-
“Marvin: whether it is threatening or not isn't the issue - that's a red-herring that you've thrown in.”
Simon,
I see a threat where perhaps you see none. That could be where we differ.
I see government prohibiting recitation of a short innocuous biblical text and stating agreement with it as unnecessary intrusion. What makes the intrusion unnecessary is because the act at issue poses no threat. That is why “threat” or “no threat” is relevant.
When a government is willing to intrude into people’s lives unnecessarily the result is not usually good. Basically that is the threat I see, and this particular instance happens to have a religious flavor.
“Now you're going round and round in circles and frankly it's annoying and wastes everyone's time. I have to say I find you a most incredibly annoying person to converse with.”
I have an opinion on that frustration of yours, too.
When I write I attempt to say what I mean and I expect people to ask questions if what I’ve said is anyways ambiguous, meaning what I’ve same could imply multiple things but just which one is unclear. Accordingly it frustrates me when participants read things into what I’ve said and assert those things of me when in fact that is not what I actually said. “Actually said”. That bugs you when I say that. But it bugs me equally when what I’ve taken time to say in express terms is asserted to mean something different than or beyond what it’s intended, as though the representation is my own. It's again frustrating when this is done without bothering to do the simple thing of asking what I mean by something I’ve said. I don't mind answering questions. Everyone who frequents this place know that. I'm always willing to answer, and to clarify that if need be.
All that said, you and I are different. I approach subjects one way. You approach subject another way. It not my intention to be annoying. It’s not your intention to be annoying. Regardless, I see no reason why two grown men cannot hold an adult conversation understanding they will have disagreements, and that each should take time to try and understand the other person if what they’re saying bothers them or is otherwise if interest to them.
“The fact remains, they are adding religion …”
That’s an example of an overstatement. What Ron said in his graduation speech did not add religion. It only shared his view. That’s one big difference between what you and I see in what was said during the graduation speech. To argue Ron Costner should not stand up and honestly and innocuously express to me what compelled him to achieve his status as valedictorian means neither you nor I stand up and honestly and innocuously express to the same audience what compelled either of us to achieve a similar achievement, and I think that’s not only a governmental overreach I also think it’s backward thinking. When an achiever it asked to tell what got him where he’s at I expect him to have liberty to express himself and tell me.
“The fact remains, they are adding religion where it doesn't have a place and doing it under the bogus and dishonest guise of standing up for freedoms when the reality is they are concerned about pushing Christianity alone. All the other claims you make are just smoke and mirrors to distract attention from this basic fact.”
I don’t see a desire to “maintain Christianity in our schools” by advocating for freedom to express personal religious views in schools as a push to have or maintain “a Christian school”. In reply to your request I spent time addressing this, yet here you talk right over these concepts as though they are precisely the same but without explaining why or how they are the same. When I take time to offer specific comment as I did in response to you this is no indication of smoke and mirrors or attempted at introducing a red herring. It’s called answering your question, and being willing to engage the subject at your request. Isn't that what you built this place for?
“That you can't see a problem doesn't mean there isn't a problem - it simply means you miss something that many other people don't. Go attend their church if you want to hear their religious views, but don't insist that we have to listen to them and try and make out that we somehow lack some insights or are less appreciative of intelligence because we don't want to.”
Of course my lack of seeing a problem means no more than my lack of seeing a problem.
On the other hand, my lack of seeing a problem does not mean I’ve missed something. It could just as well be that I see no problem because there is no problem to see.
Because a majority sees a problem does not validate the perspective. That’s a fallacious argument known as ad numerum, and it’s closely related to another fallacy known as ad populum.
Perhaps contrary to you, I think it a mistake to hold that religious views should only be shared in churches or private settings because religious views have a huge impact on social policy and growth that affects the public at-large. For this reason we should allow for and embrace opportunity for sharing of religious views when doing so represents no threat or harm to anyone else.
Marvin Shilmer
