From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest)
To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org
Subject: loud-fans-digest V1 #129
Reply-To: loud-fans@smoe.org
Sender: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org
Errors-To: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org
Precedence: bulk


loud-fans-digest         Sunday, June 17 2001         Volume 01 : Number 129



                               Today's Subjects:
                               -----------------
  Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...)  [JRT]
  [loud-fans] re: Oleanna               ["Brian Block" <bokonin@hotmail.com>]
  Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...)  [ste]
  Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...)  [Jef]
  Re: [loud-fans] Tape swap: George Mastialir's cd  [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffr]
  Re: [loud-fans] Tape swap: George Mastialir's cd  [Roger Winston <rwinston]
  Re: [loud-fans] aube vs reed vs ? rou n d two (+ awful attemptatOTing)  ["]
  Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here  either...)  [Mi]
  [loud-fans] Re: Funny Snarling Clowns (swap review)  [jenny grover <sleeve]
  Re: [loud-fans] aube vs reed vs ? rou n d two (+ awful  attemptatOTing)  []
  Re: [loud-fans] aube vs reed vs ? rou n d two (+ awfulattemptatOTing)  [je]
  [loud-fans] mc call's               [jenny grover <sleeveless@citynet.net>]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 21:25:43 EDT
From: JRT456@aol.com
Subject: Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...)

In a message dated 6/16/01 5:27:47 PM, steveschiavo@mac.com writes
all kinds of things that I'll try to breeze through here:

<< I guess you've thought of the continual shitstorm that would result if the 
various religious groups begin to struggle for dominance in our public 
institutions?>>

Sure. I don't want some Wiccan douchebag teaching my kid the wonders of a 
religion which has all the proud heritage of Scientology. Did you miss the 
part where I said the Ten Commandments shouldn't be posted in classrooms?

<<Would you please name some of these organizations [operating from 
classrooms for immediate access to students].>>

I already did. PETA loves to talk about how they introduce "humane education" 
into classrooms. And here's a URL for those folks who think I must be making 
this all up: http://www.petrescueonline.org/newsinfo/petaeu2.htm. There's 
plenty more examples of infiltration, including a public-school program out 
West where students take a class trip to a forest where guides invoke Wiccan 
principles and have a wizard explaining some questionable theories about the 
Earth. Want to know more? Go to your own search engines.

<<The big concern is that young children are unable to make the distinction 
between the school and outside organizations.  This is exacerbated if, like 
in the case of the Good News Club, the adult sponsor of the organization is 
an employee of the school.>>

I think we agree on this. Adult sponsors for "humane education" shouldn't be 
an employee of the school. Write PETA an angry letter.

<<Where are there PETA materials in the schools?  Are they making 
presentations during school hours?  Maybe you're making the argument that 
outside organizations should not be allowed into public schools.>>

Yes, yes, and depends on the organization.

<<According to the Supreme Court, private organizations have the right to 
discriminate against certain classes of people.  What the amendment that 
Helms sponsored does is threaten school districts that don't want to be 
associated with such organizations.  In effect, the US Senate just 
endorsed bigotry and discrimination.>>

The Boy Scouts do not practice bigotry. They practice discrimination, and 
more power to them. It's a great American privilege. I'll even go so far as 
to celebrate the right of Manhattan's lesbian sex clubs to discriminate 
against me coming inside to take a look at the action.

<<Just like the gay activist, it is common for Christian groups to demand 
that their doctrines be taught in public schools.  Both are wrong. Parents 
ought to have a reasonable expectation that their children go to public 
school to be educated, not indoctrinated.>> 

Again, we're in agreement--if not about how common it is for Christian groups 
to push their doctrine, then at least about the reasonable expectations of 
parents.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 01:56:03 
From: "Brian Block" <bokonin@hotmail.com>
Subject: [loud-fans] re: Oleanna

Admittedly i've never seen OLEANNA, but i'm a little puzzled by an 
assumption behind, for example, Glen Sarvad's post:

"Sorry, David.  My wife and I saw Oleanna in NYC circa 1989 (Rebecca Pidgeon
had cycled off by then) and both left with the strong reaction that the deck
was stacked against the woman.  The really interesting thing was, we both
agreed that Mamet didn't appear to do this intentionally.  As for Mamet's
claim, I recall that the (admittedly knee-jerk) Village Voice was all over
the misogny of the play..... I believe the script was slanted, and there's a
reasonable number of people that agree with me."

