1) Kids should be allowed to pray whenever they want, as long as it's not disrupting the classroom. Special examptions can be made to that for certain cases, such as if someone's religion requires them to pray at a certain time, they can go outside the classroom to do it. For teachers, there's a fine line between what they do as people and what they do as government officials. They should be allowed to have religious symbols in their classroom, provided that they're not disruptive, but their curriculum should not reflect their religion. Stopping for "quiet reflection" each morning is something I would be against, since they're doing that during their duties.
2/2a) Right now, all I can say is that it depends on a case-by-case basis. In general, I'll say that I'm against adding new ones, and against removing the old ones.
3) No problem with it whatsoever. As long as the kids in the schools are getting the appropriate learning, I see no reason to penalize parents who choose one particular course of private education over another.
4) Generally for it. Or at least not against it. Many people use the "Separation of Church and State" to say that officials should basically leave their morals at the door. I wholeheartedly disagree with that. Of course, I think I'm a libertarian at heart, so I can't see many laws that could be added that I would agree with.
5) I'm not sure to what end these arguments are being made.
6) Not sure what you're asking, here.
I'll assume for #1 that you're against school-led prayer as well.
#5 typically refers to conservative commentators who express the desire, violently or calmly, for the country to be vaguely more cognizant of following Christian morality in all aspects of society. This can mean anything from a nostalgic longing to the good old days of postwar America to a vehement desire to quash nonconformists of all shapes and sizes. I was wondering how you feel about the connection of religion to these sentiments.
I think I mostly got my answer to #6 from your response to #1.
Somewhat connected to #4, do you believe that the government should be allowed to legislate Christian morality? Whether you do or do not, what sort of laws (if any) do you think would constitute doing so?
Well, I wouldn't really say that I'm the one that started it... but...
My position on the Separation of Church and State? Mostly I'm just against people yelling out that phrase when they have no idea what they're talking about, or just for scaremongering. The government can't show preference for one religion over another, and that's good, but that's all it means. If you ask me specific questions, I can tell you what I'd allow and what I wouldn't.
I'll do it in bullet points, then. What is you opinion on:
1. School prayer in the public school system
2. Religious depictions or references in public monuments
2a. Keeping such references on structures that historically possess them
3. Government sponsorship of or aid to parochial schools
4. Public officials who make laws based on their personal religious convictions
5. Arguments that the United States should generally accept/look more favorably upon it's Christian, specifically Protestant, heritage
6. Laws of any sort regarding religiously required dress, e.g., the veil for Islamic women.
That's all I can think of at the moment, but should you be inspired to go off in another direction on the subject, I'd be glad to hear it.
Quote from Father of Lies »
What's happening in the inner city is caused by manufacturing jobs moving to the Philippines or Mauritania (while the goods cost the same or more), on top of policies that are tremendously anti-poor, like the war on drugs. Kids in the inner city have a horrid environment, and so turn to petty crime to survive. Because of the way the drug war has been waged, they go to prison, and, guess what? Their kids have a horrid environment to grow up in. If Walmart wants to build a store in a town, the city and state will fall all over themselves to get it built, and pay out the ass in state benefits for the workers, because their coverage isn't good enough. I'm pretty sure local businesses in the inner city don't get million dollar handouts. And guess which demographics live in those neighborhoods? Gotta keep em out of the suburbs, right? Hell, they could move in RIGHT NEXT DOOR!
I forget where it came from, but there was a study done a year or two ago that put the US as the least upwardly mobile first world country. That is NOT a positive statistic.
My first response is, well, yes. My second is that breathy rage and sarcasm generally don't get very far. The hyperbole is probably quite unnecessary.
I suppose that that document is interesting, but John Adams also wrote that the government depends on Christianity to keep the people from doing serious harm upon itself and each other. I would look to the Constitution on the religiously based/not religiously based debate, since the supporting evidence is entirely contradictory.
If we must always apply the author's state of mind, then the entire Bible is suspect. Every word. How can we then at any time rightfully say what God condemns?
Read it, learn as much as you can about the author's state of mind, try to extract the kernel of philosophy, and decide for yourself. Such would be the Protestant way of going about things, at least in theory.
