Religion in grade school class

[RuntheDamnBall]

But, as Islam and Saladin are aligned in history, Christianity and the roots of independance in the US are too. In this case, Christianity is "The" religion. The directional foundations of this country were not based on the teachings of Shintoism or Budhism.

159453[/snapback]

I've pointed out before that the author of the Declaration of Independence pretty much said in so many words that he was a Unitarian. But I never read anything about that in my history books. I had to find it out for myself. Yet raving Unitarian heathens are among the reason for social decline in some people's books, and the religion isn't taught as one of founding values, even as an offshoot of Christianity. And I think you can begin to see the problem with Christianity as "the religion" when even its followers don't necessarily agree on a right way to practice it or even one set code to follow (hence denominational differences).

 

One has to realize that any grouping of information is going to end up being a selective, subjective one by the very nature of the process. That is fine, you can't make children's history books into encyclopedias. However, then one must realize that the information in the book is fit to several criterion: those that suit the people in control of production (in this case the publisher) and the version of history that is going to be most widely sought (in this case, those of the Texas and California school systems). In this sense, the "map of history" is pieced together by profiteers and school systems that may or may not speak for the rest of the country get to inform what the rest of the country's children learn.

[Mickey]

The sad thing is, no one would really be sacrificing their rights. The problem lies in the broad interpretations of what those rights are. As many of you know, I work in National Defense. I have more than a cursory knowledge of Homeland Defense issues. It continually baffles me how some fairly harmless, simple things get spun into the government trying to use security to steal everyones rights away. I'm sorry folks, but unless you are part of the Islamic Jihad, or an element supporting them, no one is going to waste the time tapping your phone or checking your library reading list.

 

Besides, if your not doing anything wrong, don't have anything to hide, why would you even care?

159165[/snapback]

The history of security agencies from the CIA to the FBI shows that in fact they will spy on US citizens who aren't doing anything "wrong". Hoover's files on all potential political enemies are more than legendary, they are fact. Bugging Martin Luther King while at the same time ignoring organized crime are just some examples of past abuses. That doesn't mean that the current version of these agencies are capable of that kind of thing. It does mean however that concerns about such abuses are not entirely unfounded.

 

What do you mean by "doing anything wrong"? Would an internet subscription to "Girls of the Ivy League" be "wrong"? Somethings are private and yet not "wrong". I am sorry but I absolutely do not trust that such information would not be "leaked". We are talking about an agency, the CIA, that couldn't keep the identity of one of their agents from being leaked as part of a political pay-back or set up depending on who you believe. Why would I trust them not to disclose embarassing though perfectly legal activity if the agency or an individual in the agency saw some reason to do so?

[Mickey]

Somewhere, somehow we've gone from a collection of basic rights supposedly guaranteed to all (subject to another debate) to an attitude of "Whatever it is, if I want to do it, it's my right". Once again using a National Defense example, First Ammendment issues. Soldiers in combat situations have been compromised and even killed for the right of a reporter to air a story. Counter terror operations have had to be adjusted or changed because of information published in the media, just so that one network or paper could outscoop someone else. Our enemies, on occassion, have escaped our grasp because they were forwarned by the likes of FOX and CNN. A ridiculous amount of information on our critical infrastructure is available on the Web, in many cases directly against the wishes of those charged with protecting it, the people's "right to know" being valued over their security with disclosure mandated by law. I work with a lot of classified programs and materials. Often, they are classified because of being grouped together a certain way in one spot. Very often, the individual elements can be found open source using Google. Can I see a show of hands of those who don't think the bad guys are using this stuff? The organization I work with gets several hundred internet hits per month from IP's located in the Middle East, Africa, North Korea and who knows where else. Now we have an administration that at least semi-understands this problem, and it has been politicized and spun in the press as the removal of peoples rights.

 

And that entire diatribe covers only one small sliver of one right.

 

where is the line drawn between a right to publish-right to know, and posting too much simply because some people think they should have the right to own it-whether they even understand it or not?

