116 thoughts on “November 9, 2017: Don’t Forget”

1. I've got an extra ticket to the Gopher-Husker game this weekend (I think it's in the Nebraska section). Anyone want it?

   1. Death is not an option?

      1. 1. just a bit NSFW

            1. It IS Eddie Izzard after all.

               1. My general rule for watching stand-up comedy in a work setting: unless your employer specifically says it can’t/won’t regulate content, don’t watch it.

2. Woooo! The company I work for is already up for sale again, 11 months after purchase! (because the company that bought us sucks). Capitalism can go ahead and die any day now.

   1. Capitalism can go ahead and die any day now.

      I doubt it is capitalism's fault that your company sucks.

      1. True, but it is capitalism's fault that I have to worry about losing my job because of it.

         1. I’m planning on buying a plot of land and raising sheep to ride out the apocalypse. You’re welcome to join my new collective if you bring a skill ... or more sheep.

            1. I will learn to grow grain and hops.

               1. Every commune needs a brewer and a baker. I’ll volunteer for the latter position if I can be in the same commune as cheaps.

                  1. I'm laying claim to candlestick maker.

                     1. first, we kill all the lawyers.

                  2. I'll help organize the labor on the collective into a union.

            2. My parents raised sheep for a long time when I was growing up.

               While we're on the subject of capitalism... raising sheep was fairly incompatible with it.

               1. heh

            3. I will gladly trade you some wood for sheep.

               1. Sorry brah, I need bricks.

                  1. St. Louis has some nice ones.

                     1. dude, give away your own bricks!

                  2. In that case, I've got some stone. (our negotiations tend to breakdown as the drinks flow)

               2. I'll trade you money for wine beer and bread.

         2. Capitalism is also responsible for the job in the first place.

            1. If capitalism didn’t exist we’d still need engineers.

               1. At my company, there's plenty of engineers roaming around. I believe most of them are feral at this point.

                  1. Snorted in my coffee.

               2. Yes. Just less of them.

                  If someone has a good economic argument for s country that doesn't embrace capitalism, I'm all ears.

                  1. we'd still need them. We just couldn't productively employee as many.

                  2. Seems limiting the argument to economics unfairly limits the discussion. Basing decisions only on the economics means we should revert practices that we decided were more important than just the economics of them.

                     1. Happily, capitalism is by far the most effective approach we have for producing/maintaining both "narrow" economic values for market participants AND providing a rich array of choices to serve diverse needs, wants and interests.

3. I never noticed how the beginning of Foo Fighters "My Hero" and U2's "Bullet the Blue Sky" sounds similar until today.

4. I see, somewhat belatedly, I suppose, that Texas released Prince Fielder. He got old in a hurry.

   1. but he's well looked after for a while yet

   2. I still love that he wound up with the same number of career homers as his dad.

5. Ooooh, Word Find WGOM banner!
   redacted, batteyd, butters, jijimthome, spookied, fotf, pauer, donger, fbomb, obligatory, wgom(2), bookofface, repository, puppies, boomstick, seasoning, jeremy
   I'll leave some for you guys

   1. F5, F5, F5...

      1. Direct link to make it easier to view whenever.

   2. GOSO

   3. wgom(2).

      1. mmmm, I see two. or is that forbidden for some reason?

         1. there's a little bit more to one of them.

            1. I'll buy that for a dollar

   4. Mountie!

   5. FBOMB
      SPOILER
      HALF BAKEF
      DIDO

   6. I guess Rifdig Hokme is no groundskeeper.

      1. dang, I found light, but not lightrail

6. Today in Facebook Suburban Moms Group kerfuffles...
   Middle school let us know Monday that there was a planned assembly today for a presentation by these folks: fightthenewdrug.org
   Maybe NSFW?
   So...seems like a good idea that we're not so sure was well-executed.
   Not a ton of information available to parents about how the presentation would be run.
   Doesn't seem like any separation/tailoring of the message to male vs. female students, who certainly would experience the material differently.
   Some credible opposition out there saying that their claims may be a bit overstated.
   And if my 11-year old isn't quite at this developmental stage yet and also posesses precisely ZERO self-control with respect to technology use, maaaaaaaybe we don't want to open that Pandora's Box just yet.
   So we opted out, as it seems a fair percentage are doing.

   1. huh. is it a private school?

      1. It is not. Program advertised as without religious or political messaging, but certainly seems to have been a particularly motivated group of parents advocating for it being brought in.