Really, though, the church is never going to accept homosexuals because of some trick of theology. If Christianity matters enough, we go to church and do our best not to care, and if it doesn't, we give it up. That's really all there is to do.
@Sutherlands: So, given that you're mostly debating with negatives, what actually is your position of the separation of church and state? I'm curious as to what you'd allow and what you wouldn't, since you've started this chain of logic.
Quote from TheInfamousBearAssassin »
What's happening in ghettos today is caused directly by well intentioned and idiotic welfare programs. The welfare state did more to destroy the black family than Jim Crow ever managed.
I would attribute it far more to the disappearance of manufacturing jobs as a consequence of the transition to the service economy. However, I'd appreciate it if you could explain your position explicitly; it might help me clarify some things.
Quote from Father of Lies »
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
What's that quote from? I would guess by the language that it might be from some document relating to the Barbary pirates in the Federal period, but I could be wrong. It's fascinating in any case.
Well, I don't think a man is as good as giving advice on periods then a woman.
I'm unsure as to what you're referring to.
Quote from The Number Wizard »
As to single parents, i think a couple should be given preferencial treatment over a single parent, all other things being equal.
Is the government giving this preferential treatment? What, exactly, does it consist of?
Quote from The Number Wizard »
I'm not saying I'm against adoption by gay couples and single parents, all I'm saying is if the only difference is that they are gay/straight, I think straight would be better for the child.
So you would essentially arrange the adoption line like so: straight couples, gay/lesbian couples, straight singles, gay/lesbian singles? Just a clarification.
Quote from The Number Wizard »
As for homosexuality in the animal kingdom, sure it happens, but it doesnt help. There is no reason for it other then pleasure, much like how people don't get boxing, beating the hell out each other doesn't achieve anything and it's just for some people's pleasure, some people don't understand, geez.
I may point out that almost all sex among human being is non-procreative, so by your logic it doesn't "help," but it's very popular nonetheless. People want to have sex for any number of reasons; having babies is one, but it's more likely to be any one of the following: having a good time, because someone else thinks I should, because I want a special connection with someone, because I love someone, because I both love someone and want to have a good time, etc. etc. The main difference between hetero and homosexual relationships is that due to a slight difference in the biology of the interaction, option A, having babies, is possible in one and not the other.
No, tough it may be tough for a couple to have children, doesn't mean they can't try methods of trying to get children via fertility drugs.
What if the man's sperm are permanently not viable? What if she's had her oviducts severed? What if she's had her uterus or ovaries removed due to cancer or another disease? Wouldn't you want for a permanently infertile heterosexual couple to be able to adopt?
Also, a hypothetical situation. Assume there are no straight couples waiting to adopt a child, but there are one or two gay or lesbian couples very willing to do so. Is it better for the child to remain in orphanages or foster care, or for them to be adopted?
Quote from mystery45 »
nope he said a BJ wasn't sex which is debateable depending on how you view it.
Um, what? Generally, if something involves more than one person and somebody gets very happy all of a sudden, it's sex of one stripe or another.
Quote from mystery45 »
homosexuality has no positive influence on society nor does it benefit anything to do with the basic concepts of sex or to further the population. At best they can adopt however that still doesn't continue their bloodlines. when they die they die there is no progression afterwards.
The greatest legacy that I have are my kids and the knowledge they are going to be productive members and further the family.
If the only benefit someone can have to society is to have children, as you seem to be suggesting, then why work? By your logic, someone who develops a cure for cancer is useless unless he or she has a child or two as well.
I'm pretty sure there was a bit of stir in Germany some decades back, too.
You're dripping that sarcasm all over the floor, sir.
Quote from sentimentGX4 »
I'm sorry... but as much as you list non-Muslim terrorist groups and non-Muslim attacks on American soil, my stance is unscathed. The reason being is that none of the organizations or events you listed are even comparable to 9/11... in the number of deaths and financial damage incurred. In fact, 9/11 is well over 100 times as damaging in both of these categories compared to all the events you listed.