159445[/snapback]

Certainly, security in a police state is much easier to achieve than in an open society. The needs of security and the needs of an open society have to be balanced. You know the old line, "those that would trade their freedom for security deserve neither" or something like that. Being a free society has costs and sometimes the price paid seems too high. The way to try and reach a sensible balance between the two would require some toned down rhetoric to begin with. On the one hand, a person is not a gestapo officer reborn to suggest some restrictions nor is one a terrorist sympathizer for holding the view that one or another initiative goes too far. Remember Ashcroft basically accusing anyone who had problems with the Patriot Act of bringing comfort to America's enemies? At the same time, I am sure the left accused him of being a good little Nazi plenty of times.

 

How, in that environment, is anything approaching a consensus, a resolution of such a difficult issue, ever to be achieved? The recent election was replete with the same stuff. Kerry wanted to destroy the entire Patriot Act (not even remotely true) and Bush wanted to suspend the constitution in its entirety (only partly true ).

[_BiB_]

The history of security agencies from the CIA to the FBI shows that in fact they will spy on US citizens who aren't doing anything "wrong".  Hoover's files on all potential political enemies are more than legendary, they are fact.  Bugging Martin Luther King while at the same time ignoring organized crime are just some examples of past abuses.  That doesn't mean that the current version of these agencies are capable of that kind of thing.  It does mean however that concerns about such abuses are not entirely unfounded.

 

What do you mean by "doing anything wrong"?  Would an internet subscription to "Girls of the Ivy League" be "wrong"?  Somethings are private and yet not "wrong".  I am sorry but I absolutely do not trust that such information would not be "leaked".  We are talking about an agency, the CIA, that couldn't keep the identity of one of their agents from being leaked as part of a political pay-back or set up depending on who you believe.  Why would I trust them not to disclose embarassing though perfectly legal activity if the agency or an individual in the agency saw some reason to do so?

159661[/snapback]

 

OK, should an intelligence organization be allowed to intercept email information from an American Muslim that through secondary sources has been observed video taping activities at a container port gate? He, after all is an American Citizen.

[Mickey]

OK, should an intelligence organization be allowed to intercept email information from an American Muslim that through secondary sources has been observed video taping activities at a container port gate? He, after all is an American Citizen.

159940[/snapback]

I think the question is "Who decides whose email can be intercepted?" There is no right to privacy or to be free from searches and seizures that can't be breached under the right circumstances. Was there some reason a warrant could not be issued in the example you give which I assume is a real life one? Getting a warrant can be done quickly and easily. Expedited proceedings and whatnot can be provided for emergencies. The issue has usally been that the investigators should not be the ones to decide whether a search is justified. That would be a chicken guarding the henhouse situation. Of course, in every situation the investigator would conclude that it was warranted. He wouldn't be going after the guy if he didn't right? That is why you have some sort of neutral magistrate to decide that issue. In this age, you could have a digital warrant within minutes if not sooner.

 

Nobody denies that the e-mail should be intercepted, the question is who makes the decision and how. Magistrates almost always, despite what you see on Law and Order, rely on the judgment of the police when it comes to issuing a warrant. Can you imagine the stones it would take for a local magistrate to deny a warrant which a national security agency says is needed to stop a terrorist? It won't happen,

[_BiB_]

My example is hypothetical, but typical. There are situations when actions are of a very time sensitive nature. If one were to try to accomodate that with a "blanket warrant", the actual effect would be the same. You're a lawyer, a lot of this has to do with having a process that is functional, legal AND won't get thrown out of court through technicality. There are also situations that are sensitive to the degree that actually explaining what the exact warrant is for becomes a problem. How many Federal Judges have compartmented Top Secret access and are read into the particular programs involved?

[Mickey]

My example is hypothetical, but typical. There are situations when actions are of a very time sensitive nature. If one were to try to accomodate that with a "blanket warrant", the actual effect would be the same. You're a lawyer, a lot of this has to do with having a process that is functional, legal AND won't get thrown out of court through technicality. There are also situations that are sensitive to the degree that actually explaining what the exact warrant is for becomes a problem. How many Federal Judges have compartmented Top Secret access and are read into the particular programs involved?

160066[/snapback]

"Getting thrown out of court on a technicality" is also one of those things that happens a lot more on TV than in real life. The Supreme Court long ago ruled that evidence can't be excluded simply because it was obtained through a warrant that was subsequently found to be invalid. Police are entitled to rely on an otherwise validly issued warrant. The exclusionary rule is really more a creature of state law and it has fallen into disfavor. I am not a criminal lawyer so I can't say for sure but I would think that most terrorists would be up on federal charges so evidence being excluded because the warrant was questionable is not very likely.

