Churches Not Allowed to Rent Public School Place, Unions Can

[East of Eden]

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/02/10/b ... or-unions/

This is rightly being challenged. How is this endorsement when the churches are renting the space? If 70 worship communities of different faiths and Christian denominations are renting space, which one is being established? Does the NYC school system have so much money they can't use extra?

Anybody want to defend this?

[dianaiad]

Now we have come full circle and you are arguing for what I was arguing in the beginning.

Extremism is a range, not a specific definition. (As I tried to tell you when I mentioned extreme sports).

I think you have finally agreed with me, but you are now using it as some support for your position.

I can't take this, Di, it's too crazy for me. Stop arguing for the sake of arguing!

First, arguing is arguing...for the sake of the point, not the sake of the argument, and
Second: my point is the same as it has always been. "Extreme" means EXTREME. That is, those points on the ends of the continuum beyond which one 'falls off.' The end points. You know, those bits at the end of a continuum, the insides of which are not 'extreme,' because there is a point beyond which one can go and still remain on that continuum?

extreme_______not extreme______middle_____not extreme_______extreme?


That point on the continuum of the color green where yellow is pretty much gone and the next step can only be blue, or on the other side where yellow is pretty much gone and the next step can only be red?

EXTREME?

Or to put it another way, (and please, let this get through...)_

[mrow]EXTREME ATHEISM [mcol] Atheist activist [mcol]Average atheist/theist [mcol]Theist Activist [mcol]EXTREME THEISM [row]Mao, Stalin, atheistic monomaniacal democidal murderers who wanted to remove theism and theists completely from the planet, figuring that theism and any religion would interfere with, and otherwise destroy, any hope of government, and willing to murder millions of people in order to accomplish this.....and those who think as they do; that religion/theism should be ended by any means necessary, by law, by violence and by force. [col]Atheists who generally don't give a hoot, except when they are confronted in any way by religious thought, and then advocate the control of religion through taxation or law in order to limit their exposure to it. These are they who figure that their freedom FROM religion trumps anybody else's freedom OF religion...or freedom of speech, assembly or anything else. However, they are fine with theists, as long as theists are not allowed to teach, be scientists, or raise children. However, they will also claim that they are NOT out to destroy freedom of religion; they cannot, after all, control what anybody THINKS...just what they do--nor are they out to kill anybody. [col]Atheist/theists who pretty much live their lives as if God either does not exist...or isn't looking. Either way, they don't care unless someone does something that interferes with THEIR lives, personal property, or ability to enjoy life--and don't think that some billboard, banner or even a knock on the door at a reasonable hour rises to that level of interference. [col]Theists who go to church, live according to their religions, even proselyte. They will actively seek to change laws to conform with their religious standards of morality. They will protest, advocate, display bumperstickers and figure that they have the right to teach their kids their faith. [col]Jihadists of any type, willing to murder other people in order to advance their specific religious cause.

DOES THAT GET THROUGH????
\
YOU are presenting anybody who actually believes that there is a God as 'EXTREME,'

....as if anybody who believes there is a God will OF COURSE be willing to kill, bomb, maim and murder at the drop of a whispered word.

Stop that.

[Ooberman]

I get what your argument is, I just think you are wrong. Extremists don't always kill. Sometimes they, like Pat Robertson, use the media to help damage.

I don't view the world in a black and white view that as long as people live, everything is fair game?

I think it's important we recognize Extreme Views that can lead to violence, or worse - decades or centuries of ignorance.

After all, the Koran isn't extreme - but it was written and used by extremists, just as Christianity was and is.

We still kill in the name of Christianity. The "narrative" of the Bush War is one of Christian vs. Muslim. Bush will be seen as an extremist if his reason for war had to do with Christianity.

We can cite all the media reports we want, but we can't know how history will be written, nor do you and I even know what truly led to war. We are the ignorant masses, despite our vast education in All Things Important.

However, more likely, it is to be said that Extremists can include non-killers.



