let me say: "Merry Christmas" everyone.

And I might add, our country was founded on Christian principles, whether you like
it or not.

Hey X, you do know that "Christians" didn't really invent Christmas, and scholarly consensus is that Jesus wasn't born in December, don't you?

[xrayzebra]

How about the power of the people to choose to ignore anything that is put
before them, but let those that want to continue the traditions of this country
as in the past. Does one person, supposedly offended, mean that the majority
is suppose to surrender all their customs and traditions? I Don't think so.

Those that insist that we should or must, offend me and many others like me.
And I might add the majority. Which used to considered.

No those that choose to ignore God or deny him are free to do so. But they
should not be free to tell me I cant enjoy what I have for over 70 years. Nor
spread cheer and good will. You want to be miserable, be so. And I know
misery loves company, but as far as I am concerned, be lonesome in your
thoughts.

[xrayzebra]

Hey X, you do know that "Christians" didn't really invent Christmas, and scholarly consensus is that Jesus wasn't born in December, don't you?


Your point being. And pray tell who "invented" Christmas? Does
your statement suppose to prove something or just you normal
ramblings.

[FromWayDowntown]

How about the power of the people to choose to ignore anything that is put
before them, but let those that want to continue the traditions of this country
as in the past. Does one person, supposedly offended, mean that the majority
is suppose to surrender all their customs and traditions? I Don't think so.

Those that insist that we should or must, offend me and many others like me.
And I might add the majority. Which used to considered.

No those that choose to ignore God or deny him are free to do so. But they
should not be free to tell me I cant enjoy what I have for over 70 years. Nor
spread cheer and good will. You want to be miserable, be so. And I know
misery loves company, but as far as I am concerned, be lonesome in your
thoughts.

Actually, the nation majority doesn't rule much of anything in this country. Our President isn't elected by majority. Congress isn't elected by a national majority. Social policy isn't often set my majority, because majorities end up infringing on the rights of others to fulfill their own agendas. Majoritarian view brought us wonderful things like segregated schools and laws against inter-racial marriage. I don't know about you, xray, but those sorts of decisions don't give me great faith that the majority gives a damn about anyone other than the majority.

You really should read James Madison's Federalist No. 10. In it, Madison eloquently argued that divesting the majority from absolute power was essential to the operation of a democratic government, because to do otherwise would necessarily create opportunity for the majority to trample upon the rights of those who were outside of that group. Madison's wisdom has been borne out throughout the existence of this Republic.

Ultimately, the minority in situations like the Christmas issues that you bring up aren't taking away the rights of the majority -- the concern for protecting the minority is precluding the government from taking the majority's side, which is fair. The "majority," who want to celebrate Christmas as a religious holiday can do so through their own private customs and traditions -- the minority just asks that the government play no role in the manner in which the majority celebrates. Asking that the goverment not put a nativity scene in the courthouse doesn't strike me as an infringement on the rights of the majority when each person who wishes to do so may place a nativity scene on his own property.

Again, I ask, why is that such a bad thing?

[xrayzebra]

Downtown, I quit reading your post after the first paragraph, well actually the
second. You don't understand the constitution much. The President is
elected by a majority of the "Electoral College". And Congress is elected by
the majority of the people in their individual states.

Go figure on some of the arguments put forth in this forum.

And by the way, we are a Republic and not a Democracy. You might want
to read up on that also.

[FromWayDowntown]

Downtown, I quit reading your post after the first paragraph, well actually the second. You don't understand the constitution much. The President is elected by a majority of the "Electoral College". And Congress is elected by the majority of the people in their individual states.

I'll trust my constitutional knowledge, but I appreciate your effort to misguide me. The electoral college doesn't represent a national majority in any sense. As the 2000 Presidential Election demonstrated, a President can be elected without receiving the majority of all votes cast in this country. Likewise, while the individual members of Congress are elected on a majoritarian basis in their districts and states, there is nothing in the Constitution to support the notion that Congress represents the will of a national majority.


And by the way, we are a Republic and not a Democracy. You might want to read up on that also.

Funny, I specifically referenced that fact in my post.

What I find particularly funny is that you throw around all of this nonsense about the majority somehow being imposed upon, but don't engage anyone who calls you on that nonsense. Why don't you answer my questions?