   2. it's doubtful that any of the other kids attending would talk about it at all afterwards

      1. Precisely why we were going to send him at first.

         1. 'scuse me while I count my blessings

   3. Tangentially related--I remember as a HS youth having a speaker come in to tell us that drinking any alcohol, ever, in any circumstance, was VERY BAD, and should always be avoided. I was about the strictest, rule-following kid you could find, but I really wanted to just walk out and quit wasting my time, as clearly the speaker was full of excrement. Addiction is not something I take lightly, but making broad claims like that doesn't further to help anyone learn to navigate a nuanced situation, let alone teenage kids (who are actually pretty good at figuring out if you are full of excrement.)

      I don't know anything about this group in particular, but that's the experience I always come back to when I think about school presentations regarding moral/immoral behavior.

      1. Yeah, nothing made me more likely to try "bad" things than self-righteous speakers telling me not to.

   4. New drug?

      Psh. I remember back when I was in high school kids would sneak out behind the theater to light up playboys or shoot hustlers.

      1. I was not invited to these meetings.

      2. me, I had a girlfriend, and not one that required inflation.

   5. Some credible opposition out there saying that their claims may be a bit overstated.

      Ayup.

      FZ-ish probably?

      SelectShow

      I'm unaware of a single study that actually proves that porn can be an addiction or do all of the other horrible things these guys claim. I have a lot of problems with orgs like this since porn cannot be treated as a monolith. There is extremely problematic companies that operate in this space, who do lots of unsavory things (both to performers, and, for example, the tube sites that have brought down value of paid sites... which they then turn around and buy), but the idea that people watching a video expression of sexuality is harmful like... freaking drugs is so stupid. There are many companies out there that are run by women, PoC, etc. that are not sleazy, and make videos that can have important representation, or provide actual sex education. God damn this stuff drives me up a wall. We got uncritical stuff about groups like this in senior level sexuality classes when I was finishing my degree and steam would fly out of my ears every time. Sorry for the rant.

      1. Agreed.

         I also took a look at the research they posted on their website, and every one deserved a hearty “correlation does not imply causation.”

         Also...

         'Maybe FZ'	SelectShow
         Though their website claims no religious affiliation, they are founded, run by, and heavily influenced by the Mormon church. I’m not intending to denigrate that particular religion or any other in general, but groups promoting pseudoscience and religious beliefs don’t belong in public schools. If this group was coming to give a presentation at my kids’ schools, I would be livid.

         1. what Mike spoilered.

            'Parental outrage

            SelectShow

            We had a jr high principal who was a God-squadder. If that's your thing in private, fine. But I don't need it being brought into public schools. He was responsible for bringing in some religiously-motivated groups to do assemblies for the kids, was borderline misogynous, and openly tolerated an outside group coming on to school property to distribute bibles and propaganda. Separation of church and state is in place for very damned good reasons. Many of you would not agree with my interpretation of faith (or lack thereof), or my wife's version of judaism, and would not want me imposing either on your kids in a pubic school setting. I expect the same level of respect in return. Render unto Caesar and all that.

            1. 'Spoiler'	SelectShow
               Word. I'm not sure what the current town I live in is like for this sort of stuff. Overall it doesn't strike me as an overly religious area. Both my kids are now in the public school system here, so I suppose I'll be finding out within the next few years.

            2. 'Spoiler'

               SelectShow

               Not disagreeing, just feeling like devil's (heh) advocating here: There is of course some nuance to be made. Absence of religion in a particular time/place (as a product of separation of church and state) can often look a lot like the endorsement of rejection of religion in that same time/place. There is, of course, some signification distinction to be made between "prohibiting" and "rejecting", but the flip side of that is there is equally some distinction to be made between "permitting" and "imposing."

               1. 'Spoiler'

                  SelectShow

                  I have no problem with trying to socialize children to living in a polite society, or understanding the Golden Rule. No deity required. I specifically reject the notion that THEOLOGY needs to be part of the mix to provide contextually appropriate socialization and education. that said, I'm not militant about teh No Godz Talk. Plenty of room for comparative religion education. You can't do history without addressing religion. You can't understand politics without addressing religion. But there is no place in a liberal society for public employees to bring their theocracy to bear within the scopes of their jobs. It is not necessary to do the job, and it impinges on my liberty and the liberty of everyone else.