You should note that in my earlier post I often used the word "major". The white supremacists, as horrible as they are, are not responsible for any "major" attacks on American soil. 15 deaths is a tragedy but it's only a week of news coverage. 9/11 is more powerful on an entirely different level. Before 9/11, there wasn't even a serious war on terrorism. And, yes, there are no Muslim terrorist groups originating in the US. But as long as extremists commit terrorist acts on our soil, it's all that matters.
I stand by my statement that 9/11 is the only major terrorist act on the US soil and that Muslim extremists have been solely responsible for 100% of the major terrorists acts (there being only one).
Well, one single act does carry a lot more concentrated emotional resonance, yes, and it's easier to rally around. But the combined student and radical unrest throughout the 60s and 70s certainly changed the nation's character as much, if not more, than 9/11 did. And that is the aim of terrorism - to change someone's behavior, usually through fear, by performing violent acts. For all our retaliatory efforts, the painful truth is that the 9/11 terrorists succeeded. It doesn't even matter to them how many deaths they caused or "financial damage" they inflicted if they succeeded in destroying a symbol of the American order and caused fear, anxiety, and paranoia by doing so.
Except a couple years back when almost every state voted on it and only 1 out of 50 voted in favor of supporting gay marriage. So, yeah, that's some extremely vocal 15%. 70% of California voters opposed it at last vote, and they're a fairly liberal state. We'll see again in November.
The margin wasn't quite that large, but yes, you're right. The situation may be a bit different since people are voting to pull down something that currently exists rather than to establish a law that didn't previously exist (inertia is a wonderful thing), but I suspect that because some judges got overhasty, we're going to get to join the ranks of states that have heteronormativity enshrined in their constitutions, which will naturally take years to get rid of. Again, inertia is a wonderful thing. All this adds up to me and many other people being legally second-class citizens for many years to come, but then, I kind of always expected that.
Frankly, I think that the two strongest institutionalized prejudices in American society are 1) against African-Americans, since it's the oldest and the most contested over the years and 2) against non-heterosexuals, since it's the newest to be institutionalized and the most violent in its current episodes. The two are odd mirrors of each other - the first is so entrenched in history, class, subtle attitudes, and pure rancor that like an old, festering corpse that never goes away, and the other is so new and hot with the flush of fundamentalism and its fortress mentality that it's like lightning striking every other minute. I'm sure I've displayed a lack of respect toward someone's misery, but please try to forgive my personal bias and my unintentional ignorance.
I'm not terribly familiar with Guettel beyond Piazza, actually. I've heard of Floyd Collins, and I've heard a few of his non-Piazza songs performed by Victoria Clark, Audra MacDonald, and the like on their solo albums.
Are you familiar with Jason Robert Brown? He's an excellent modern composer.
I haven't seen Piazza live, but I have that video. And Clark is a tour de force. Absolutely stunning. Who played Margaret in the production you saw?
Well, his earlier stuff is kind of hit-or-miss, especially Myths and Hymms. I haven't really revisited Floyd Collins in a while, but "How Glory Goes" just came back on my radar, and I love it to death.
As for JRB, of course. I actually saw him perform with his band, singing "I Could Be In Love With Someone Like You" and a song about Vegas where he was censoring lyrics on the fly. And of course I own all the show albums, plus Wearing Someone Else's Clothes and the Lauren Kennedy CD. Yes, I'm obsessed.
I'm not sure who played Margaret, but whoever it was, she was excellent. I saw it a year or two ago, so everything's a bit fuzzy.
@Tuatha: Indeed I have. I own the recording and I saw an excellent touring company here in LA. It's a wonderful show. Oddly enough, even though the music is lovely, I think that you really have to see it on stage for much of the music to have its full effect.
Out of curiosity, do you know any other Adam Guettel shows? Floyd Collins, Myths and Hymms, etc.
I plan to see South Pacific on Broadway this summer, with any luck at all. It seems like a wonderful cast.
It is. I have the cast recording, and the singers are incredible. Kelli O'Hara has developed this odd specialty in doing classic musicals really well, and her counterpart (whose name I can't recall at the moment) has an absolutely magical voice.
Quote from Tuatha »
There are so many wonderful old movie musicals. And some quality new ones, to be fair (I'm looking forward to the impending film version of the musical Nine, for one).
