Arkansas Blog

Again, the ignorance of public school officials continue to amaze me even after all these years. I am still trying to find out exactly what graduate education course they all take that makes them such dumb asses, other than the former coaching pre-requisite.

Cato, most would have had to complete the undergraduate capstone course, "Bulletin Board Borders", to get their BSE. Many administrators have gone on to complete a doctoral dissertation of some sort. Not necessarily one so involving that would make the author remember its title 'till death.

God! What a silly, unnecessary mess.

Does the Fellowship of Christian Athletes have any opinion on cheerleading outfits? Do schools with FCA's have to ensure that athletes wear modest clothing, like the swimsuits recommend by the Duggers?

Their god is so weak and pitiful that they must disregard the constitution in order to capture lost souls for indoctrination.

Lte's allow charles manson to donate money for a liabrary for his propaganda. Since it is private money it would be ok.

School boards and other authorities should be held personally responsible for underwriting the costs of litigating the court challenges to these boneheaded decisions. Instead, the taxpayers will have to pay. But that's OK with these yahoos. Taking money from school kids is justified by the knowledge that the perpetrators get extra points in Heaven for trying to cram Jesus down the throats of non-believers and members of suspect religions. It's the same justification that it's OK for foster children to suffer if it means that the heathen queers are thwarted.

Better not mess with the Fighting Cobras of Fountain Lake High.

I'm waiting for the first documented case of "cramming Jesus down the throats of unbelievers."

Until then, I consider it an urban myth--about as realistic and believable as "the liberal media."

Good point, Sky

Sky and Cato,

Evidence but not proof of attempted cramming would be the acknowledgement that non-believers will not come to indoctrinators for indoctrination and enlisting yahoos in a tiny school to allow a religious organization to defy constitutional rulings to gain access to non-belivers.

Please advise how an FCA room would not be used to cram Jesus upon unbelivers. Saying attendance is voluntary without an understanding of what the FCA room was to be used for. If game film is studied there, attendance is not voluntary. If teem meetings are held there then attendance is not voluntary. And on and on and on....

When I was a young man back in the late 60s Fountain Lake area was where many far-out religio-fanatics lived. There was a big summer revival compound out there. Few members of the school board held college degrees.

It's interesting how an area can continue a tradition.

Of course if any of them believe in the inerrant truth of the bible they would use rubber or leather footballs because touching pigskin is a mortal sin.

Likewise an "inerrant-Bible Christian" would never eat pork.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcass."
Deuteronomy 14:8

.

I suspect that some people cannot be persuaded by any examples that there is an effort to cram Jesus down the throats of non-believers and members of suspect religions, but here are a couple: prayer in school and "creation science/intelligent design."

eLwood, there is still some sort of camp ground out that way, beyond the old mill,

country club.............

It looks rather run down and beat up, might not be in use today. I don't visit that part of

the county often, when I travel 7 north I use the Fox Pass by pass.

"Cram (fill in the blank) down their/our throat(s)" is nothing but an inflamatory metaphor. It has no truth in reality.

In a free society, it is impossible to FORCE someone to believe something s/he does not want to believe.

The atheists who share their insights on this blog are living proof that it is impossible to force belief on someone.

"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

I'm not mounting a defense of violation of church/state separation. I'm not excusing Fountain Lake of constitutional violations. I'm simply observing that if FCA participation is voluntary and that if the place where it meets is available to "any and all," then no one is "cramming Jesus down their throats."

IMHO

SkyPilot, the following is from the article:

Assistant Coach Andi Kinsinger told the newspaper, "Fellowship of Christian Athletes has impacted many people for over 50 years through the influence of athletes and coaches, and we want to share those experiences with the students at Fountain Lake."

If that's not cramming . . .
Kinsinger is one of the coaches, for pity's sakes. Now you tell me that a coach might not have undue sway with a high school kid.
Whether or not that influence is successful is immaterial. He (or maybe she, considering the spelling of Andi) is shoving his brand of religion down the throats of his young charges. While he may not be able to force them to believe, he is applying pressure on them to at least appear to conform to his religious standards.
That is force. The only difference between that and a government's insistence on or banning of your religion is a matter of scale.

Doigotta: You're making an awfully big leap.

The coach was quoted as saying, "We want to share those experiences."

From "sharing experiences" to "cramming down the throat" is a long way.

Again, "cramming down the throat" is an inflammatory metaphor used by a critic.

Would you say that the eight parts of speech are crammed down the throats of students?

Would you say that the multiplication tables are crammed down the throats of students?

Would you label ANYTHING taught in a public school that a student doesn't want to listen to or learn can be "crammed down her/his throat"?

In all my years of teaching, I was never able to teach a single student anything s/he didn't want to learn. If you think an educator can cram any information or belief down the throat of a student, you haven't observed many students.

You cannot force information/knowledge on a student. You cannot force a belief on an unwilling subject.

Our penal system attempts to force residents to repent of their crimes, to be penitent. That's why those institutions were called penitentiaries. Do you suppose that even under those living conditions those residents were ever FORCED to repent--to be penitent? Do you think that they had repentance crammed down their throats?