                  1. 'Spoiler'

                     SelectShow

                     Re: your last paragraph. I agree. For example, Kim Davis. Drove me crazy that she didn't just quit. That would absolutely have been the better course for her, particularly given the Christian faith she espoused. That said, I don't see every exercise of faith (even in the public sphere) as per se impinging on liberty, and I worry that that type of approach escalates culture wars and the like. For example: they want to have a prayer at a graduation? Eh, so what? I can ignore it. I'm not forced to pray along. It seems to me in a pluralistic, tolerant society, the ability to not be offended at that type of thing is vastly more valuable than an approach that says "outlaw it, someone might be offended!" Now, that said, to the extent that such faith is exercised in the public square, if it is used to exclude, to test, to limit, etc. anyone... in any way, that is unacceptable, period. 100%, and I wouldn't blink at punishments for the same. That's why I was so frustrated by Kim Davis.

                     1. 'Spoiler'

                        SelectShow

                        as someone who does not profess to a faith, married to someone who is of a different faith from the dominant faith in the U.S., I would point out that what members of the dominant faith often see as "no big deal" can in fact be rather onerous on those of us not of that faith. Prayers that are formulated in creed- or faith-specific terms are exclusionary (e.g. "in Jesus' name we pray, amen") and unneccessary. I don't think it is too much to ask of people of faith that they try to be a little more self-aware in their public exercise, for example. My wife is pretty easy going. She has been employed at (and helped found) a pre-school affiliated with a Presbyterian church and readily brings age-appropriate snippets of religiously-tinged material into her classrooms, consistent with the affiliation and with the mission of the school (which is under the church's umbrella but operationally independent and non-denominational, but christian-influenced). I can tell you that she and I don't get up and arms about the everyday, seasonal stuff (e.g. "Merry Christmas" salutations, even though we don't celebrate that holiday). But the presumption that everyone believes as _you_ (not YOU specifically, but rather the generic "one") do is a presumption, and not a good one. By that I mean, not one that respects the autonomy of others. A respectful, liberal society requires individuals to respect the beliefs and autonomy of others, within limits of course. Nothing necessary to a respectful, liberal society is dependent on the tenets of any one religious creed or faith.

                        1. 'Spoiler'

                           SelectShow

                           I'm gonna beg off the conversation after this, because FZ. But I just wanted to indicate my large agreement with what you wrote. I understand and acknowledge that something seen as no big deal can be onerous. There is, of course, a difference between being onerous and feeling onerous. And I'd acknowledge that even feeling onerous can be a tough thing. Your statement that we should " ask of people of faith that they try to be a little more self-aware in their public exercise" is 100% accurate because of that. The one thing I would add, however, is that it is also not too much to ask, of all people, that we try to be more tolerant of others' faiths. Like you wrote, "Nothing necessary to a respectful, liberal society is dependent on the tenets of any one religious creed or faith." And my point is that what is necessary to a respectful, liberal society is tolerance and understanding. Cheap's suggestion below strikes me as exactly the type of example I mean. In both the graduation prayer and the students at the flagpole example the exposure is essentially the same - people praying while non-participants are present but not engaged. I think prayer at a graduation is a fairly silly thing, I wouldn't ever push for it, or miss it, or whatever. But it strikes me that a person who values tolerance and understanding could put up with the prayer at a graduation just as easily as they could prayer at the flagpole. Take the graduation example a bit further: Cheap suggests the essential neutering of a prayer. I recall that that is exactly what happened at my graduation. Now, as a person of a specific faith, I decided that that prayer was entirely without content for me - it simply wasn't the type of thing that I would participate in. I understood that it was for some number of my classmates, and so my response was "whatever, I don't care, let them have it." That ability to tolerate and understand cuts both ways. I expect people of faith (and non-faith, for that matter) to, as you said, be more aware, especially in public. But likewise, I expect people exposed to that-which-they-would-not-participate-in to be more tolerant of others participating in those things, and not seek to prohibit the same when there is no actual onerous effect.

                           1. 'Spoiler'

                              SelectShow

                              I know you want to not continue, and its completely fine if you don't respond that's fine. But I can't let this go because it misrepresents the example I provided. I'll agree that the duration of the exposure is about the same, but that's not what separates the two into ok and not ok. It isn't about everyone's engagement. You call everyone not praying as "non-participants", but when the prayer is being said aloud at a graduation, those not praying are absolutely participants whether they like it or not. In addition, setting aside that argument, the graduation prayer being allowed by the school is an endorsement by the school of whatever religion might be behind the prayer (or of religion in general). This, in the context of a public school, is both very dangerous and very offensive to a lot of us. Like I said, there are TONS of places where religious people are able to pray without bringing non-religious people into it. Y'all really don't need twenty more seconds during a public school graduation.