[sandman]

The laws, statutes and mandates that protect my religious liberties protect the religious liberties of others as well. That is simply the exchange rate that I will have to deal with. Doesn't mean I have to agree/accept/promote their ideals, but I can't take away their right without denying my own.

[Spurminator]

Downtown, I quit reading your post after the first paragraph, cuz I's don't understands your college-edumucated mumbo jumbo.

[Spurminator]

Schools shouldn't be used for religious recruitment OR as a forum for political activism. Both sides are equally wrong on this, it's just that one side is wrong on purpose.

[xrayzebra]

Well in the first place, the electoral college was established because of the
simple fact that the founding fathers didn't want the "popular" vote to elect a
President. Since large states could greatly influence the outcome of an
election for President. But the MAJORITY of the STATES do elect a President.
But you obviously don't want that pointed out to you.

And yes, the Congress is elected to represent their people back home. Of course
you wouldn't know that much anymore and even when they do, appointed, not
elected judges tend to put their own views out there as law. And impose their
will on people and our Congress hasn't got enough guts to get rid of them.

[Spurminator]

nm, misread

[ChumpDumper]

Why do you hate democracy?

[xrayzebra]

Nope.


Yep

[Spurminator]

Yep

See edit.

You said the majority of the states. I assume you mean majority WITHIN the states.

A President can win the election with less than a majority OF the states.

[sandman]

The electoral college doesn't represent a national majority in any sense.

The Electoral College was not designed to represent a national majority. Only on rare occasion though has the Electoral College differed from the national majority, including the last election.

[FromWayDowntown]

But the MAJORITY of the STATES do elect a President.
But you obviously don't want that pointed out to you.

Wrong. Try again. A President need not win a majority of the states to win election; such a candidate need only win a majority of the available electoral votes, which can be accomplished without winning the electoral votes of a majority of states.


The Electoral College was not designed to represent a national majority. Only on rare occasion though has the Electoral College differed from the national majority, including the last election.

True enough. But the point is that the majority of votes in a Presidential election doesn't necessarily decide the outcome. That, in turn, means to me that we don't elect our Presidents by majority vote, which in turn means to me that we decide very little in our nation based on the will of the majority. I agree with James Madison's notion that a government that does not act on the will of the majority is a good thing.

I'm not sure exactly what the point of all of this civics class discussion of the electoral college is, though. The fact that xray already acknowledged that the electoral college exists to elect a President without regard to the majority of the popular vote proves the only point that I was trying to make in pointing to Presidential elections, which is that the majority view of Americans doesn't necessarily determine who wins the Presidency.


And yes, the Congress is elected to represent their people back home. Of course you wouldn't know that much anymore and even when they do, appointed, not elected judges tend to put their own views out there as law. And impose their will on people and our Congress hasn't got enough guts to get rid of them.

Ah yes, the non-sequitur approach. Haven't seen that in a while.

[boutons_]

"The Electoral College was not designed to represent a national majority"

One of the sinister effects on non-proportionalality is that the clear minority party (eg, Dems in TX) is discouragd from voting at all because they know their votes are meaningless because the states electorlal votes will all go to the majority party. With the press and TV, every voter knows how is state has voted recently, by what %age, etc. "Why waste my time voting? It's pointeless, my state has voted/is polling +x% for the other party"

If all the individual votes counted at the national level, without the filtering/disenfranchisment through the electoral system, then perhaps more people would vote, know their votes really did count, instead of being disenfrahchised at the state level.

The Senate is also a non-porpotional system, where states with tiny populations have 2 Senators just like CA,TX, FL,NY,IL. With the current and probably future polarization, such disproportionality will continue to weight heavily on Senate votes. Tiny red westeren/mtn states have as much weight as as the huge blue coastal states. It was an honorable ojbective 200+ years ago to woo non-states to join the union with the promise their votes would be meaningul, but that demographic situation has long ceased.

[sandman]

I agree with James Madison's notion that a government that does not act on the will of the majority is a good thing.


Agreed. I was simply pointing out that the process was purposefully designed to avoid a "will of the majority", for which I am very thankful (see: France).

