Supreme Court Agitprop
by tdaxp ~ June 11th, 2005
“Supreme Court Viewed as Hostile to Religion,” by Mark Noonan, Blogs for Bush, 11 June 2005, http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/archives/004641.html.
This except nicely complements my article on Academic Agitprop. The major difference is that the Academia agitation-propaganda is lagging by about a decade. Judicial agit-prop is much more advanced.
This new Rasmussen survey shows that 46% of those polled view the Supreme Court as hostile to religion; 23% view it as too friendly towards religion (I’d really like to talk to some of that 23% and find out what constitutes “too friendly”; apparently, it is allowing for the continued existence of religion). Given that a large majority of Americans are Christian (and among Christians, 52% view the Court as hostile), this is a worrisome development.
While our liberal friends are trying to sell the line that the judicial nominees of President Bush are extremists outside the mainstream, what the President is actually trying to do is restore a bit of balance to the judiciary. For too long now, judges have run roughshod over the beliefs of the people – and when that happens in a government by consent, such consent is eventually withdrawn. Right now, we see the consent in the process of being withdrawn – but the danger is if people don’t think they’ll get a fair hearing in the courts that they will seek redress by other means.
4th Generation Politics, an extension of war by other means.
The New York Times uses top 1% of income, not wealth. From the legend:...
June 12th, 2005 at 12:00 am
I'm one of those 23%. I think its 'too friendly' because they allow religious groups to circumvent the constitution but don't allow non-religious groups the same privilege. If you want real discrimination against religion, visit Europe sometime. You'll come back begging for the seperation of religion and government.
June 12th, 2005 at 12:00 am
Adam, you wrote
“I think its 'too friendly' because they allow religious groups to circumvent the constitution but don't allow non-religious groups the same privilege”
In what way?
June 13th, 2005 at 12:00 am
The problem is that the Bush Agendites seek to run over the non-religious' beliefs with those of the religious. Right now, if we say “No organized prayer in schools”, we are catering to all. If you want to pray, you can, if you don't want to, you don't have to. So non-believers, atheists, apathists, and non-Christians are sated, and the believers, theists, empathists and Christians can pray in privacy. But when an entire group is legislated into action, you're forcing the non-comformists into actions they may not appreciate. Let's look at it another way:
You attend a school where nudity is acceptable, but not mandated. If you choose to go without clothing, that is your prerogative. But if you want to remain clothed, that is your prerogative as well. If the school mandated nudity, they've trodden over the beliefs of the non-nudists. That may be an extremely uncomfortable situation for the non-nudists. You certainly wouldn't want to be forced into nudity simply because you're attending a public school closest to where you live. If the crazies want to run around naked all day, then they sign up and pay tuition at a private school, or maybe get some of Bush's vouchers.
In your desire to see horizontal controls keep the populace cowed, as well as your mild empathy toward religion in general, you haven't seen the world from the other perspective. You might be comfortable praying in public school because you adhere to some of the beliefs. But if it was a foreign or even distasteful concept to you, say public nudity, you'd sing a different tune.
June 13th, 2005 at 12:00 am
Aaron,
“The problem is that the Bush Agendites seek to run over the non-religious' beliefs with those of the religious. Right now, if we say “No organized prayer in schools”, we are catering to all. If you want to pray, you can, if you don't want to, you don't have to.”
A restaurant with no food caters to no one. Refusing to service does not mean it “caters to all” — it means it “caters to none.”
“o non-believers, atheists, apathists, and non-Christians are sated, and the believers, theists, empathists and Christians can pray in privacy.”
How about we have white-only lunch counter? That way the white supremacists, negrophobes, and general bigots are sated, and the blacks can eat in private?
There's some hyperbole in that last line. But not too much.
“You attend a school where nudity is acceptable, but not mandated. If you choose to go without clothing, that is your prerogative. But if you want to remain clothed, that is your prerogative as well. If the school mandated nudity, they've trodden over the beliefs of the non-nudists. That may be an extremely uncomfortable situation for the non-nudists. You certainly wouldn't want to be forced into nudity simply because you're attending a public school closest to where you live. If the crazies want to run around naked all day, then they sign up and pay tuition at a private school, or maybe get some of Bush's vouchers.”
This reminds me of the peacenik argument against the Iraq War, that “How can Bush remove Saddam from Iraq while Mugabe is still in Zimbabwe?”
The obvious reply was “If you didn't make it so hard for us to get Saddam, then maybe we could get Mugabe too!”
Similarly, you are using the fact that our socialist education system prevents nudists from living as they like as justification for preventing what Hillary Clinton calls “praying persons” from living as they like. The “solution” you offer — that nudists and praying persons are free to pray for education twice — is a poor one.
Your choice of nudism as an analogy is interesting. May I assume that your principled stand against school prayer (because it would trod over others believes, by making them observe offensive things) extends to bans of breast feeding, interracial dating, etc? After all, those offend some people.
“In your desire to see horizontal controls keep the populace cowed,”
According to Houghton Mifflin, “to cow” means to “frighten with threats or a show of force.” “Cowing” implies staccato vertical attacks.