Question: How on earth is that a problem? As i'm understanding it, the 
female character in the play falsified a charge of rape (i think? some sort 
of sexual abuse). This is not an absurd, beyond belief scenario -- i have no 
idea how common it is, but it certainly happens at all, and i don't see any 
reason to think Warren Farrell is lying when he reports on personally 
attending a legal seminar in which women contemplating divorce were 
encouraged to invent rape charges for tactical advantage. Hopefully that's 
rare, but here: _this character_, in this play, falsifies a rape scenario, 
potentially ruining the person she charges. If the script is "slanted" 
against her, why shouldn't it be?

The script of THE STRANGER BESIDE ME is slanted against Ted Bundy, the 
script of THE DARK CRYSTAL makes the Skeksis look bad, the script of MYSTERY 
MEN makes you root for Casanova Frankenstein to be slapped or much worse. 
We're supposed to want to see executives and stockholders punished or 
perhaps jailed in A CIVIL ACTION. How come this is suddenly unfair in 
OLEANNA?

curiously, -Brian
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 22:55:01 -0500
From: steve <steveschiavo@mac.com>
Subject: Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...)

On Saturday, June 16, 2001, at 08:25 PM, JRT456@aol.com wrote:

> << I guess you've thought of the continual shitstorm that would result if 
> the
> various religious groups begin to struggle for dominance in our public
> institutions?>>
>
> Sure. I don't want some Wiccan douchebag teaching my kid the wonders of a
> religion which has all the proud heritage of Scientology. Did you miss the
> part where I said the Ten Commandments shouldn't be posted in classrooms?

So your argument is that there is no valid Constitutional basis for the 
separation of church and state but it's a good idea anyway?  If I'm 
reading this right, good luck converting even a handful of your fellow 
conservatives.

When I tote it up, I can't think a religion that has a proud heritage.

> <<Would you please name some of these organizations [operating from
> classrooms for immediate access to students].>>
>
> I already did. PETA loves to talk about how they introduce "humane 
> education"
> into classrooms. And here's a URL for those folks who think I must be 
> making
> this all up: http://www.petrescueonline.org/newsinfo/petaeu2.htm. There's
> plenty more examples of infiltration, including a public-school program 
> out
> West where students take a class trip to a forest where guides invoke 
> Wiccan
> principles and have a wizard explaining some questionable theories about 
> the
> Earth. Want to know more? Go to your own search engines.

The above link is about animal rescue activities that are probably not too 
controversial.  I did find PETA's Teacher Network page.

My position would be that it is unethical for public school teachers to 
advocate any particular belief system during class time.

> <<The big concern is that young children are unable to make the 
> distinction
> between the school and outside organizations.  This is exacerbated if, 
> like
> in the case of the Good News Club, the adult sponsor of the organization 
> is
> an employee of the school.>>
>
> I think we agree on this. Adult sponsors for "humane education" shouldn't 
> be
> an employee of the school. Write PETA an angry letter.

I think it's extreme, and almost certainly illegal, to not allow school 
employees to be involved in advocacy groups that meet after school hours.  
I do think they should be required to make it absolutely clear that they 
are acting in an unofficial capacity.

> <<Where are there PETA materials in the schools?  Are they making
> presentations during school hours?  Maybe you're making the argument that
> outside organizations should not be allowed into public schools.>>
>
> Yes, yes, and depends on the organization.

OK, what types of groups should not be allowed?

> <<According to the Supreme Court, private organizations have the right to
> discriminate against certain classes of people.  What the amendment that
> Helms sponsored does is threaten school districts that don't want to be
> associated with such organizations.  In effect, the US Senate just
> endorsed bigotry and discrimination.>>
>
> The Boy Scouts do not practice bigotry. They practice discrimination, and
> more power to them. It's a great American privilege. I'll even go so far 
> as
> to celebrate the right of Manhattan's lesbian sex clubs to discriminate
> against me coming inside to take a look at the action.

The Boy Scout national headquarters is about a 30 minute drive from where 
I sit.  I bet you a dollar that if the place were to catch fire a bunch of 
bigots would run out.  They're secretive, and don't speak directly to the 
public, but I think some good investigative reporting would find that the 
leadership is in tight with the religious right.  Just a hunch.