 

No matter what system I propose, you'll still be able to conjure up a situation it wouldn't cover. The answer then would be to have no system at all and rely entirely on the investigators to police themselves. I don't believe that is what anyone wants, the dangers to liberty would be just too great. I think a very good system could be set up to handle these issues, not perfect mind you but very, very good.

[Adam]

I think the question is "Who decides whose email can be intercepted?"  There is no right to privacy or to be free from searches and seizures that can't be breached under the right circumstances.  Was there some reason a warrant could not be issued in the example you give which I assume is a real life one?  Getting a warrant can be done quickly and easily.  Expedited proceedings and whatnot can be provided for emergencies.  The issue has usally been that the investigators should not be the ones to decide whether a search is justified.  That would be a chicken guarding the henhouse situation.  Of course, in every situation the investigator would conclude that it was warranted.  He wouldn't be going after the guy if he didn't right?  That is why you have some sort of neutral magistrate to decide that issue.  In this age, you could have a digital warrant within minutes if not sooner. 

 

Nobody denies that the e-mail should be intercepted, the question is who makes the decision and how. Magistrates almost always, despite what you see on Law and Order, rely on the judgment of the police when it comes to issuing a warrant.  Can you imagine the stones it would take for a local magistrate to deny a warrant which a national security agency says is needed to stop a terrorist?  It won't happen,

160014[/snapback]

 

I would gladly sacrifice my privacy- even if for no reason, and even if its a mistake by the government- this is a different world than it was before- we have to be willing to sacrifice for the greater good

[Johnny Coli]

I would gladly sacrifice my privacy- even if for no reason, and even if its a mistake by the government- this is a different world than it was before- we have to be willing to sacrifice for the greater good

160488[/snapback]

Chilling. In a thread about a grade-school teacher who was evangelizing to fifth graders (yes, fifth graders), it has drifted to a statement that it is okay to sacrifice rights (and gladly, at that) even if the government is wrong, simply because the government says it needs to. Wow.

[Alaska Darin]

Chilling.  In a thread about a grade-school teacher who was evangelizing to fifth graders (yes, fifth graders), it has drifted to a statement that it is okay to sacrifice rights (and gladly, at that) even if the government is wrong, simply because the government says it needs to.  Wow.

160584[/snapback]

Ignoring (of course) the fact that our government's inability to keep its hands to itself has led us to a point where we as citizens need to give up rights. Way to go, stupid rich guys with no vision!

[DC Tom]

Chilling.  In a thread about a grade-school teacher who was evangelizing to fifth graders (yes, fifth graders), it has drifted to a statement that it is okay to sacrifice rights (and gladly, at that) even if the government is wrong, simply because the government says it needs to.  Wow.

160584[/snapback]

 

The supreme irony of that is that the government's fundamental purpose as laid out in the Constitution is, in essence, to protect those rights.

[_BiB_]

The supreme irony of that is that the government's fundamental purpose as laid out in the Constitution is, in essence, to protect those rights. 

160632[/snapback]

 

By providing for a common defense.

 

I'm not pulling things out of the air, these are actual issues that come up. I don't believe that every Tom, Dick and Harry gumshoe has carte blanche to do whatever they want. What is wrong with empowering a select group, regionally, within the appropriate agencies with legal authorization to OK these types of things on a case by case basis.

 

I have an FBI file on me. So do about 2 million other people. It's really not a big deal.

[Adam]

The supreme irony of that is that the government's fundamental purpose as laid out in the Constitution is, in essence, to protect those rights. 

160632[/snapback]

 

 

With all due respect to the forfathers of our country- who had a good read on how the world was then, and how it might be, this now is a much different world than anything that could have been envisioned. People who arent supposed to be protected by our constitution are now taking advantage of rights that arent theirs, and in doing so rob us of our freedoms by making us unsafe.

 

An unsafe existance is not a free one. I'm more than willing to sacrifice my freedoms to help the greater good.

[Mickey]

By providing for a common defense.

 

I'm not pulling things out of the air, these are actual issues that come up. I don't believe that every Tom, Dick and Harry gumshoe has carte blanche to do whatever they want. What is wrong with empowering a select group, regionally, within the appropriate agencies with legal authorization to OK these types of things on a case by case basis.