I'd agree with you there. I rented Hairspray and my life was brightened to a mirror finish in minutes.
I still don't see it- they portray Obama as a Muslim terrorist and his wife as a gun-wielding Black Panther member- how does this not hurt Obama?
It doesn't hurt him because the sort of people who read the New Yorker are, most likely, already for Obama and highly aware of all the slurs against him. They get a laugh, the magazine gets coverage. Or so their train of thought was probably going, entirely ignorant of the fact that a cover that incendiary is likely to be picked up by someone else.
Honestly, though, that kind of satire is what New Yorker covers are famous for. It's just usually not on such sensitive issues.
My HS didn't do any Sondheim, I think; South Pasific, Hello, Dolly, Les Miserables, and Annie, Get Your Gun while I was there (damned if I know who wrote any of those).
South Pacific is Rodgers and Hammerstein, Hello Dolly is Jerry Herman (and I think that Annie Get Your Gun is too, though I could be wrong) and Les Miz is two random Frenchmen named Boubil and Schoenberg. Thus do I show myself to be a complete Broadway geek.
Quote from Howler13 »
And I have no problem with singers, most of my friends were in choir; it's just rare to find musicals that require much acting talent. Though out production of Les Miserables was astounding. I ran the sound board for that, and everytime our Marius did "Empty Chairs at Empty Tables" I almost cried.
I keep trying to listen to the Les Miz soundtrack long enough to get to that song, but the sheer volume of uninspired march music and recitative bore me too much. Les Miz is not my favorite show.
Quote from Howler13 »
I'd say in general it's harder in private, but I spent most of my time in the theatre dept, and I noticed for the most part everyone there was either gay (or in the GSA) or Mormon. And strangely, they got along. My not coming out had nothing to do with fear of being ostracized, I just didn't feel it was anyone else's business. It wasn't exactly difficult, I'm a pretty straight-acting individual.
Oddly enough, our theatre department has some of the most "in" people as well as all the odd and "otherwise suspect" members of the class. I mean, one of our two out people on campus last year did do a lot of theatre and got along with everybody spectacularly. I kind of agree with you on the coming out/not coming out thing. Sometimes, though, I kind of think it's pointless to even bother. How nice it would be to be sufficiently straight-acting to give myself a choice in the matter.
Quote from Weekmonkey »
Whilst private people tend to be more towards being two-faced *****es that will attack you behind your back like azngenius says, the public school system can tend to be alot more aggressive in making their opinions known to you.
True; at least you don't have to worry about getting beaten up most of the time. I never have been, though of course that might change if I were to make my hopeless crush object aware of my feelings. He's an exception to everything.
Well the problem with Sondheim (Blasphemy!!) is that his musicals are too complicated for the average high school performer. Not as musical and crowd-pleasing as Cats or Chicago (both of which my school did). I would have loved for our school to put on Sweeney Todd, or Into the Woods, but there aren't enough people who are good enough to pull off the roles.
True, but really...Cats? Chicago is better, but we can't put it on because it's too scandalous.
Quote from azngenius »
Also, people from private school have a lot more money, and people with money are generally more conservative when it comes to social values. It's pretty much like bourgeois society - they'll smile and be your friend in your face, and ridicule you to no end behind your back.
Well, in LA at least, some rich people are very liberal. The general assessment, though, is correct. It's funny - my school is comfortable about about so many things like race and gender, but the two things they can't handle is 1) class and 2) sexuality.
Theatre was my home all throughout high school; first and only place I felt I "belonged." I, too, have the wonderful habit/talent of being attracted to guys that are straight and married, be it friends, teachers, or famous people (Why, Peter? Why? ;)). It doesn't really depress me, I guess I've gotten used to it. I'm sure I'll find someone. Eventually.
It's still my home; that and music and my geeky friends. I read the piece in your blog - I'm actually a singer first and actor second, though I'm trying to fix that. Tragically, my school tends not to do any Sondheim or serious musicals in general, since we have all the grandparents and lower schoolers in the audience. Our plays are better, but I've only had the chance to do one.