And I saw a few obviously bigoted troop leaders on TV, back when the the 
SC decision was in the news.  You know how the media is, they showed an 
equal number of troop leaders that were unhappy with the decision.

> <<Just like the gay activist, it is common for Christian groups to demand
> that their doctrines be taught in public schools.  Both are wrong. Parents
> ought to have a reasonable expectation that their children go to public
> school to be educated, not indoctrinated.>>
>
> Again, we're in agreement--if not about how common it is for Christian 
> groups
> to push their doctrine, then at least about the reasonable expectations of
> parents.

You're forgetting Scientific Creationism, which seems to have recently 
morphed into Intelligent Design Theory.  Not to mention the school prayer 
movement, which is simply waiting for two more votes on the Supreme Court.
   Didn't you hear the collective howl that went up when Jeffords jumped 
ship?  Maybe NYC is too far away.  The Culture War continues.


- - Steve

__________
The president believes that it's an American way of life, and that it 
should be the goal of policymakers to protect the American way of life, 
the American way of life is a blessed one. - Ari Fleischer, when asked if 
Americans should use less energy

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 23:55:16 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey <jenor@csd.uwm.edu>
Subject: Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...)

On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 Cardinal007@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 6/16/01 4:27:55 PM, jontv@ksu.edu writes:
> 
> >As a test case, what if there were a predominance of 7th-Day Adventists
> >in a 
> >school district, and they objected to the dispensation of medicine on school
> >grounds.  Would anybody seriously believe that their narrow, fanatical
> >religious beliefs should apply to all children?  That's similar to how
> >I see 
> >the condom debate.

> I agree, Jon.   But dispensation of that medicine would be an "imprimatur of 
> approval"  of the view that those 7thDayAdventists were "narrow" and 
> "fanatical," and ultimately full of manure, wouldn't it?  It would certainly 
> be a state rejection of their views.....

No: failing to follow a particular religion's doctrine is not a state
rejection of its views - otherwise, the state would be forced to fulfill
every religion's doctrines (as if this were possible). The state is simply
refusing to endorse the 7th Day Adventists' *religious* beliefs (in
accordance with the First Amendment) about medicine - but in providing
medicine, they are not *enacting* any religious beliefs, they are simply
acting in accordance with near-universally accepted *medical* practice. 

If I started a religion that believed all education, other than reading
children the Bible, is an abomination, surely you wouldn't claim that
public schools, in continuing to operate, are thereby favoring one
religion over my new one, would you?

Elsewhere, Steve wrote: "My position would be that it is unethical for
public school teachers to advocate any particular belief system during
class time." This sounds reasonable in theory - except that it's all but
impossible to speak, or to choose to say one thing rather than another,
without revealing something about one's belief system. (Unless by "belief
system" you were specifically referring to religious beliefs - then I
guess it's possible.)

I'd also disagree with Steve's statement that no religion has a "proud
heritage." Of course, being run by fallible humans, any religion will have
its sordid episodes. But that doesn't devalue the positive aspects of a
religion - if it did, *no* belief system (and here I refer not only to
religious belief systems) could have a "proud heritage," since no belief
system has ever led solely to good. 

If we want to come back to the original question, I'd say this: No
religious group should be allowed to use school grounds during school
hours or during any school function. A function becomes a "school
function" if some certain percentage of the function's leaders are school
faculty, or if there is otherwise a clear connection to the school (i.e.,
football or band practice, etc.). Otherwise, any group can meet on school
grounds, outside of school hours (with a buffer period), so long as that
group's meetings are not advertised or promoted within the school. (Not as
sure about this last point, btw...) 

So Flies for Jesus (*) can meet on school grounds, say, after 5pm - but
only if most of the group's leaders are not teachers at that school, and
only if their meetings are not promoted at the school.

- --Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey

J e f f r e y   N o r m a n
The Architectural Dance Society
www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html
::a squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous...got me?
__Captain Beefheart__

(*) A hypothetical group, inspired by the rather odd item I saw for sale
in a family-owned restaurant today: a home-made flyswatter, made of those
plastic, macrame-like beads and spelling out JESUS SAVES. Good to know
that sinful flies are being offered such a last-ditch opportunity for
salvation.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 00:08:08 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey <jenor@csd.uwm.edu>
Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Tape swap: George Mastialir's cd

On Sun, 17 Jun 2001, md.robbins wrote:

> Fireflies' and the neat jazz Baroquialisms of Jimmy Little's 'Cattle and
> Cane.'