                           2. 'Spoiler'

                              SelectShow

                              Alright, I'll respond... First, to your point below, please do not think I'm suggesting that Christians are actually being oppressed. That is not my point. My point is that I want to move beyond the specific detail of the debate to suggest that the underpinning value of tolerance is more important than individualized questions of who is being coerced in this situation vs. that situation. I do understand your view on "endorsement" and the distinction you made in the two examples. It's the dominant legal model, and I've studied it at some length. I didn't mean to muddle your example. I meant to confront it. I find it to be, from a legal standpoint, a strange perspective. I want to critique that model/distinction by pointing out that the objective exposure is largely the same between the two examples, and to the extent that we're drawing distinctions between them, those distinctions are mostly based on subjective assessments. The other point here that I was trying to make is that if you as a non-believer get to subjectively determine that the presence of a prayer at a graduation indicates endorsement, so too can a believer subjectively determine that the prohibition of a prayer indicates condemnation. Y'all really don't need twenty more seconds during a public school graduation. Personally, I agree with this statement, but I reject outright your imposition of the view on others. I think this gets to the crux of the issue, in some ways. Because you don't get to decide what the person of faith needs or doesn't need. Nor do I. And we don't get to decide what the non-believer feels or doesn't feel either. If you feel offended by the existence of a prayer at a graduation, that doesn't mean the non-believer next to you feels similarly. You feel offended by a graduation prayer but not around the flag pole. I find that distinction unusual from a legalistic perspective, but that doesn't mean I get to invalidate your views. That's the point I'm making. I'm not arguing for prayer in public, or Kim Davis to be allowed, or anything like that. I'm arguing the larger principle, which is that tolerance needs to run in all directions at all times (standard caveats for the intolerable, such as advocacy of violence). Yes, absolutely, religion in the public sphere can be objectively onerous (Kim Davis), and it can be subjectively onerous (Cheap praying at a graduation), and yes, that subjective feeling can itself be a concrete harm. But to the extent that we want to restrict behaviors based on that feeling, we need to acknowledge that people who feel differently might find those restrictions to feel similarly onerous and therefore suffer an "opposite" concrete harm. I take Beau's point below to address this, in a way. He's trying to get past the onerous feeling to the impact it has. I like that. I would add to that nuance he mentions, because just like a Christian doesn't get to determine what an atheist finds oppressive, so too (as mentioned above), does an atheist not get to determine what makes a Christian feel oppressed. Objectively, at this time, yes, it's more likely that a Christian is going to coerce (whether intentionally or not) a non-Christian via some form of public exercise of religion. But if we're going to truly be applying an objective impact standard... then it's going to vary pretty wildly from place to place and time to time. In a heavily atheistic town it might even be the case that the dominance of non-prayer has a bigger impact than prayer. The nuance that goes into this view gets really interesting depending on demographics (a largely Muslim community? Do we allow Hajibs? Do we require them?). But ultimately, in a pluralistic society, it's an individual question. I don't get to say what matters for someone else of faith or lack-thereof. I don't get to say what offends or doesn't offend someone else. But I should damn sure try to be sensitive of all people, all the time. And, conversely, I should do my best to not take offense when someone whose religion differs from my own takes a different approach. Unless and until that offense causes an objective harm (Kim Davis). I feel like advocating for this type of approach is important. It puts the value of universal tolerance front and center. Legalistic distinctions give people something to hide behind. They can encourage tolerance of some people but not others, they can prevent some coercion but cause others, etc. I want to move past that. I want that tolerance and understanding to be more universal. I want the town that doesn't allow prayer at graduation to say to those who want it "sorry, we're not allowing it because we want to be more thoughtful in our approach, and by the way we completely understand that this feels coercive to you. We don't intend it that way, and maybe there's something else that we could do, if it's really that important to you" instead of just "no, you're offending others." And I want the town that does allow that prayer to say "this is something that's really important to a lot of people, so we're going to permit it, but please understand that it's not an endorsement, and you don't have to participate or like it or anything, and if since we're going to allow this, maybe there's something you'd like to do or say too, or some other accommodation we could offer?" Does that make sense?