I'm kind of curious as to whether it's more difficult for closeted kids in public or private schools. I got the impression from some people that public schools are easier, since you can fade into the background a bit even if the general climate is hostile. Mine is private, and it's basically a fishbowl - too few people, and I've been there too many years. We're fantastically politically correct, but the student populace is incredibly uncomfortable with gay kids even if they don't say so. Thoughts?
I'll assume for #1 that you're against school-led prayer as well.
#5 typically refers to conservative commentators who express the desire, violently or calmly, for the country to be vaguely more cognizant of following Christian morality in all aspects of society. This can mean anything from a nostalgic longing to the good old days of postwar America to a vehement desire to quash nonconformists of all shapes and sizes. I was wondering how you feel about the connection of religion to these sentiments.
I think I mostly got my answer to #6 from your response to #1.
Somewhat connected to #4, do you believe that the government should be allowed to legislate Christian morality? Whether you do or do not, what sort of laws (if any) do you think would constitute doing so?
I'll do it in bullet points, then. What is you opinion on:
1. School prayer in the public school system
2. Religious depictions or references in public monuments
2a. Keeping such references on structures that historically possess them
3. Government sponsorship of or aid to parochial schools
4. Public officials who make laws based on their personal religious convictions
5. Arguments that the United States should generally accept/look more favorably upon it's Christian, specifically Protestant, heritage
6. Laws of any sort regarding religiously required dress, e.g., the veil for Islamic women.
That's all I can think of at the moment, but should you be inspired to go off in another direction on the subject, I'd be glad to hear it.
My first response is, well, yes. My second is that breathy rage and sarcasm generally don't get very far. The hyperbole is probably quite unnecessary.
I suppose that that document is interesting, but John Adams also wrote that the government depends on Christianity to keep the people from doing serious harm upon itself and each other.
Read it, learn as much as you can about the author's state of mind, try to extract the kernel of philosophy, and decide for yourself. Such would be the Protestant way of going about things, at least in theory.
Really, though, the church is never going to accept homosexuals because of some trick of theology. If Christianity matters enough, we go to church and do our best not to care, and if it doesn't, we give it up. That's really all there is to do.
I would attribute it far more to the disappearance of manufacturing jobs as a consequence of the transition to the service economy. However, I'd appreciate it if you could explain your position explicitly; it might help me clarify some things.
What's that quote from? I would guess by the language that it might be from some document relating to the Barbary pirates in the Federal period, but I could be wrong. It's fascinating in any case.
I'm unsure as to what you're referring to.
Is the government giving this preferential treatment? What, exactly, does it consist of?
So you would essentially arrange the adoption line like so: straight couples, gay/lesbian couples, straight singles, gay/lesbian singles? Just a clarification.
I may point out that almost all sex among human being is non-procreative, so by your logic it doesn't "help," but it's very popular nonetheless. People want to have sex for any number of reasons; having babies is one, but it's more likely to be any one of the following: having a good time, because someone else thinks I should, because I want a special connection with someone, because I love someone, because I both love someone and want to have a good time, etc. etc. The main difference between hetero and homosexual relationships is that due to a slight difference in the biology of the interaction, option A, having babies, is possible in one and not the other.
Also, a hypothetical situation. Assume there are no straight couples waiting to adopt a child, but there are one or two gay or lesbian couples very willing to do so. Is it better for the child to remain in orphanages or foster care, or for them to be adopted?
Um, what? Generally, if something involves more than one person and somebody gets very happy all of a sudden, it's sex of one stripe or another.
If the only benefit someone can have to society is to have children, as you seem to be suggesting, then why work? By your logic, someone who develops a cure for cancer is useless unless he or she has a child or two as well.
You're dripping that sarcasm all over the floor, sir.
Well, one single act does carry a lot more concentrated emotional resonance, yes, and it's easier to rally around. But the combined student and radical unrest throughout the 60s and 70s certainly changed the nation's character as much, if not more, than 9/11 did. And that is the aim of terrorism - to change someone's behavior, usually through fear, by performing violent acts. For all our retaliatory efforts, the painful truth is that the 9/11 terrorists succeeded. It doesn't even matter to them how many deaths they caused or "financial damage" they inflicted if they succeeded in destroying a symbol of the American order and caused fear, anxiety, and paranoia by doing so.