BTW, I note your handy chart doesn't include people who kill because God commands... you only mention murder from Jihadists. Are they the only Extremists you can think of?

How about Samson? Saul? Jesus when he returns? God?

Then, how is it that a person with the exact same beliefs, but is more cowardly or smarter than a Bomber, isn't an extremist?

By their Acts? Not by their Faith (Belief)?

If a person truly believes people should die for offending some belief he has, is it only Jihadists? Or, is it society by voting for a death penalty? God himself? A man defending his home? Andrea Yates? A Christian soldier?

There is a company that makes assault rifles engraved with Bible passages. Christians are buying them to kill people.

Are they extremists because they are "defending the Christian Lifestyle"?


There is a WIDE gulf between your "Soccer Mom" and "Osama Bin Laden". There are extremists who don't kill people.


I think you know this.


Please let THIS get through.

[dianaiad]

I get what your argument is, I just think you are wrong. Extremists don't always kill. Sometimes they, like Pat Robertson, use the media to help damage.

Then they are not, by definition, EXTREMISTS, are they? But you are equating the Pat Robertsons...who do not kill, support killing or physical harm, or even forcing societal change at gunpoint, with those who do. Extreme is...extreme. If one doesn't hold that extreme (beyond which there really isn't a place to go) view, then one is not 'extreme,' is one?

Unless you agree with those theists who equate all 'strong' atheists and those who want to tax churches as holding the same extreme views as, oh, Pol Pot, Stalin, Jim Jones and other infamous atheists. Do you?

I don't view the world in a black and white view that as long as people live, everything is fair game?

Yes you do. That's the problem.
That is EXACTLY what you are doing. You are calling any theist who actually believes his doctrine 'extreme,' whether or not his views call for violence or force. That, sir, is the definition of 'black and white," as in....if you are a believing theist, you are holding an extreme view.

Can I say that anybody who has doubts about the existence of God is holding an extreme view, equal to those who actively killed theists because they didn't like theists? Or would you, quite rightly, call me on that?

I think it's important we recognize Extreme Views that can lead to violence, or worse - decades or centuries of ignorance.

Sure. However, simply believing that God exists isn't that.

After all, the Koran isn't extreme - but it was written and used by extremists, just as Christianity was and is.

I might quarrel with 'written by.." at least insofar as the bible is concerned, but 'used by?" certainly. It's also used by literature teachers, Quakers and Shakers (before they died out). Even you can't call THEM the sort of extremist that plants bombs anywhere. You really need to broaden your list of classifications.

We still kill in the name of Christianity. The "narrative" of the Bush War is one of Christian vs. Muslim. Bush will be seen as an extremist if his reason for war had to do with Christianity.

It didn't. His reason for war had to do with a little set of events on 9-11-01, combined with the USS Cole, and the first WTC bombing, and a few other events, not to mention the assinine situation we had going on with Iraq and Hussein. Very political, that one was/is. Religion played a part with the Muslims, but not so much with us, except when persecution of Christians entered into the event list.

We can cite all the media reports we want, but we can't know how history will be written, nor do you and I even know what truly led to war. We are the ignorant masses, despite our vast education in All Things Important.

However, more likely, it is to be said that Extremists can include non-killers.

No. They can't, because killing is one step more extreme than 'not killing.' By definition. To equate the two is to diminish the horror of those who murder, and to demonize folks who simply speak their minds without wishing, or intending, to use force/violence/murder to gain their ends. Shame on you for doing so.

BTW, I note your handy chart doesn't include people who kill because God commands... you only mention murder from Jihadists. Are they the only Extremists you can think of?

What the heck do you think a Jihadist is?

Someone who engages in 'Holy War." It is a handy term, I'll grant you, that is mostly used for Muslim extremists, because right now it is the Muslim extremists who are engaging in "holy war." However, "Holy Warrior" is "Jihadist" in Arabic, just as "God" is "Allah" in Arabic. Arabic Christians ALSO call God "Allah."