                     2. 'Spoiler'

                        SelectShow

                        I agree with your Kim Davis example, but completely disagree with your graduation example. Unless the prayer is completely non-specific to one religion (and lets face it, they never are in that type of setting) and doesn't mention any gods, then its tacitly endorsing either a particular religion or, at the very best, having a religion. There's simply no room for that sort of thing at any public school sponsored event. And, like, there are a million different times/events outside of a public school setting that a religious person could pray so maybe leave them out of the group stuff, you know? A better scenario would be the students, back when I was in high school, that gathered around the flag pole to say a prayer before school started. Nothing wrong with that. Now if the principal had gone out there and made everyone else join, that's a problem.

                        1. Ayyup.

                           'Spoiler'

                           SelectShow

                           Or allowed students to commandeer the school PA system for a prayer message. Or explicitly made space in class time for "voluntary" prayers. Religious worship is a matter of conscience and not a matter for the State in America. If you don't think that the kids whose families think or pray differently are affected, you haven't experienced very widely. Kids pick up a lot from their environments and peers, and kids almost unanimously have a deep desire to "belong". Being different, being an outcast, is very hard on children (and adults, to be sure). Every time we engage in public, ritualized exercise of religious practice, we are imposing expectations of conformity. We are violating the autonomy of families. Making those exercises "voluntary" is, generally speaking, a charade.

                           1. 'Spoiler'

                              SelectShow

                              Every time we engage in public, ritualized exercise of religious practice, we are imposing expectations of conformity. Of course, the opposite is true too. Every time we engage in the prohibition (some would say, condemnation) of religious practice we are imposing expectations of conformity. To the extent that "voluntariness" is a charade, so too is a "neutral" prohibition - at least for some. Like I said above, I wouldn't ever seek to pray at a graduation. But for those who would, being told "no" sure feels like a state-sanctioned condemnation of faith. Personally, I know better than to think it is, but I can understand why it would feel that way, just as I can understand why it would feel like coercion for the non-believer to sit through a prayer. And, in both cases, we're talking about a feeling that something is onerous or coercive, not an object impact thereof. That's why tolerance matters more than a specific approach, all the time.

                           2. 'Spoiler'

                              SelectShow

                              This may sound offensive and may be sweeping with a broad brush, but I'm going to say it anyway because it's a barrier to and understanding of what each side is saying in this discussion. It seems to me, from a strong non-believer perspective, that religious people get this myopic "help I'm being oppressed" mindset with these types of things to where the argument being presented is not being received correctly. I'm not, and I don't think bS is either, talking about a prohibition on prayer/religiousness, and in the graduation ceremony the example certainly isn't student A praying on their own during the ceremony (or before, or after, or whatever, so long as it isn't disruptive to the general proceedings). The problem would be someone getting up on stage and, into the microphone, saying a prayer for everyone to hear. Telling that person 'no' isn't saying screw your faith, its saying we're not going to exclude anyone that doesn't believe the same way.

                           3. 'Spoiler'

                              SelectShow

                              And, in both cases, we're talking about a feeling that something is onerous or coercive, not an object impact thereof. That's why tolerance matters more than a specific approach, all the time. Feeling something is coercive can ultimately be just as harmful. Intent versus impact. Just like it's not up to white people to determine what is and isn't offensive or harmful to black people, it shouldn't be up to Christians (the dominant religious group in America) to determine what is and isn't offensive or harmful to non-Christians (the minority). If black people insist a policy in racist, we should take a long hard look at it. Meanwhile, if an atheist or a Jew or a Sikh feels that a Christian is doing something or saying something that marginalizes them, the Christian should take a long hard look at it. Everything is not black and white, and yes we should all try to understand and get along, but the onus of that burden always needs to be more on the group in power. The argument is more nuanced with religion for sure. As one could argue that the goal of black people is not to eliminate white people, while there are certainly atheists or minority religions that want to wipe out or see a reduction of the majority religion. So I understand the feeling of being attacked. And, despite being attacked, Christians are still in power.

                        2. 'Spoiler'	SelectShow
                           If it’s not coerced, I have no grounds for objection to voluntary prayer around a flag pole. That said, intertwining nationalism & religion makes me profoundly uncomfortable in the best of circumstances. I’m openly hostile about “God Bless America” at public events, and I’d count myself among the believers.

                           1. 'Spoiler'	SelectShow
                              I concur with this.

                           2. 'Spoiler'

                              SelectShow

                              On the other hand, I have no problem imposing the religious fervor of "Take Me Out to the Ballgame" on everyone at the park. My personal little protest is that I refuse to say the words "under God" in the recitation of the Pledge. Cold War pander-crap. But I'm not going to make a public stink about that one because about 99.9 percent of people don't seem to get it or care. And it's not creed-specific anyway.