 

I have an FBI file on me. So do about 2 million other people. It's really not a big deal.

160829[/snapback]

What is the difference between having to go to a judge and get a warrant and having to go to the head honcho of the "select group" to get permission which in essence is just what a warrant is? We have a select group, they are known as the judiciary.

[Mickey]

With all due respect to the forfathers of our country- who had a good read on how the world was then, and how it might be, this now is a much different world than anything that could have been envisioned. People who arent supposed to be protected by our constitution are now taking advantage of rights that arent theirs, and in doing so rob us of our freedoms by making us unsafe.

 

An unsafe existance is not a free one. I'm more than willing to sacrifice my freedoms to help the greater good.

165828[/snapback]

What rights are being taken advantage of that are not "theirs?" Who are we talking about here?

 

No disrespect intended but one could easily argue that to trade your freedom for a measure of safety at some point becomes cowardice. A police state would be much safer so your fears would be less. It requires fear, not courage to prefer such a choice. It is not a noble sacrifice for King and Country, it is a selfish and cowardly capitulation to fear. What did Roosevelt say, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself". Are terrorists that much more frightening than were the Nazis so as to justify abandoning the constitution?

 

Besides, I think the idea that virtually suspending constitutional rights makes defending against terrorists a whole lot easier to be overblown. It doesn't seem to be working all that well in Chechnya and I don't think constitutional rights are hindering Russian investigators in the least. That would be a heck of a thing, trade your freedom for nothing but imaginary safety. Wow.

 

We have been fighting and dying for our freedoms since 1776. What a shame to be so eager to give them up now. Are the dangers we face so much more than those faced by other Americans that in our peril we have to give up the freedoms they, in their own times of danger, had the courage to keep?

[ExiledInIllinois]

The Land of the Agenda. That's a hard one. If this teacher were promoting gay rights, or protesting the governments intervention in a sovreign nation, in the SF locale, no one would have blinked an eye.

 

Best I can come up with is ride it out for a week. It will be gone. Christianity has a huge part in the formation of this country, whether anyone likes it or not. It's only been over the last 30-40 years that anyone had an issue with it. Especially the last twenty.

 

I would suspect that your children have already been exposed to a lot of ideology. This garners attention because it's not your geographic nor local geopolitical mainstream.

 

Kids bounce well. A week of distraction won't hurt them much. Whatever YOU believe is what they will learn.

 

Or, did I miss the point?

154207[/snapback]

 

Of course it was huge... Would the masses go for if it wasn't?

 

I hear what you are saying. It has been 30-40 years because of the real push behind it... In the last 50 years stuff like "Under God" and "In God We Trust" were added. People forget, that our founders were Christian intellectuals during the the "Age of Enlightenment." Our history is one of predominantly homogenious relgious Christian belief, it doesn't mean it has to stay that way. So, I would like to argue that most of our founders were Christian in name only. If not, why would they have created such "open ended" ideals?

 

BTW, my kids receive a Catholic education.

[Adam]

What rights are being taken advantage of that are not "theirs?" Who are we talking about here?

 

No disrespect intended but one could easily argue that to trade your freedom for a measure of safety at some point becomes cowardice.  A police state would be much safer so your fears would be less.  It requires fear, not courage to prefer such a choice.  It is not a noble sacrifice for King and Country, it is a selfish and cowardly capitulation to fear.  What did Roosevelt say, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself".  Are terrorists that much more frightening than were the Nazis so as to justify abandoning the constitution?

 

Besides, I think the idea that virtually suspending constitutional rights makes defending against terrorists a whole lot easier to be overblown.  It doesn't seem to be working all that well in Chechnya and I don't think constitutional rights are hindering Russian investigators in the least.  That would be a heck of a thing, trade your freedom for nothing but imaginary safety.  Wow.

 

We have been fighting and dying for our freedoms since 1776.  What a shame to be so eager to give them up now.  Are the dangers we face so much more than those faced by other Americans that in our peril we have to give up the freedoms they, in their own times of danger, had the courage to keep?

166012[/snapback]

 

No- its not cowardice, because I would not give up my freedom for my own safety, but for the safety of all.

 

If Terrorists are allowed all the same freedoms as us, their taks is much easier, and ours is much harder. I'd like the constitution suspended anyways- I think that our own freedoms are leading us towards our downfall