How about Samson? Saul? Jesus when he returns? God?

You honestly do not see the difference between people killing others in the name of their God....and God Himself doing so? Odd.

Then, how is it that a person with the exact same beliefs, but is more cowardly or smarter than a Bomber, isn't an extremist?

Because he doesn't kill people, or advocate killing people?

By their Acts? Not by their Faith (Belief)?[/quote}

You show me your faith without works, and I'll show you my faith by my works.

"Faith" is ACTION, not belief. Faith is behaving as if what you believe to be true is true. If someone honestly believes that God wants him to kill others, then if he has 'faith,' he'll kill people. Those who honestly believe that God does not want them to kill people, but rather to 'spread the word" through less than fatal means, are also showing faith---and they are NOT holding the same extreme positions that you claim they are.

If a person truly believes people should die for offending some belief he has, is it only Jihadists? Or, is it society by voting for a death penalty? God himself? A man defending his home? Andrea Yates? A Christian soldier?

Reorganize the list. You figure it out by acts. Those who kill (or support those who do) are extremists. Those who don't, aren't. Simple.

There is a company that makes assault rifles engraved with Bible passages. Christians are buying them to kill people.

Really? Care to list a few murders committed by Christians who have purchased these 'assault rifles" for the purpose of premeditated murder?

Are they extremists because they are "defending the Christian Lifestyle"?

Depends on how they do it.

If they only use such a rifle to shoot the guy about to rape someone, or who has broken into their homes intent on mayhem, does the presence of the bible verse mean that they are suddenly extremists?

There is a WIDE gulf between your "Soccer Mom" and "Osama Bin Laden".

There is indeed. The problem is, I know this. You seem to be lumping them in both together under 'extremist.'


And that's my problem with your classification system.

However, I'll let you get away with it, as long as I can lump YOU in with Stalin.

Deal?

[Ooberman]

Di, you are all over the place. Please organize your thoughts.


On one hand you say Extremists are those who kill.

Then you say I'm too rigid because I include people who don't just kill, but damage society and others because of their beliefs.

You ignore all the references.

Let's use your definition:

"Those who kill (or support those who do) are extremists. Those who don't, aren't. Simple. "


So:

1. Those who join the army?
2. Those who approve of the death penalty?
3. Those who restrict condoms in Africa?
4. Those who restrict science research that could lead to stopping people from dying?
5. Those who vote for hawkish politicians?

"Those who kill (or support those who do) are extremists. Those who don't, aren't. Simple. "

Your words, right?






BTW, the guns:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-milita ... YnOaLVwqSo

[dianaiad]

Di, you are all over the place. Please organize your thoughts.


On one hand you say Extremists are those who kill.

Then you say I'm too rigid because I include people who don't just kill, but damage society and others because of their beliefs.

You ignore all the references.

Let's use your definition:

"Those who kill (or support those who do) are extremists. Those who don't, aren't. Simple. "


So:

1. Those who join the army?
2. Those who approve of the death penalty?
3. Those who restrict condoms in Africa?
4. Those who restrict science research that could lead to stopping people from dying?
5. Those who vote for hawkish politicians?

"Those who kill (or support those who do) are extremists. Those who don't, aren't. Simple. "

Your words, right?

Context, m'friend, context. I thought we were talking only about religious opinions? Your contention is that anybody who goes to church because s/he believes in the doctrine taught there is an extremist.

I am simply pointing out that every single theist who goes to church would fall into that category in some measure, and that would mean that theism, to you, is an extreme view. That's....to put it as kindly as possible, a ludicrous position to take.

On the continuum of 'harm to others as a result of opinions regarding religion," you have just lumped everybody on the side of 'there's a god' in the extreme end. Hardly helpful.

As for those other questions....how many people who join the army do so for religious reasons? How many people who vote for the death penalty do so because their church mandates it? How many people who vote 'hawk" do so because of religion? I know quite a few 'hawkish' atheists, btw....does that make THEM religious extremists?