                        3. 'Spoiler'	SelectShow
                           See my response to Zombieman, above.

                           1. 'Spoiler'

                              SelectShow

                              Respectfully, the "you are suppressing Muh Religion by not letting me inject it into this public, secular space without the unanimous agreement from everyone on whom I would be inflicting my public exercise of my private faith" argument is a terrible one. Obviously, there are more difficult cases than the banning of state-supported prayer in public schools. You would be much better served to focus on cases where State overreach is more palpable. Like, say, the French efforts to ban the wearing of Islamic headscarves. Or any public institution in the U.S. (e.g., the U.S. military) trying to ban the wearing of kipahs by Jews or forcing a Sikh to cut his hair or banning the wearing of a cross. These threatened behaviors may be outward professions of faith, but you have to really torture common sense to interpret those practices as a person imposing his/her views on others. I don't personally think invocations at the beginning of public meetings/events are the thing that I would go to the mat over, but overtly sectarian invocation prayers do bother me in that context. They are wholly unnecessary and would not be missed if they were absent, except by committed ideologues. Just as nobody would really miss the playing of the National Anthem before sporting events (a kind of secular religious exercise). They are impositions without a compelling justification. It strikes me that a kind of strict test deserves to be applied before sectarian religious practice should be allowed in public, secular contexts. What is the compelling public purpose that justifies the exercise? Is there a non-sectarian alternative to fulfill the same purpose? The justifiable, public purpose for a sectarian invocation can easily be fulfilled in EVERY case via non-sectarian or even non-religious means. Making a small statement about shared values and asking for a moment of silence, for example. The only purpose for injecting an expressly sectarian, religious practice into a public, secular context is to demand from others that this exercise be accepted in that context. It is not necessary for personal, private exercise of religious freedom. On the contrary, it is antithetical to the same. It is a call for conformity. I don't see how denying someone from compelling me to listen to an overtly sectarian invocation is credibly a case of me suppressing that person's faith.

                           2. 'Spoiler'

                              SelectShow

                              Heh, see my latest response to Cheap. I don't mean to be going to the mat over school prayer. I actually think it's a little weird. It was just the example I grabbed initially. Your other suggestions are much better. Just to this point: I don't see how denying someone from compelling me to listen to an overtly sectarian invocation is credibly a case of me suppressing that person's faith. You don't see it because you aren't a person of that type of faith. I'm not either, but I can understand and accept that that person might feel that way. Just as you assert the coercion a non-believer might feel being subjected to that. I'm not a non-believer, but I can understand and accept that one might feel that way. For some people, public exercise of faith is really central to their faith identity. That's not me, but, again, I don't get to determine what is and is not their faith. But saying "their faith is not public invocations" you are trying to determine - at least in part - what is and is not their faith. I'd like a broader model of tolerance. In the circumstances where "I must have public invocation!" and "I can't accept public invocation!" conflict, I like first looking at objective harms and second I like Beau's relative-impact assessment. But I really don't like "religion, you lose" any more than I like "non-religion, you lose." Both are bad results if applied per se.

                           3. Good conversation, Phyllo.

                              'Spoiler'

                              SelectShow

                              We come to the fundamental (heh) rub. You assert that "for some people, public exercise of faith is really central to their faith identity." I agree with you. Where I draw the line, however, is those people's attempt to use public, non-sectarian events to impose their views on a non-consenting audience. You don't get to be (legitimately) offended when I use legal means to bar you from imposing your faith on me without my consent. I'm at a public high school graduation. I'm there to see my child and my friends' and neighbors' children graduate and celebrate. I am not there to be proselytized. You have no right to do that. It is not an appropriate context for proselytizing. It is an assertion of a right to impose costs on others. "Freedom of speech" means that the State can't suppress my speech rights. But giving an invocation is not a right, it is a privilege conveyed by public officials by explicit invitation. By contract. That contract has no business conveying to the invocation deliverer a right to impose an explicit, sectarian, religious message upon me. Because that would be a public establishment offense.

                           4. 'Spoiler'

                              SelectShow

                              But to the extent that such proselytizing is prohibited, that becomes an endorsement of not-religion (aka "condemnation of religion"). Your assertion is that the right to be free from religion trumps another person's free exercise of their religion. I think the test needs to be far more nuanced than that. Most times it's going to achieve the exact same result as the tests as currently applied (see Beau's outlined impact assessment), but there are times and places where that might vary. At a minimum (and you indicate your agreement in the latest LTE, but the previous one I was responding to seemed to suggest otherwise, so I want to say it again), you should acknowledge that the approach you are applying is a restriction on free exercise, and be careful not to suggest that public invocations and the like are not free exercise.

