From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V1 #130 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 Monday, June 18 2001 Volume 01 : Number 130 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [loud-fans] mc call's ["Joseph M. Mallon" ] Re: [loud-fans] mc call's [Sue Trowbridge ] Re: [loud-fans] mc call's [jenny grover ] [loud-fans] Abstinence [=?iso-8859-1?q?Stef=20Hurts?= ] Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) [Car] Re: [loud-fans] aube vs reed vs ? rou n d two (+ awful attemptatOTing) [C] [loud-fans] Needle Exchange [Cardinal007@aol.com] Re: [loud-fans] War On Drugs [RufusWainwrong@aol.com] [loud-fans] "mullet" is official! [Roger Winston ] Re: [loud-fans] mc call's [DOUDIE@aol.com] Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) [JR] RE: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) [Jon] [loud-fans] re:Oleanna [GlenSarvad@aol.com] Re: [loud-fans] aube vs reed vs ? rou n d two (+ awful attemptatOTing) [s] Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) [st] Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) [Mic] RE: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) [Mic] RE: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) [Jo] Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) [jen] Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) [Car] Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) [Car] 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...) [M] [loud-fans] Chat? ["Andrew Hamlin" ] Re: [loud-fans] Re: Funny Snarling Clowns (swap review) [Dana L Paoli Subject: Re: [loud-fans] mc call's Coming soon, you'll be able to buy them from the 125 Records web site (http://www.125records.com). We got the UPS slip for them on Friday, so expect to buy one before the week is out. On Sun, 17 Jun 2001, jenny grover wrote: > 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 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 00:27:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Sue Trowbridge Subject: Re: [loud-fans] mc call's - --- jenny grover wrote: > 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? Funny you should ask. 125 Records will soon be the exclusive online distributor of Tris' excellent CD, IF ONE OF THESE BOTTLES SHOULD HAPPEN TO FALL... By the end of next week, you should be able to order it via 125records.com (along with the Anton Barbeau and Belle Da Gama CDs). Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more. http://buzz.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 03:47:52 -0400 From: jenny grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] mc call's Thanks, Joe and Sue. What about Favorite Color? Anyone know where I can get that recording? Jen ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 09:46:18 +0100 (BST) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Stef=20Hurts?= Subject: [loud-fans] Abstinence I don't mind a bit of teenage sex. As long as the cops don't catch me... Toodlepip, - -Stef Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 07:12:58 EDT From: Cardinal007@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) In a message dated 6/17/01 1:01:16 AM, jenor@csd.uwm.edu writes: >> 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? > Respectfully, I vigorously dissent. I disagree with the implication of the first and second paragraph, namely that state rejection only occurs when the state "enacts" some different religious view or practice. Ergo, you conclude no rejection of the 7Dayads beliefs. the state, in "simply refusing to endorse" the 7thDayads view has rejected it. Rejected that religious practice and belief. The state doesn't have to endorse any other specific religious view to have rejected the 7Dayads. Or "refusing to endorse," or "refusing to practice." To answer your hypothetical: no, I wouldn't claim that the state favored one religious view over mine. I would continue my original point -- they have rejected mine. And if I were a 7Dayadder, and I found out that a school nurse had forced my daughter to break her bond and faith with God, I'd be hellaciously pissed that they rejected my religious view. If being hellaciously pissed were acceptable; I know not what 7Dayadder whackos do; they're as bad as those Catholic fuckers for believing weird shit........ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 07:46:04 EDT From: Cardinal007@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] aube vs reed vs ? rou n d two (+ awful attemptatOTing) In a message dated 6/17/01 2:03:31 AM, jsharple@bls.brooklaw.edu writes: >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? Bucko, alas, methinks it's you who doesn't follow this time. You have addressed the Constitutionality of such distribution, and not the imprimatur question I asked. You have answered correctly that the state, as a matter of public policy, does legitimate the distribution of condoms (that was for Two-Effs dictionary, no double imprimaturs here). The Constitution takes care of the legality of condom distribution v. hare krisna literature, or the hypo I posed. I thought the earliest posts made clear that the Constitution makes the intertwining of religion and state illegal... I'm looking for the fine logical distinctions that allow someone to believe there's state imprimatur with religious access, but no state imprimatur [regarding sexuality] with condom distribution. I know the distinctions are there, but I seem to get "the first is bad, the second is good" stuff most of the time. I'm still looking for Jeff's great reasoning on that topic; I don't remember us discussing the *legality* of the state's rejection (as I've put it) anywhere. He and I have disagreed, but never addressed that, methinks. And we disagree with love, I hope. <<< 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.