[sandman]

"The Electoral College was not designed to represent a national majority"

One of the sinister effects on non-proportionalality is that the clear minority party (eg, Dems in TX) is discouragd from voting at all because they know their votes are meaningless because the states electorlal votes will all go to the majority party. With the press and TV, every voter knows how is state has voted recently, by what %age, etc. "Why waste my time voting? It's pointeless, my state has voted/is polling +x% for the other party"

If all the individual votes counted at the national level, without the filtering/disenfranchisment through the electoral system, then perhaps more people would vote, know their votes really did count, instead of being disenfrahchised at the state level.

The Senate is also a non-porpotional system, where states with tiny populations have 2 Senators just like CA,TX, FL,NY,IL. With the current and probably future polarization, such disproportionality will continue to weight heavily on Senate votes. Tiny red westeren/mtn states have as much weight as as the huge blue coastal states. It was an honorable ojbective 200+ years ago to woo non-states to join the union with the promise their votes would be meaningul, but that demographic situation has long ceased.

I do not wish to put words in your mouth, nor ask a loaded, agenda-based question, so let me make this comment for discussion:

A true national majority vote would essentially give control of the country to whichever candidate could carry majorities in CA, NY, TX and FL, with possibly OH thrown in. IMO, that would place the rest of the nation in the same voter apathy as you described above for Texas Dems in the Electoral College.

I am not saying that the Electoral College is perfect, but neither is a simple national majority vote.

[boutons_]

"carry majorities in CA, NY, TX and FL"

NO! I said "national" counting for national office (president), not state counting.
Straight proporitional, tallied nationally.
What's the problem?

[sandman]

"carry majorities in CA, NY, TX and FL"

NO! I said "national" counting for national office (president), not state counting.
Straight proporitional, tallied nationally.
What's the problem?

OK, its really very simple. Of the total population of our country, a good percentage (not a majority, but a good percentage) of it resides in relatively few states - California, Texas, New York, Ohio and Florida. As a candidate, I could hypothetically win the majority if votes by a landslide and lose the remaining states, probably some by a large margin, and when all votes were tabulated at the national level, I would still have the majority of the national votes. I could blow off the New England states in my campaigning if I knew I could landslide my opponent in California, because the population of California severly trumps the population of New England.

The states that currently have a small number of Electoral votes will be virtually ignored by the candidates, because they know whatever popular votes they would lose in Nebraska they could more than make up for and then some with the popular votes they could gain in Florida.

While I do not have the time nor the inclination to do the math, I could make a reasonably accurate guestimation that were a candidate able to carry a realistic majority (say 60%) of the popular vote of the 5 highest populated states, they could lose that same 60% of all the other states and still receive the overall majority of popular votes. That would be a majority only in technicality, but not in representation.

Again, not saying the Electoral College is perfect, but a national majority vote is simply an alternative, but not a better alternative.

[FromWayDowntown]

Hmmmmm. Still nothing of substance from xray.

[Nbadan]

Again, not saying the Electoral College is perfect, but a national majority vote is simply an alternative, but not a better alternative.

I agree, but in special cases, like the 00' Presidential vote, where the popular vote and the electoral college were at odds, even discounting the shenanigans in Florida and Ohio, Al Gore still received 500,000 more votes, the will of a majority of the people must superceed the process. Too bad the Supreme Court didn't see it that way.

[AFE7FATMAN]

Hey X, you do know that "Christians" didn't really invent Christmas, and scholarly consensus is that Jesus wasn't born in December, don't you?

Don't be messing up this thread with a bunch of "so-called" facts :lol

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Hmmmmm. Still nothing of substance from xray.

Did you expect some?

[boutons_]

"I could blow off the New England states in my campaigning if I knew I could landslide my opponent in California"

That already happens. Ever hear about "swing states"? Because "safely" red or blue states, no matter what the size, were not in doubt, neither campaign wasted any $$$ or candidates' time campaigning in them. It's not "nice", but nobody's fighing it. Campaign resources go where, esp with modern technologocal support, they will have the most chance of swinging the election.

"(say 60%) of the popular vote of the 5 highest populated states"

Why do you keep talking about "states" in a "national" election? I say take the state consideration out of the national election, with a straight proportional vote, as exists in municipal, county, district, state elections.