                              Edited to add: Here is my gracious "yes, thanks, it was an engaging conversation" comment too. 😉

                              It's been a hell of a week, I think I just needed this spot to go off on...

                           5. 'Spoiler'	SelectShow
                              We seem to be at an impasse. I categorically reject your claim that denying your opportunity to use a public institution to further your religious goals constitutes a suppression of religious freedom or furtherance of "non-religion." That perspective would twist the First Amendment's Establishment Clause beyond all recognition.

                              and, hey, that's part of what this Basement is for. Nice that we can have a vigorous argument without it turning into a pissing match.

                           6. 'Spoiler'	SelectShow
                              and just to add to what bS said, a better way of saying it would be its not my right to be free of religion that trumps another's right to publicly practice their beliefs, it's my right to not be forced to participate in their public display of faith that trumps their right.

                              And I will third the respectful discussion)

                           7. 'Spoiler'

                              SelectShow

                              Yeah, I think the establishment clause is by its nature a bit awkward. From what I know, I understand the UK has a more workable model (they also have a state church...), and that tends to reflect a bit more tolerance for public practice. It seems that greater awareness by the faithful of "hey, don't be a jerk to non-religious" goes with that too. Cheap - I see your restatement and reassert my original one as a clearer interpretation of what you said... 😉

                           8. 'Spoiler'

                              SelectShow

                              Let me try one more time to clarify. Suppose a governmental body (e.g., a statewide commission) held a public meeting and agendized a religious figure to give a sermon. Pretty clear violation, no? Now suppose, instead, that the agendized speakers were told they could NOT give sermons, and did not do so. They were on the agenda at the invitation of and sanction of the governmental authorities. The authorities are responsible for composing the agenda and choosing the agendized speakers. Now, under Government in Sunshine-type rules, the public has an opportunity to speak on any question before the public body votes, and an opportunity to speak on any topic during public comment. In that context, an individual could make an explictly religious presentation, within the confines of the alloted time. It would NOT be an Establishment violation and would not violate anyone's rights, pro or con. The distinction is who is choosing the speakers and under what auspices and for what purposes. If the speaker is on the agenda for legitimate purposes, by definition he/she had better not be imposing his/her religious views upon me at the behest of the public body. But the public interest in open government ALSO allows members of the public to make non-germane statements during public comment.

                           9. 'Spoiler'

                              SelectShow

                              I understand the establishment clause and the rules as drawn. I find them to be a bit silly. Say Cheap is sitting in the gallery because he's the last speaker of the night, and he's gotta sit through everyone else. Well, to use his phrase, he is concerned about his "right to not be forced to participate in [other's] public display of faith." In scenario 1, the invited speaker gets up and says a prayer and Cheap is exposed to that - forced to participate in so far as he's the public in that public display of faith. In scenario 2 the same speaker gets up during public comment time and says the exact same prayer and Cheap is exposed to that - forced to participate in so far as he's the public in that public display of faith. The effect on Cheap is exactly the same in both situations. My focus on tolerance as opposed to the legalistic application of the establishment clause would tell both speakers "be more thoughtful, there are non-believers present and you're kind of being coercive in your approach." That certainly seems a better way about it to me.

                           10. 'Spoiler'	SelectShow
                               here's where you seem to be misunderstanding the argument. In scenerio 2,I'll probably roll my eyes, but will not be upset. In scenario 1,the religion of the speaker giving the prayer is tacitly endorsed by the state, excluding me.

                           11. 'Spoiler'

                               SelectShow

                               sadly, as you know, we have formal, legalized rules precisely because people lack common sense and respect for others. Wouldn't it be great if everyone was kind and thoughtful and respectful? Religion, of course, challenges every boundary of polite behavior, due to the frequent claims to privileged knowledge of absolute right and wrong. If you are convinced that it is your duty to convert others to your faith, then you really are unlikely to give a crap about the bounds of polite interaction. You might even be willing to kill in pursuit of your interpretation of truth. Doesn't get more uncivil than that.

                           12. 'Cheaps'	SelectShow
                               I understand the distinction, but I'm questioning why it matters. That seems a very silly distinction to draw in my mind. Why not just roll your eyes in both scenarios? Now, note, I acknowledge that I don't get to determine your view of religion/what you feel comfortable with in this sphere. I'm not going to question that you actually hold the view you do. But I will ask you to explain it.