>> Where in the fuck did you read a faith-based objection? It's not in any of my posts, nor in my original query. Your response here seems to underscore my belief that people almost never seem to read the posts, they read the ones that weren't sent. The ones that contain all the implications not made by the poster, but which they want to infer. <> Well, you got that one dead on the money. I will say, of course, that someone who poses a question, as I did, usually hasn't demonstrated any reasoning. I don't know how my non-existent reasoning has failed me. Unless my dispute with Jeff --that "simply refusing to endorse" is rejecting -- contained my failure. That call and response was an interesting sidelight not directed to my query. I'll now stop my persistent wailing that people don't read me right; I'm gonna go tell Kat, my bartender, all my woes. "My list doesn't underSTAND me....." boo hoo sob sob. [Whew; it's after seven; she won't serve me booze before 7 on a Sunday] My hero, you indeed did compellingly demonstrate why one is unconstitutional, and the other is not. I just didn't have any dispute with what you said; I am looking for something else. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 07:56:33 EDT From: Cardinal007@aol.com Subject: [loud-fans] Needle Exchange In a message dated 6/17/01 2:25:56 AM, sleeveless@citynet.net writes: >why is it >not also a compelling public health policy to offer needle exchange >programs? There IS a compelling public health policy to offer needle exchange programs. There is also a compelling ELECTION policy to avoid doing the right thing. If seeking reelection, an elected official responsible for a needle exchange program will of course be soft on crime, will have surrendered in the war on drugs, and will hear about nothing else. Poor, silly bastard might be lynched. By members of his political organization, of course. [These comments represent my views, and are not necessarily "right" or "true." I, however, believe they're both ...] C7 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 09:54:12 EDT From: RufusWainwrong@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] War On Drugs In a message dated 6/17/01 2:25:56 AM, sleeveless@citynet.net writes: >I know, I know- someone will point out the whole "war on >drugs" thing, but is that the whole picture? There's definitely a war on drugs, and drugs are winning! So the "generals" stop the idea of this heinous needle exchange program, safe in the unstated knowledge that not a single junkie will hesitate to fix because someone else has used the needle (after all, users became junkies with no needle exchange program). Knowing that the kibosh is a feckless act to pronounce "morality." But there it is, a small victory in the war (ha). The generals sleep well, and people sicken and die unnecessarily. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 09:34:56 -0600 From: Roger Winston Subject: [loud-fans] "mullet" is official! For you voracious vocabulary hounds and big words lawyerly types, the Oxford English Dictionary people have given their imprimatur of approval to a plethora of "new" words: http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/06/14/english.newwords/index.html It is now safe to use "Doh!" in normal conversation, even while over-billing a client. Out to go practice serial celibacy, Later. --Rog - -- When toads are not enough: http://www.reignoffrogs.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 12:00:54 EDT From: DOUDIE@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] mc call's For that you can email me and I will set you up. Down the Mergers and Acquisitions wire, steve ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 13:12:25 EDT From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) The assumption in this First Amendment debate remains that religion is bad, as seen when association with churches is invoked to back a very general charge of bigotry. It's hardly a surprise that the Boy Scouts are associated with churches. Religious beliefs, however, are the least of their problems. Try familiarizing yourself with what the Boy Scouts already deal with in government red tape regarding their leadership. There's also the issue of how much gay representation would have to be required within the Boy Scouts for homosexuals to feel like a proper part of the Scouts--which returns us to the government forcing belief systems onto other folks. With so many belief systems having infiltrated public schools (and HUD, and other federal institutions), it's certainly arguable for the Supreme Court to declare that religions deserve equal representation where other philosophies are promoted. And, yes, it's a shame that certain Jews, Muslims, Catholics, and fundamentalist Christians will occasionally have science taught that contradicts their long-held religious beliefs. Reconciling a spiritual legacy with knowledge of the physical world is part of faith. But in that same spirit, religious parents have the right to complain as increased knowledge of cellular structure dismantles Darwinism, and yet Science classes refuse to admit any mystery in evolution. Creationism shouldn't be taught as fact (which, for all I know, could be common in parochial schools), but students aren't served by any school system that pretends to know all the answers. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 12:46:07 -0500 From: Jon Tveite Subject: RE: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) ===== Original Message From Cardinal007@aol.com ===== >in "simply refusing to endorse" the 7thDayads view has >rejected it. Rejected that religious practice and belief. >The state doesn't have to endorse any other specific religious view to have >rejected the 7Dayads. Or "refusing to endorse," or "refusing to practice." The state hasn't rejected their beliefs: they have rejected the attempt to apply those beliefs to every child. In order to reject the 7th-Day beliefs, the school would have to force feed medication to 7th-Day children. The pluralistic way to go about this is to allow some children to be medicated and others not to, according to their individual beliefs. The condom issue does get a little more complicated, because you can argue that no schoolchildren "need" condoms. But the reality is that some schoolchildren will have sex whether you offer them condoms or not. The question, to me, is whether you will take the opportunity to help them protect themselves. I think high schools should make condoms available, through a school nurse or some other appropriate office. They don't even have to advertise: "Hey kids, get your free condoms here and get busy!" They can just offer them as part of a program for counseling kids who are sexually active or considering sexual activity -- which they should have anyway, condoms or no condoms. I imagine that some people will see that as an official endorsement of sexual activity. I think that's a little simpleminded, but also inevitable. Maybe there could be some kind of warning label on the free condoms that says, "Don't use these or you will certainly go to hell. We are only passing them out to make the godless hippie communists happy." Jon ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 13:51:37 EDT From: GlenSarvad@aol.com Subject: [loud-fans] re:Oleanna I have no problem with a slant being applied in the characterizations. I *liked* the play very much, and am a big Mamet fan, as I tried to make clear in my post, and I kind of joined this thread in mid-stream so my context may be out of whack (apologies if that's the case). But my point is that Mamet has claimed in interviews to have written an evenhanded play, and the whole PR angle during the time of its NYC run was "the play that has everyone talking and considering these fairly portrayed issues." Add this to the fact that Mamet already had a rep in the critical community (fairly or unfairly) as a bit of a misogynist who underwrote his female characters. So to suddenly position him as the voice for an impartial airing of the issues (and to be fair, this could easily have been the doing of the PR machine, not Mamet himself) got folks' antennae up. And I'll repeat it again: despite this fact, I liked the play a lot. I even liked Rebecca Pidgeon's role in "State and Main," which got lambasted on this list a while back. Glen ________________________________________ From: "Brian Block" 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? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 13:15:25 -0500 From: steve Subject: Re: [loud-fans] aube vs reed vs ? rou n d two (+ awful attemptatOTing) On Sunday, June 17, 2001, at 06:46 AM, Cardinal007@aol.com wrote: > I'm looking for the fine logical distinctions that allow someone to > believe > there's state imprimatur with religious access, but no state imprimatur > [regarding sexuality] with condom distribution. I know the distinctions > are > there, but I seem to get "the first is bad, the second is good" stuff > most of > the time. In this context, religious organizations are there only to advocate their belief systems. They are not there to provide a range of options. If provided access, there can be only one expected outcome, so state imprimatur is obvious. To my knowledge, no school advocates that students should have sex. In fact, schools advocate that students not have sex, but provide condoms for use if students insist on doing so. Students thus have a range of options - - no sex (as advocated by the state), sex without the mitigating effects of a condom, and sex with the mitigating effects of a condom. - - 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: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 13:51:11 -0500 From: steve Subject: Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) On Sunday, June 17, 2001, at 01:06 AM, Michael Mitton wrote: > 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.) Every case above is an example of a teacher doing a poor job. We really ought to make public school teaching into a valued profession, with high professional standards. We are not serious about education, as shown by the recent emphasis on testing. - - Steve __________ No previous administration has tried to sell its economic plans on such false pretenses. And this from a man who ran for president on a promise to restore honor and integrity to our nation's public life. - Paul Krugman, on Bush, from his book Fuzzy Math. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 16:48:25 -0400 From: Michael Bowen Subject: Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) At 09:25 PM 6/16/2001 -0400, JRT456@aol.com wrote: >Sure. I don't want some Wiccan douchebag teaching my kid the wonders of a >religion which has all the proud heritage of Scientology. Well, "Wicca" does go back a decade or two further than Scientology, but not much more. However, the implied comparison is otherwise invalid; Wicca does not have a central structural organization, let alone one that is not averse to using murder, blackmail, and fraud to advance its interests. Granted, they're both based on really stupid premises, but so are Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Earlier, someone said that they thought Antonin Scalia was actually a legal scholar of note. (Sharples, was that you?) I haven't read that many of his opinions, but the one he wrote that affects me most directly (BOARD OF EDUCATION OF KIRYAS JOEL VILLAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT, v. LOUIS GRUMET et al.; see http://www.fac.org/legal/SUPCOURT/opinions/93-94/93-517.ZD.htm ), he is hopelessly ignorant regarding the facts of the case. MB ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 17:02:11 -0400 From: Michael Bowen Subject: RE: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) All this talk about Seventh Day Adventists and schools reminds me of something I haven't really thought about in a quarter-century. I asked Julie to the prom back when I was a senior. She told me that she couldn't go with me, or with anyone - she was a Seventh Day Adventist and they didn't allow dancing. Was she being discriminated against by the school sponsoring something that was against her religion? MB ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 16:46:04 -0500 From: Jon Tveite Subject: RE: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) ===== Original Message From steve ===== >Every case above is an example of a teacher doing a poor job. Yeah, that's true, but the point that it's impossible to eduate without imparting any values is still valid. I think the key is trying to be fair and not represent opinion as carved-in-stone truth. But you can never be totally neutral. If you bring up 7 different ways of looking at an issue, somebody will ask about an 8th. >We really >ought to make public school teaching into a valued profession, with high >professional standards. We are not serious about education, as shown by >the recent emphasis on testing. I certainly agree with this. Of course, I see it as a cultural problem that goes beyond the field of education. We really aren't very supportive of intellectual development of any sort, except if it translates to higher earning potential. So why respect those who would dedicate their lives to that process? They don't make much money, after all, so how valuable could their contributions really be? Ignorance is kind of a vicious cycle. Those who have never been exposed to good education are much less likely to value education. Jon ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 18:02:25 -0400 From: jenny grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) Jon Tveite wrote: > > >Every case above is an example of a teacher doing a poor job. > > Yeah, that's true, but the point that it's impossible to eduate without > imparting any values is still valid. I think the key is trying to be fair and > not represent opinion as carved-in-stone truth. But you can never be totally > neutral. If you bring up 7 different ways of looking at an issue, somebody > will ask about an 8th. And what's wrong with asking about an eighth? When I was in school (**yawn**) theories were taught as just that- theories, not fact. This is how most things in school should be taught, in my opinion. "This is what such&such group believes, and why..." > Ignorance is kind of a vicious cycle. Those who have never been exposed to > good education are much less likely to value education. Or to be able to present a good education to those they teach. Jen ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 18:29:51 EDT From: Cardinal007@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) In a message dated 6/17/01 1:50:49 PM, jontv@ksu.edu writes: >In order to reject the 7th-Day beliefs, > >the school would have to force feed medication to 7th-Day children. The > > >pluralistic way to go about this is to allow some children to be medicated >and > >others not to, according to their individual beliefs. But the hypothetical posed was that a Seventh Day adventist child would be treated in the public school, wasn't it? That's why I said they had rejected that child/families religious belief. If I were in charge, of course, schools would routinely reject people's religious beliefs, but I don't foresee being in charge ......... << I imagine that some people will see that as an official endorsement of sexual activity. I think that's a little simpleminded, but also inevitable. Maybe there could be some kind of warning label on the free condoms that says, "Don't use these or you will certainly go to hell. We are only passing them out to make the godless hippie communists happy.">> But we're back to my premise; if it's simpleminded, why isn't it equally simple-minded to believe that providing access to church groups is an official endorsement of church activity? And that position is held and voiced by many; they don't even argue the difficult one that it it is an endorsement of the specific beliefs of the groups with access, but that it's an unacceptable official endorsement of church activity. I'll step off my pedant's stool for a moment to explain my thoughts, since asking the question I did seems to have prompted some to assume they know what I'm arguing. I support distributing condoms in schools. I think it's a good thing, and a good use of taxpayer's money. And I don't think it endorses anything but the use of condoms if someone is having sex. even if the state *were* endorsing teen sexual activity, I'd say that's like endorsing breathing -- the endorsement doesn't really boost the number too much I also advocate an unbroken separation of church and state. Which is not ex plicitly called for by the Constitution; it's just what I'd like to have, and it would be, I think, the perfect example of American values. But the presence of the church in schools or the state does not always carry with it state sanction.