The states exist only to to partition and localize administration. They were also given (non-proportional) inducements by 19th century federal lawmakers to get them to join the Union (500K people in Montana get 2 Senators, just like 36M people in CA). Historical anomalies that disenfranchisement voters in national elections.

The states should have nothing to say as a state in NATIONAL elections.
Each voter votes for his presidential candidate and each vote is counted at the national level. Straight proportionality works for every other level of government organization (nobody is trying to change that), so why not straight proportionality for national elections?

[101A]

...the will of a majority of the people must superceed the process. Too bad the Supreme Court didn't see it that way.


Ummm, Dan, the CONSTITUTION doesn't see it that way. Have you even read the thread, much less THE DOCUMENT OUR COUNTRY IS RUN UNDER? :dizzy

[101A]

"I could blow off the New England states in my campaigning if I knew I could landslide my opponent in California"

That already happens. Ever hear about "swing states"? Because "safely" red or blue states, no matter what the size, were not in doubt, neither campaign wasted any $$$ or candidates' time campaigning in them. It's not "nice", but nobody's fighing it. Campaign resources go where, esp with modern technologocal support, they will have the most chance of swinging the election.

"(say 60%) of the popular vote of the 5 highest populated states"

Why do you keep talking about "states" in a "national" election? I say take the state consideration out of the national election, with a straight proportional vote, as exists in municipal, county, district, state elections.

The states exist only to to partition and localize administration. They were also given (non-proportional) inducements by 19th century federal lawmakers to get them to join the Union (500K people in Montana get 2 Senators, just like 36M people in CA). Historical anomalies that disenfranchisement voters in national elections.

The states should have nothing to say as a state in NATIONAL elections.
Each voter votes for his presidential candidate and each vote is counted at the national level. Straight proportionality works for every other level of government organization (nobody is trying to change that), so why not straight proportionality for national elections?

This country is already centralized enough; your proposal would further erode what little independence the states have. "States" is in the name of our nation for a reason, B.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Personally I say we allow for candidates to win a proportion of electoral votes for every state. This does not benefit one party over the other and to me its fair. This way the GOP gets 40% of the electoral votes of California and the Dems get 40% of the electoral votes form Texas.. This is fair because in states like Texas and California votes of the minority party are useless and essentially not heard..

[Spurminator]

I agree, but in special cases, like the 00' Presidential vote, where the popular vote and the electoral college were at odds ... the will of a majority of the people must superceed the process.

So, the Electoral College should take precedent over the Popular Vote, unless the two are different, in which case we should go with the National Vote? :spin

Why note just say the National Vote is the best option?

[sandman]

I agree, but in special cases, like the 00' Presidential vote, where the popular vote and the electoral college were at odds, even discounting the shenanigans in Florida and Ohio, Al Gore still received 500,000 more votes, the will of a majority of the people must superceed the process. Too bad the Supreme Court didn't see it that way.

500K is 1/5 of 1% of the national population and represented 1/2 of 1% of the 111 million voters in the 2000 election.

According to the US Census Bureau, 86% of registered voters actually voted in the 2000 election.

If there were 100% voter turnout in 2000, that 500K margin would have only increased by 75K using the same ratios as above.

Essentially, the argument for a national majority vote based on the 2000 elections would be hinged on a voter base about the size of Austin. That is a very small variance to use the phrases "majority" and "will of the people" with any validity, IMO.

[xrayzebra]

Hmmmmm. Still nothing of substance from xray.

Had other things to take care. I don't spend my whole life on this board.

But it might good to point out the people that go to the electoral college
can vote for whoever they please, if I am not mistaken. They are not
obliged to vote for the majority of the voters in their state.

And I do stand corrected. I mis-spoken when I said the majority of the
states. Should I cut my throat now and bleed all over the computer.

[FromWayDowntown]

So, I guess what we've established then is that what the majority may want isn't decisive in matters of politics or public policy. As such, I still wonder why it is that the supposed minority who don't want government getting involved in religious matters should kowtow to the putative majority who apparently feel some need to have government validate their religious choices by amplifying those choices. Just a question.

[jochhejaam]

So, I guess what we've established then is that what the majority may want isn't decisive in matters of politics or public policy.

What is established is that in 99.9999 percent of elections, including National, State and Local elections and issues, the will of the majority is decisive.