                           13. 'in re Cheaps'

                               SelectShow

                               I don't know how else we can frame it. In the public comment case, who speaks and how is determined by the individuals who stand up. In the agendized case, it is the State choosing who speaks and how. It's a contractual circumstance. The State has no business in our model sponsoring or imposing religious views on the public. It is an endorsement activity. There is no endorsement by the State in the parade of public comments, other than the endorsement that members of the public should have the opportunity to go off-agenda to address the public body in question. Everyone should understand the difference between specific State selection/endorsement of a speaker on the one hand and a public comment on the other.

                           14. 'Spoiler'	SelectShow
                               I understand that it is the state. I'm saying "so what? Who cares? The state does all sorts of crap I don't agree with." A more meaningful test is to look at the impact it has on people. When the actions and exposure are objectively the same, whether "state endorsed" or "state permitted" the impact on the person is the same.

                           15. 'Spoiler'

                               SelectShow

                               I disagree that there is no difference in effect. State promotion and endorsement of sectarian views chills differences and imposes demands for conformity. You may see triviality here, but the history of State involvement in religious practice is pretty profoundly anti-liberal. Religious practice in America is rich and diverse and has thrived in an environment of increasing separation of church and state. Around the world and throughout history, express State involvement in religious practice and expression has been damaging to faith and at least as damaging to peace and prosperity.

                           16. 'Spoiler'

                               SelectShow

                               But there's a gulf of difference between "express state action" and "more loose permissions." The choice isn't between "keep religion away from our state at all times in all ways" (as you advocate) and "theocracy!" like you're crying in this LTE. The alternative I'm proposing is a much more reasoned response that looks first at objective and legal harms (Kim Davis) and second, at actual impact. My question to cheap was "why do you care about the distinction when there's no difference in actual impact?" and your response to that is, it seems, to conflate "allowing the same speaker to be on the agenda" with historical inquisitions and wars. Dude, give me something concrete if you want to say there's a different effect. Because I do not see it. The state does all sorts of stuff we disagree with. That's the nature of a pluralistic society.

      2. 'Spoiler'	SelectShow
         Pretty much in agreement. One of my friends is friends with Jiz Lee*, and I wish I had cool friends like that. *just in case, don't google that at work

         1. 😉	SelectShow
            He says to all his non-cool friends.

            1. heh. all my friends are cool, though not all of them are cool in that way.

               1. That Kelly Wells, though...

   6. Are there warnings of hairy palms or of blindness?

      cue classic SNL skits on the subject.

   7. After giving this some more thought, I am convinced that this organization is a front for the porn industry, and they're trying to hook 'em young. It'd be like Marlboro sponsoring a cartoon to tell kids smoking is "bad."

      1. That's the kind of thing that would have worked on teenaged me.

   8. Yeah, I don't want HPR even knowing about that.
      Phew. #HomeschoolFTW

7. If everyone in positions of influence and power could all stop turning out to be terrible, awful people, that'd be great, okay?

   1. Indeed. Especially the ones I like.

      And, also great that terrible, awful people are slowly starting to have to suffer some consequences.

      1. feeling a bit like a (long overdue) coup

      2. Didn't take you guys for big Roy Moore fans. Not judging.

         1. There's a certain comedian also in the headlines, among others.

            1. He seemed to have rubbed a lot of ... people the wrong way.

               1. yeah, i’m just not at the point where i’m making light of this bullshit just yet.

                  1. Oh, I am not making light of what he (allegedly, almost certainly) did.

                     But I am not above mocking him.

   2. Maybe if more people were focused on fighting the new drug they'd stop seeing others as objects!

      1. heh.

         teenagers, or at least teenage boys, as a class are not real good at empathy when teh Sex is involved. Objectification is a tough nut to crack when all you can think about is soft and fuzzy sweaters, too magical to touch.

         1. teenagers, or at least teenage boys, as a class are not real good at empathy when teh Sex is involved.

   3. But this was known and written about for years. The 3/5ths compromise still covers a lot of people.

8. Vote for Byron Buxton! I guess you could vote for Dozier if you really wanted to, but I don't know why. Also, my sister-in-law would appreciate if you vote for her nephew in the NL, Tucker Barnhart.

9. RIP Jonathan Higgins, by far the best thing about Magnum PI.

Comments are closed.