*** I'm glad our fine judiciary has interpreted the Establishment clause to find that it does, as it keeps religion out of the states' actions. But I'm not sure I see the state approval. People should just have the courage of their convictions and state something like "I don't want religion in the schools in any way, shape or form. I don't need to concoct an argument that minimal connection is state endorsement of religion, I just want it kept out." [***Steve Schiavo's distinction between the imprimatur associated with religion in the school v. condom distribution is the best one I've read. I can posit religious organizations that do offer choices and options, while "we believe this - go find your own beliefs" that might fall outside his model of imprimatur. Thank you for your concise, thoughtful post, sir.] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 18:40:15 EDT From: Cardinal007@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) In a message dated 6/17/01 5:01:46 PM, mbowen@frontiernet.net writes, about Nino Scalia and a particular case, the following: >he is >hopelessly ignorant regarding the facts of the case. I disagree with you here. all nine current justices are incredibly knowledgeable about the facts of each case, and the applicable law, prior to argument; Scalia is foremost among them. Now, he may well have been intellectually dishonest by ignoring known facts in his opinion, or facts may not have been preserved in the record (even though "well-known" to all observers in the community affected), lawyers for both sides may have downplayed facts. Not knowing the facts of the case that don't appear in his opinion, I'll have to guess that it's intellectual dishonesty, with Scalia playing fast and loose. He's slid well-down that path of late. Of course, Scalia was (in the Colo. anti-gay statute case) the distinguished jurist who began his opinion "I must vigorously dissent." Leading me to ask the question "does saying 'vigorous' get you an extra 1/2 vote or something? Your dissents and majority opinions are always vigorous." I asked it of a friend, as that short Eye-tie Scalia would have kicked my ass if he heard anyone say that............. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 18:37:28 -0500 From: steve Subject: Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) On Sunday, June 17, 2001, at 05:40 PM, Cardinal007@aol.com wrote: > I'll have to guess that it's intellectual dishonesty, with Scalia > playing fast and loose. He's slid well-down that path of late. There was an exchange from The Well that was posted published at Salon. The "informant" maintained that Scalia went over the edge after the Souter appointment. Evidently, people from Bush I informally solicited his opinion and he thought Souter was too much of an unknown. However, Sununu continually guaranteed that Souter was a strict constructionist and would fall in with the Scalia/Thomas axis. Obviously, this turned out to not be the case. This pissed off Scalia to no end and he has not gotten over it. He cut off contact with all of the handlers from Bush I, including some he had been friendly with for years. This continues, and one reported that Scalia will not speak when their paths cross at social events. For what it's worth. - Steve __________ It's widely expected that when Congress renews the 1996 welfare law next year, social conservatives will press to earmark millions of dollars for marriage education, require states to end some income tests that discourage parents from getting married, and reward single mothers with cash bonuses if they marry the child's father. - Mary Leonard, Boston Globe ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 19:56:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Mitton Subject: Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) > Every case above is an example of a teacher doing a poor job. We really True, but it's perhaps too dismissive, as each of the four examples I gave are scientifically defendable positions to hold. But to make the point more cleanly, when a teacher chooses to have the class read MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL instead of, say, A DOLL'S HOUSE, the teacher is advertising one set of beliefs over another. But it was the later part of my post that I thought was more interesting. Exactly what are the religious beliefs that teachers shouldn't advocate? Catholics believe each of the following things: 1) God decides what is wrong. 2) Birth control is wrong. 3) Adultery is wrong. 4) Stealing is wrong. 5) Murder is wrong. At least one of these things, everyone thinks should be taught in public school (at least, I hope), and many people could find at least one thing from this list that they do not think should be taught in public school. So if we say that we can't teach Catholicism in public schools, we're clearly not refering to every aspect of Catholicism, we're only referring to parts of it. But what parts? What rule do we apply that separates the part of Catholicism that can be taught from the parts that can't? Sorry, I just think it's far easier to say "no belief systems" than it is to implement no belief systems. The distinction between a religious group that meets in a public school and, say, an animal rights group just isn't very clear to me. - --Michael, who now realizes he's made himself late for his father's father's day celebration. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 17:09:58 -0700 From: "Andrew Hamlin" Subject: [loud-fans] Chat? eskimo.com seems still blowed up real good, so Jer and I await you at irc.DAL.net #loudfans. 44 new messages? Andy "Cosine." - --Brian Block, whispering into the ear of a Furby Baby several weeks ago at my place ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 20:55:26 -0400 From: Dana L Paoli Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Re: Funny Snarling Clowns (swap review) Q: >>2- Stratotanker- Armour of Gusto- One of my two favorite tracks on >this >>mix. Decidedly lo-fi and spare Stooges meets Fleshtones style. Made >me >>shimmy. Who are these guys? A: >Cleveland-area band, stylishly sloppy. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Did they move to Cleveland from Brooklyn, or from Brooklyn to Cleveland, or something? I'm pretty sure that at the time of the "Baby, test the sky" album they were from Brooklyn. I know they got written up in Sound Views, which usually only does local folk, and the album was recorded in Brooklyn, and one of their record companies was in Brooklyn. And the cover art shows Manhattan. And the photos inside were taken at Coney Island. I got a chance to hear an album of theirs that followed "Baby" the other day (it has a yellow cover, don't remember the name) and it had much, much better production. I didn't hear any songs as good as "Armour of Gusto" but didn't have enough time to tell for sure. - --dana ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 21:45:54 EDT From: Cardinal007@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) In a message dated 6/17/01 7:48:23 PM, steveschiavo@mac.com writes: >He cut off contact with all of the handlers >from Bush I, including some he had been friendly with for years. This > >continues, and one reported that Scalia will not speak when their paths > >cross at social events. The guyhas no use for anybody now, but is fanatically loyal to his law clerks, taking all clerks and ex-clerks to dinner frequently, and making himself available to give them advice wherever they go. One of his old clerks opened up one night after a few [a lot] drinks, and almost wet himself with loyalty to a man he was describing as a bit of a loon. My sister got him to agree to appear at her university for one of her seminars, and he was a grade-A a-hole to everyone. The other assistant dean, who roomed with him at Georgetown, said he announced in his befuddled youth that he would sit on the Court. I lack much more info........ He's got a helluva widow's peak, though, and he looks dapper with his full beard! I lament that I know more about Scalia and his clerk dinners than I know about Scott Miller's response to compression of guitar parts ................... ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 23:07:34 -0500 From: Jon Tveite Subject: RE: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) ===== Original Message From Cardinal007@aol.com ===== >But the hypothetical posed was that a Seventh Day adventist child would be >treated in the public school, wasn't it? That's why I said they had rejected >that child/families religious belief. No, the hypothetical was that a 7th-Day Adventist majority was trying to all children from being medicated on school grounds. Sorry if that wasn't clear. >But we're back to my premise; if it's simpleminded, why isn't it equally >simple-minded to believe that providing access to church groups is an >official endorsement of church activity? I've already said that I'm not too gung-ho about keeping all religion off public grounds -- just organized, mandatory religion. I don't think it's a particularly good idea, and I would ask the group why they couldn't meet elsewhere (as some have suggested) but I agree that allowing groups to meet is not the "establishment" of religion. Jenny, I wasn't saying there was anything wrong with encouraging students to ask questions -- quite the opposite. I just meant that it's impossible to cover every possible aspect of a subject and therefore somebody's values are going to get left out. Jon ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 01:33:24 -0400 From: jenny grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott hereeither...) Jon Tveite wrote: > > Jenny, I wasn't saying there was anything wrong with encouraging students to > ask questions -- quite the opposite. I just meant that it's impossible to > cover every possible aspect of a subject and therefore somebody's values are > going to get left out. It is indeed impossible, given the limitations of elementary and high school (and even university) education, to cover all aspects and views of a subject. In that case, I think the best alternative is to cover the most commonly accepted ones for which state approved text is available (a limitation in itself, I'm sure), to state that these are, or may not be, the only views on the subject, and if someone in the class brings up another view, invite them to research it and bring in a class presentation. That is how the better teachers I had handled a lot of things, particularly those in which they themselves did not have expertise. But again, this seems to get down to quality of teaching. Jen (who just read in the sunday paper yet another list of examples of egregious errors in commonly used elementary and middle school science and history texts) ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V1 #130 *******************************