Is that a cover of the Go-Betweens' song? If so, where's it from?

- --Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey, too lazy to do his own damned research.

J e f f r e y   N o r m a n
The Architectural Dance Society
www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html
::"Shut up, you truculent lout, and let the cute little pixie sing!"::

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 23:21:53 -0600
From: Roger Winston <rwinston@tde.com>
Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Tape swap: George Mastialir's cd

At Sunday 6/17/2001 12:08 AM -0500, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote:
>On Sun, 17 Jun 2001, md.robbins wrote:
>
> > Fireflies' and the neat jazz Baroquialisms of Jimmy Little's 'Cattle and
> > Cane.'
>
>Is that a cover of the Go-Betweens' song? If so, where's it from?

According to CDNow, it appears to be from an import CD called MESSENGER 
($20.49).  Looks like Jimmy Little is an Australian artist, like the 
Go-Betweens.  Since the same CD also contains a song called "Under the 
Milky Way", which I'm guessing is a cover of the Church (another Australian 
band) song - chances are good that "Cattle & Cain" is a Go-Betweens cover.

But I could be wrong.

Sorry if the application of Logic offends...

>--Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey, too lazy to do his own damned research.

Damn you!  Damn you and your lazy damn non-researching ass!  And your fedora.

Later.   --Rog

- -- When toads are not enough: http://www.reignoffrogs.com

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 01:58:02 -0400
From: "John Sharples" <jsharple@bls.brooklaw.edu>
Subject: Re: [loud-fans] aube vs reed vs ? rou n d two (+ awful attemptatOTing)

C7:

>Query: Why do some people attack intertwining of church and state(such as
>allowing church groups) on the basis of the intertwining creating an
>imprimatur of state approval of religion, while they decry an argument that
>distributing condoms and realistically discussing teen sexuality creates an
>imprimatur of state approval of the current brand of teen sexuality?

Easy.

The government has a compelling public policy (health) imperative to
distribute sex information and condoms: to inhibit STD's and unwanted
teen pregnancies.

The government has no such compelling duty to provide a publically-financed-
and -endorsed forum to promote one particular religion.

Nowhere does the Constitution say that the government may not enact a public
policy simply because it disagrees with a tenet of one of the many religions
which practice within U.S. borders (as JeFF reasoned, and well).  The
Mormons say we should have poligamy, yet the law may Constitutionally forbid
it.  Do ya get it?  Do ya
follow?

The Constitution DOES, on the other hand, say that the government may NOT
favor one religion over another, or over NO religion, which is precisely
what Clarence Thomas' public school access rule now permits.

The spread of STD's and unwanted teen pregnancies impacts MY wallet (whether
I'm an involved party or not) in a major fuckin' way, Bucko.  I'm here to
say that the Non-establishment Clause clears a wide road for my elected
officials to
enact laws which might help inhibit the spread of those menaces, free from
the faith-based objections you pose, above.

The way you pose the question itself reveals the fault in your reasoning.
The Sharples Church of the Holy Agnostic Goat says there must be universal
condom
distribution and pre-14 sex education.  If my local state government decides
otherwise, do I now have a First Amendment cause of action against it,
simply because it differs from my view?

Of course not.

JS

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 02:06:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Mitton <mlmitton@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>
Subject: Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here  either...)

Liking this discussion so far, so to chime in:

On Sat, 16 Jun 2001, steve wrote:
> My position would be that it is unethical for public school teachers to 
> advocate any particular belief system during class time.

It seems to me, though, that there is no such thing as value-free
education, and therefore teachers are always advocating beliefs.  There
are more obvious cases, like the biology teacher who explains--which is to
say, justifies--why husbands cheat on their wives (male evolutionary
response), the global issues teacher who explains that it's an economic
law that higher population growth will lower standards of living and India
will always be poor until they control population, the government teacher
who expalins that Libertarians are upper-class spoiled brats who would
know their politics are ludicrous if they were anything but upper-class
spoiled brats, and the physics teacher who spends twice the time
explaining how "radio-halo" dating works that he spent on carbon-dating,
noting at the end that according to radio-halo dating, the earth is 6000
years old.  (All examples taken from my public school education, thousands
more available upon request.)

If the comment is particularly directed at religious beliefs, then I guess
I have two questions.  First, why should religious beliefs be treated so
differently than so many other beliefs about which "reasonable" people may
disagree? (Quotes around "reasonable" to deflect discussion away from what
that word might mean.)  