I also know more than a few theists who are dead set against the death penalty. Does that remove them from the 'extreme' view, in your opinion, or does their simple belief in deity and enjoyment of meetings with others who share their beliefs put them there no matter what they think about violence?

You are making absolutely no logical sense, in your argument that everybody on the theist end of this spectrum is extremist. For one thing, that leaves everybody on the non-theist end extremist as well....and isn't that exactly the black and white notion that you claim to be arguing against?

BTW, the guns:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-milita ... YnOaLVwqSo

Hmnn. that story does not say what you claimed it said, earlier, that "Christians were buying them to kill people." Your implication was that a bunch of Christians were seeking these guns (they are not guns, but rifle sites) out specifically to 'kill people.' In reality, this company has been putting the biblical references on the rifle sites from the beginning, the government wasn't paying attention when they gave this company a very large contract for the sites, and they are going onto military rifles....USED BY SOLDIERS IN THE MILITARY...who have no choice about whether their sites have those verses or not.

While I agree that this is a rather remarkable example of stupidity, (and even I can see that it is a violation of church and state that is truly gasp-worthy) it's not what you imply, that a bunch of extremist Christian jihadists are deliberately choosing the rifles with the verses so that they can go out and murder folks.

It is an illustration, however, of your own paranoid, darned-near extremist views.('darned-near,' because I haven't seen any evidence of your willingness to 'off' the theists to get 'em out of your atheist hair).

[Ooberman]

Di, you are all over the place. Please organize your thoughts.


On one hand you say Extremists are those who kill.

Then you say I'm too rigid because I include people who don't just kill, but damage society and others because of their beliefs.

You ignore all the references.

Let's use your definition:

"Those who kill (or support those who do) are extremists. Those who don't, aren't. Simple. "


So:

1. Those who join the army?
2. Those who approve of the death penalty?
3. Those who restrict condoms in Africa?
4. Those who restrict science research that could lead to stopping people from dying?
5. Those who vote for hawkish politicians?

"Those who kill (or support those who do) are extremists. Those who don't, aren't. Simple. "

Your words, right?

Context, m'friend, context. I thought we were talking only about religious opinions? Your contention is that anybody who goes to church because s/he believes in the doctrine taught there is an extremist.

You were the one who posted your limited description of "extremist".

My contention, which was a general passing comment that has turned into a ridiculous legal battle, it seems, is that of the 100% of people who go to church regularly, there is a certain percentage that believes the whole story, top to bottom, thick and thin. These are a very rare group, and probably represent about 20% of any group (there are probably about 20% of atheists who are rare, too).

Of those 20% there are a few that are vocal and adamant about not only having their beliefs but acting on them and getting others to act on them.

Since the church-going population is quite small already, picking out the 20% makes it a slim minority. (I think only about 20% of people go to church regularly, but let's say it's 40%).

So 40% of the American public, then take out 20%, then look at the last 1-5% who would be on the fringe.

They are the extreme. Then there are a few who kill abortion doctors, etc., who are not a group but disturbed individuals, mostly.

The harm is done, a la Sam Harris, by the mainstream who feed the passions of the nutters.

I am simply pointing out that every single theist who goes to church would fall into that category in some measure, and that would mean that theism, to you, is an extreme view. That's....to put it as kindly as possible, a ludicrous position to take.

Obviously you don't understand my position.

On the continuum of 'harm to others as a result of opinions regarding religion," you have just lumped everybody on the side of 'there's a god' in the extreme end. Hardly helpful.

If you understood my position, it would be helpful.

As for those other questions....how many people who join the army do so for religious reasons?

I don't know, but they are extremists to me.

How many people who vote for the death penalty do so because their church mandates it?
How many people who vote 'hawk" do so because of religion? I know quite a few 'hawkish' atheists, btw....does that make THEM religious extremists?

So NOW you are counting heads to determine what an extremist is?

Di, you are really all over the place! By your definition, anyone who kills for their position is an extremist, then you said it's a small percentage...