The margin wasn't quite that large, but yes, you're right. The situation may be a bit different since people are voting to pull down something that currently exists rather than to establish a law that didn't previously exist (inertia is a wonderful thing), but I suspect that because some judges got overhasty, we're going to get to join the ranks of states that have heteronormativity enshrined in their constitutions, which will naturally take years to get rid of. Again, inertia is a wonderful thing. All this adds up to me and many other people being legally second-class citizens for many years to come, but then, I kind of always expected that.
Frankly, I think that the two strongest institutionalized prejudices in American society are 1) against African-Americans, since it's the oldest and the most contested over the years and 2) against non-heterosexuals, since it's the newest to be institutionalized and the most violent in its current episodes. The two are odd mirrors of each other - the first is so entrenched in history, class, subtle attitudes, and pure rancor that like an old, festering corpse that never goes away, and the other is so new and hot with the flush of fundamentalism and its fortress mentality that it's like lightning striking every other minute. I'm sure I've displayed a lack of respect toward someone's misery, but please try to forgive my personal bias and my unintentional ignorance.
Well, his earlier stuff is kind of hit-or-miss, especially Myths and Hymms. I haven't really revisited Floyd Collins in a while, but "How Glory Goes" just came back on my radar, and I love it to death.
As for JRB, of course.
I'm not sure who played Margaret, but whoever it was, she was excellent. I saw it a year or two ago, so everything's a bit fuzzy.
Out of curiosity, do you know any other Adam Guettel shows? Floyd Collins, Myths and Hymms, etc.
It is. I have the cast recording, and the singers are incredible. Kelli O'Hara has developed this odd specialty in doing classic musicals really well, and her counterpart (whose name I can't recall at the moment) has an absolutely magical voice.
I'd agree with you there. I rented Hairspray and my life was brightened to a mirror finish in minutes.
It doesn't hurt him because the sort of people who read the New Yorker are, most likely, already for Obama and highly aware of all the slurs against him. They get a laugh, the magazine gets coverage. Or so their train of thought was probably going, entirely ignorant of the fact that a cover that incendiary is likely to be picked up by someone else.
Honestly, though, that kind of satire is what New Yorker covers are famous for. It's just usually not on such sensitive issues.
South Pacific is Rodgers and Hammerstein, Hello Dolly is Jerry Herman (and I think that Annie Get Your Gun is too, though I could be wrong) and Les Miz is two random Frenchmen named Boubil and Schoenberg. Thus do I show myself to be a complete Broadway geek.
I keep trying to listen to the Les Miz soundtrack long enough to get to that song, but the sheer volume of uninspired march music and recitative bore me too much. Les Miz is not my favorite show.
Oddly enough, our theatre department has some of the most "in" people as well as all the odd and "otherwise suspect" members of the class. I mean, one of our two out people on campus last year did do a lot of theatre and got along with everybody spectacularly. I kind of agree with you on the coming out/not coming out thing. Sometimes, though, I kind of think it's pointless to even bother. How nice it would be to be sufficiently straight-acting to give myself a choice in the matter.
True; at least you don't have to worry about getting beaten up most of the time. I never have been, though of course that might change if I were to make my hopeless crush object aware of my feelings. He's an exception to everything.
True, but really...Cats? Chicago is better, but we can't put it on because it's too scandalous.
Well, in LA at least, some rich people are very liberal. The general assessment, though, is correct. It's funny - my school is comfortable about about so many things like race and gender, but the two things they can't handle is 1) class and 2) sexuality.
It's still my home; that and music and my geeky friends. I read the piece in your blog - I'm actually a singer first and actor second, though I'm trying to fix that. Tragically, my school tends not to do any Sondheim or serious musicals in general, since we have all the grandparents and lower schoolers in the audience. Our plays are better, but I've only had the chance to do one.
I'm kind of curious as to whether it's more difficult for closeted kids in public or private schools. I got the impression from some people that public schools are easier, since you can fade into the background a bit even if the general climate is hostile. Mine is private, and it's basically a fishbowl - too few people, and I've been there too many years. We're fantastically politically correct, but the student populace is incredibly uncomfortable with gay kids even if they don't say so. Thoughts?