Second, exactly what religious beliefs are we
talking about?  Is it just ontological statements about unobservable
beings?  Can we discuss Jesus as a historical figure?  Can we talk about
miracles, or just parables?  Can they teach the ethics underlying the
parables?  Can they teach the ethics and skip the parables?  Which ethics?
My point of course, is that religions teach lots of things, some of which
I hope a teacher would teach my children (Thou Shalt Not Kill) and some of
which I hope they wouldn't (Jesus is the Christ), so where is the
distinction?

> public, but I think some good investigative reporting would find that the 
> leadership is in tight with the religious right.  Just a hunch.

It wouldn't take much investigative work.  The biggest supporter of Boy
Scouts is the LDS church--all Mormon boys are in Scouts.

- --Michael

"I said my one man band is over.  I hit the drum for the final time and I
walked away."

http://www.filmatters.com

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 02:13:27 -0400
From: jenny grover <sleeveless@citynet.net>
Subject: [loud-fans] Re: Funny Snarling Clowns (swap review)

Thanks, Brian, for the belated info and webpage links.

> >2- Stratotanker- Armour of Gusto- 
> Cleveland-area band, stylishly sloppy. 

What year, or general time period, is this from?  They're not a name I
heard kicked around when I lived in NE OH, but that's been a while now.

> >7- Chevy Heston- Baby You're a Rich Freak- 
> on the other hand it's nice to have 1:28
> songs to serve as transitions or space fillers on mixes.

I'm sure they'd be so flattered to hear this.
 
> >11- Super Junky Monkey- See Me Feel Me- 

What album is this off (if it is indeed off an album)?
 
> >18- Thought Industry- Soot on the Radio- Nothing like being lulled and
> >then yelled at!  repeatedly.
> 
> I'm guessing Jenny didn't like this one.

I didn't say that.  In fact, if I had disliked it, I would have said
so.  I thought it was okay, but not a stand-out.

> >22- Carter USM- The Only Looney Left in Town-  The song from which the
> >mix tape name comes.  Almost Magazine in overall feel, but drags on just
> >a little long at the end.  I didn't much like this at first, but it's
> >growing on me.
> 
> Magazine, huh? Perhaps i should check them out?

If you truly haven't yet, then yes, you should.

Jen

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 02:15:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Mitton <mlmitton@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>
Subject: Re: [loud-fans] aube vs reed vs ? rou n d two (+ awful  attemptatOTing)

On Sun, 17 Jun 2001, John Sharples wrote:

> Mormons say we should have poligamy, yet the law may Constitutionally forbid
> it.  Do ya get it?  Do ya

I know it's really beside the point of your post, but just a correction
here.  Mormons don't say we should have polygamy.  They haven't performed
a polygamous marriage in more than 100 years, and anyone entering into a
polygamous marriage is excommunicated.  The polygamists who show up on TV
usually call themselves "Mormon Fundamentalists" but they don't consider
themselves part of the Salt Lake Mormon church--and the S.L. church
certainly doesn't consider them members in any way.

- --Michael

"I said my one man band is over.  I hit the drum for the final time and I
walked away."

http://www.filmatters.com

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 02:23:20 -0400
From: jenny grover <sleeveless@citynet.net>
Subject: Re: [loud-fans] aube vs reed vs ? rou n d two (+ awfulattemptatOTing)

John Sharples wrote:
> 
> The government has a compelling public policy (health) imperative to
> distribute sex information and condoms: to inhibit STD's and unwanted
> teen pregnancies.

If this is true, and if, as I understand it to be, sex with a minor,
even when both partners are minors, is, in fact, illegal, then why is it
not also a compelling public health policy to offer needle exchange
programs?  I'm not trying to start any arguments here, I'm just
curious.  I know, I know- someone will point out the whole "war on
drugs" thing, but is that the whole picture?

Jen

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 02:39:25 -0400
From: jenny grover <sleeveless@citynet.net>
Subject: [loud-fans] mc call's

Okay, Brian, or anyone else (and I know some of you must know), how does
one obtain any or all of Tris McCall's recordings?  I'm not turning any
up on internet seller page searches, nor did I find anything on his
website (though I admit to having not read every word of it yet).

Jen

------------------------------

End of loud-fans-digest V1 #129
*******************************