So, now because it's a small percentage that may kill for their beliefs, we aren't supposed to talk about it?

What the hell are you trying to do?

I also know more than a few theists who are dead set against the death penalty.

That's nice.

Does that remove them from the 'extreme' view, in your opinion, or does their simple belief in deity and enjoyment of meetings with others who share their beliefs put them there no matter what they think about violence?

Please try to understand my position. It's very clear and simple.

You are making absolutely no logical sense, in your argument that everybody on the theist end of this spectrum is extremist. For one thing, that leaves everybody on the non-theist end extremist as well....and isn't that exactly the black and white notion that you claim to be arguing against?

BTW, the guns:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-milita ... YnOaLVwqSo

Hmnn. that story does not say what you claimed it said, earlier, that "Christians were buying them to kill people." Your implication was that a bunch of Christians were seeking these guns (they are not guns, but rifle sites) out specifically to 'kill people.' In reality, this company has been putting the biblical references on the rifle sites from the beginning, the government wasn't paying attention when they gave this company a very large contract for the sites, and they are going onto military rifles....USED BY SOLDIERS IN THE MILITARY...who have no choice about whether their sites have those verses or not.

While I agree that this is a rather remarkable example of stupidity, (and even I can see that it is a violation of church and state that is truly gasp-worthy) it's not what you imply, that a bunch of extremist Christian jihadists are deliberately choosing the rifles with the verses so that they can go out and murder folks.

It is an illustration, however, of your own paranoid, darned-near extremist views.('darned-near,' because I haven't seen any evidence of your willingness to 'off' the theists to get 'em out of your atheist hair).

I'm afraid the energy from your dowsing rods is hindering your comprehension abilities.



(BTW, the guns: Christians were making the sights and selling them - knowing they'd be used to kill other human beings. Many people were buying them with the knowledge they had Bible verses on them. Don't try to minimize this. These are extremists and you are trying to cover for them. Don't.

Be critical of people in your fold that deserve to be criticized. Just because they are Christian doens't mean you need to rush to their defense.













Also, you said "You are making absolutely no logical sense, in your argument that everybody on the theist end of this spectrum is extremist."


This is clearly not my position. It shows you haven't been paying attention.



BTW, here is a question raised and answered about Muslims:

What is the percentage of Muslim moderates and extremists in Islam?

Answer:
There are 1.3 billion Muslims all over the world.
Approximately 6% are extremists, Because they strictly follow their holy scripture.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_p ... s_in_Islam

I don't know if the numbers are true, but this person seems to understand perfectly well that it's not 6% because they are killing people.


Just admit you are wrong, Di.


Let's talk about something more enlightening.

[East of Eden]

Di, you are all over the place. Please organize your thoughts.


On one hand you say Extremists are those who kill.

Then you say I'm too rigid because I include people who don't just kill, but damage society and others because of their beliefs.

You ignore all the references.

Let's use your definition:

"Those who kill (or support those who do) are extremists. Those who don't, aren't. Simple. "


So:

1. Those who join the army?
2. Those who approve of the death penalty?
3. Those who restrict condoms in Africa?
4. Those who restrict science research that could lead to stopping people from dying?
5. Those who vote for hawkish politicians?

"Those who kill (or support those who do) are extremists. Those who don't, aren't. Simple. "

Your words, right?

Context, m'friend, context. I thought we were talking only about religious opinions? Your contention is that anybody who goes to church because s/he believes in the doctrine taught there is an extremist.

You were the one who posted your limited description of "extremist".

My contention, which was a general passing comment that has turned into a ridiculous legal battle, it seems, is that of the 100% of people who go to church regularly, there is a certain percentage that believes the whole story, top to bottom, thick and thin. These are a very rare group, and probably represent about 20% of any group (there are probably about 20% of atheists who are rare, too).

Of those 20% there are a few that are vocal and adamant about not only having their beliefs but acting on them and getting others to act on them.