“as well as your mild empathy toward religion in general, you haven't seen the world from the other perspective. You might be comfortable praying in public school because you adhere to some of the beliefs”
I've been uncomfortable in public religious services. I've also been uncomfortable during public education propaganda campaigns. I would rather the government not take the public's money to force ideological constructs down people's throats.
Of course, there is a difference. I'm free to leave churches, suffering only frowns, scowls, or whatever. Getting up and walking out of school has all sorts of vertical downstream effects. Trunacy is criminal.
“But if it was a foreign or even distasteful concept to you, say public nudity, you'd sing a different tune.”
I'm against socialist education. I don't care whether or not propaganda is disasteful to me or not. I don't want to use police power to imprison children in an indoctrination machine or to entrap parents into sending their children there.
That said, if we do have mass kindergefängnisse, is it wise or foolish to permit public prayer there? That is a post for antoher time…
June 13th, 2005 at 12:00 am
The restaurant without food analogy I believe would map to school without education? Is this intentional? Let's say the people who go to the restaurant for food also get cigarette smoke. They didn't ask for it, and it's uncomfortable. There are places where you can smoke, there are places where you can eat. The two do not have to be successive in the eyes of non-smokers, much like education and prayer need not be.
Being non-religious is not exclusive to religion. A non-religious person isn't going to be terribly offended (but some would be, I gloss over zealots in this example) if the guy next to him bows his head before eating school lunch. However, religion is exclusive to non-religious. If the whole school _must_ bow their heads, the atheist / Hindu / Catholic-priest-mollestee is being subjected to something that is to him distasteful.
By comparing religious folk to black fok, you imply that it's unacceptable to discriminate against the religious. I'll come along with that only so far, but let me play Devil's Advocate and take it many steps farther. Let's say the bigots, supremacists and negrophobes are required to dress up in black-culture clothing, paint their faces, listen to rap, and speak in a foreign tongue. Seems extreme. That's what you're asking the non-religious to do in the mandated prayer setting. You're not just forcing them to tolerate the individual needs of the “infiltrators” (blacks/religious) but to accompany them in it.
No one is being denied service in a religion-free public school. They are there to be educated, not to worship. I prayed in private for many years before converting to Robotology. Likewise, my preacher, who was an incredibly learned man with degrees in History, Hebrew, cartography (!) and a few others, was careful to seperate for his flock the concept of faith and knowledge.
So, in closing, I ask you to clarify what you're talking about in the last few paragraphs… It would be fine to prevent organized prayer in schools if you were free to walk away from them without fear of truancy?
June 13th, 2005 at 12:00 am
“The restaurant without food analogy I believe would map to school without education?”
If (academic) educaiton was something public schools were good at or were formed to do so, yes.
But they aren't and they weren't.
The public education system was designed to destroy pre-modern networks (whether families, clans, tribes, or ethnicities) and replace them with a vertical 1G Network.
http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2005/05/06/full_spectrum_politics_generations_of_pre-modern_and_modern.html
As Bill Gates said, they are obsolete: “By obsolete, I don't just mean that our high schools are broken, flawed and underfunded. … By obsolete, I mean that our high schools – even when they are working exactly as designed – cannot teach our kids what they need to know today.”
http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2005/04/29/no_careers_for_americans_flat_jobs_steep_education.html
First Generation Government is the past. Then why did we have a First Generation school system?
“Being non-religious is not exclusive to religion. A non-religious person isn't going to be terribly offended (but some would be, I gloss over zealots in this example) if the guy next to him bows his head before eating school lunch. However, religion is exclusive to non-religious. If the whole school _must_ bow their heads, the atheist / Hindu / Catholic-priest-mollestee is being subjected to something that is to him distasteful.”
Interesting that you seperate non-religious zealots from non-religious regular folk, but lump all religious people into the “zealot” category.
“By comparing religious folk to black fok, you imply that it's unacceptable to discriminate against the religious. I'll come along with that only so far, but let me play Devil's Advocate and take it many steps farther. Let's say the bigots, supremacists and negrophobes are required to dress up in black-culture clothing, paint their faces, listen to rap, and speak in a foreign tongue. Seems extreme. That's what you're asking the non-religious to do in the mandated prayer setting. You're not just forcing them to tolerate the individual needs of the “infiltrators” (blacks/religious) but to accompany them in it.”
No. I never said that, nor anything like that.
I have never advocated mandatory prayer. Indeed, that would be disasterous! It would turn an effective horizontal control into a reviled vertical control. When Spain and Iran tried the exact same thing, religosity plummeted.
“No one is being denied service in a religion-free public school. They are there to be educated, not to worship. I prayed in private for many years before converting to Robotology. Likewise, my preacher, who was an incredibly learned man with degrees in History, Hebrew, cartography (!) and a few others, was careful to seperate for his flock the concept of faith and knowledge.”
Faith means “trust,” and is a form of knowledge. I have faith that China Express food is delicious, and that the next time I see her the owner lady will be awesome. Of course faith is part of knowledge.
“So, in closing, I ask you to clarify what you're talking about in the last few paragraphs… It would be fine to prevent organized prayer in schools if you were free to walk away from them without fear of truancy?”
Sounds reasonable, but to be fair extend that to any form of indoctrination.