Since the church-going population is quite small already, picking out the 20% makes it a slim minority. (I think only about 20% of people go to church regularly, but let's say it's 40%).

So 40% of the American public, then take out 20%, then look at the last 1-5% who would be on the fringe.

They are the extreme. Then there are a few who kill abortion doctors, etc., who are not a group but disturbed individuals, mostly.

The harm is done, a la Sam Harris, by the mainstream who feed the passions of the nutters.

I am simply pointing out that every single theist who goes to church would fall into that category in some measure, and that would mean that theism, to you, is an extreme view. That's....to put it as kindly as possible, a ludicrous position to take.

Obviously you don't understand my position.

On the continuum of 'harm to others as a result of opinions regarding religion," you have just lumped everybody on the side of 'there's a god' in the extreme end. Hardly helpful.

If you understood my position, it would be helpful.

As for those other questions....how many people who join the army do so for religious reasons?

I don't know, but they are extremists to me.

How many people who vote for the death penalty do so because their church mandates it?
How many people who vote 'hawk" do so because of religion? I know quite a few 'hawkish' atheists, btw....does that make THEM religious extremists?

So NOW you are counting heads to determine what an extremist is?

Di, you are really all over the place! By your definition, anyone who kills for their position is an extremist, then you said it's a small percentage...


So, now because it's a small percentage that may kill for their beliefs, we aren't supposed to talk about it?

What the hell are you trying to do?

I also know more than a few theists who are dead set against the death penalty.

That's nice.

Does that remove them from the 'extreme' view, in your opinion, or does their simple belief in deity and enjoyment of meetings with others who share their beliefs put them there no matter what they think about violence?

Please try to understand my position. It's very clear and simple.

You are making absolutely no logical sense, in your argument that everybody on the theist end of this spectrum is extremist. For one thing, that leaves everybody on the non-theist end extremist as well....and isn't that exactly the black and white notion that you claim to be arguing against?

BTW, the guns:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-milita ... YnOaLVwqSo

Hmnn. that story does not say what you claimed it said, earlier, that "Christians were buying them to kill people." Your implication was that a bunch of Christians were seeking these guns (they are not guns, but rifle sites) out specifically to 'kill people.' In reality, this company has been putting the biblical references on the rifle sites from the beginning, the government wasn't paying attention when they gave this company a very large contract for the sites, and they are going onto military rifles....USED BY SOLDIERS IN THE MILITARY...who have no choice about whether their sites have those verses or not.

While I agree that this is a rather remarkable example of stupidity, (and even I can see that it is a violation of church and state that is truly gasp-worthy) it's not what you imply, that a bunch of extremist Christian jihadists are deliberately choosing the rifles with the verses so that they can go out and murder folks.

It is an illustration, however, of your own paranoid, darned-near extremist views.('darned-near,' because I haven't seen any evidence of your willingness to 'off' the theists to get 'em out of your atheist hair).

I'm afraid the energy from your dowsing rods is hindering your comprehension abilities.



(BTW, the guns: Christians were making the sights and selling them - knowing they'd be used to kill other human beings. Many people were buying them with the knowledge they had Bible verses on them. Don't try to minimize this. These are extremists and you are trying to cover for them. Don't.

Be critical of people in your fold that deserve to be criticized. Just because they are Christian doens't mean you need to rush to their defense.













Also, you said "You are making absolutely no logical sense, in your argument that everybody on the theist end of this spectrum is extremist."


This is clearly not my position. It shows you haven't been paying attention.



BTW, here is a question raised and answered about Muslims:

What is the percentage of Muslim moderates and extremists in Islam?

Answer:
There are 1.3 billion Muslims all over the world.
Approximately 6% are extremists, Because they strictly follow their holy scripture.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_p ... s_in_Islam

I don't know if the numbers are true, but this person seems to understand perfectly well that it's not 6% because they are killing people.


Just admit you are wrong, Di.


Let's talk about something more enlightening.

In many places there are a lot more than 6% of Muslims who hold extreme views.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages ... -polls.htm