You may speak of inappropriate communications and undue influences, but "crammed down their throats" is still nothing more than an inflammatory metaphor!

I object to inappropriate, unrealistic, inflammatory metaphors. And anyone who uses the expression, "cram down their throats," is simply a critic using an inflammatory metaphor to stir up negative emotions against the person or issue at stake.

Whether undue influence was used at Fountain Lake may be determined by the judge when this case comes to court.

Meanwhile, any allegation may be made by any person, any time, under any circumstance, against any one.

But whatever actual behaviors may be proven in court, I can guarantee you that "cramming down the throat" will not be one of them. A person cannot be convicted of a metaphor.

In fact, if I were placing bets, I'd bet that the AUSCS will never use any expression such as "cram down their throats" in their allegations in this suit.

Incidentally, I'm a dues-paying member of AUSCS, so I'm not campaigning for public schools to be used as instruments of religion.

My questions about this particular case are related to the issues of fact: Did "Fountain Lake" violate the provisions of the U.S. Constitution? Do any of the behaviors of any of the parties involved rise to that level?

I think there's something in our statutes about "innocent until proven guilty," so I think it's a little premature to conclude that "Fountain Lake" has violated the constitution.

But if it did, it will not have been by "cramming Jesus down their throats."

The priest might do that at Holy Communion, but I don't think a simple coach could accomplish it.

Please refer me to the statute that makes it a crime to "cram Jesus down their throats."

Sorry, Sky, but you're not going to convince me that this type of "sharing'" isn't cramming, with all the negative connotations of the word. Over the past two years, I've had a certain family member, her friends and members of her Sunday school class and three pastors "share" their brand of religion with me when I couldn't easily escape their clutches.
It may be sharing to them. It may be sharing to you. To me, it's cramming. It's also stressful and uncalled for, more so because of the situation in which it happened. In my case, at least, the incidents did nothing but strengthen my resolve that the whole bunch of them were blue-faced idiots -- although one did have greater culpability than the others.

Doigotta: I can understand your feeling. I regret that there are inconsiderate people who "press their case" beyond the limits of good manners and consideration for the rights and feelings of others. I have witnessed the behavior of the overly-zealous.

But in a sense, your very experience makes my case: They could not "cram Jesus down your throat." You resisted their efforts and you rejected their contentions, and you didn't swallow their "Jesus burger" (no sacrilege intended).

I don't approve of their methods. But neither do I approve of the inflammatory metaphor used to describe them.

We don't yet know about the methods used at Fountain Lake. I conclude that is what the AUSCS suit is all about--to determine whether Fountain Lake's methods constituted a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

But in any case, I doubt "cram Jesus down their throats" will be found anywhere in any of the legal documents.

So I just think it would be useful for all of us bloggers to stick to descriptive language in discussing the Fountain Lake case, not resort to inflammatory metaphors to ventilate our emotions.

"They talked about Jesus in the meeting room" is descriptive.

"They crammed Jesus down their throats" is evaluative, judgmental, and inflammatory. It is also a metaphor. There was no actual, literal, physical cramming involved.

In Aristotelian terms, forensic discourse (law courts, where questions of right and wrong, guilt and innocence, are discussed) involves two types of questions, couched in two types of assertions, or statements: "Quality" and "quantity," or "substance" and "degree," or "fact" and "value," or "what" and "how much."

"John killed Sam" is an assertion of quality, substance, fact. An act either was committed or it wasn't.

"John committed premeditated murder" is an assertion of quantity, value, degree. The killing could have been premeditated murder with malice aforethought, it could have been reckless indifference, it could have been justifiable homicide, it could have been self-defense, it could have been accidental."

It has been reported that FCA has held meetings on Fountain Lake property. That's a question of fact--and probably will be stipulated by the defense.

Whether the content of those meetings rises to the level of violation of the U.S. Constitution remains to be decided. And I doubt that the defense will stipulate to that charge.

But apart from that, I contend that "cram Jesus down their throats" will be no part of the suit. At least, that's my prediction--and my opinion.

Respectfully yours for less inflammatory blogging,
Sky

Personally, I'm waiting for the FJA to "not" cram anything down anybody's throats in Fayetteville.

I realize the Fellowship of Jewish Athletes is likely to be a relatively small organization, since most Jews are too smart to go into a career that ends at age 30 when you start getting flabby and your joints are shot and you go into Used Car Sales or sports-announcing and let's face it: how many Jewish Heisman Trophy winners can you name even though "Heisman" sounds Jewish but isn't and besides, who cares?

More pathetically, I'm waiting to hear from the FMA. The Fellowship of Muslim Athletes. One fullback named Muhammed. Allah willing.

Or, interchangeably, the FMA -- Fellowship of Mormon Athletes -- praise Moroni.

And, of course, the ever-unpopular FSA -- Fellowship of Scientology Athletes.

"Xenu! Xenu! That's our guy!"

What? Is it football or Communion?

Plus this throat-cramming metaphor is getting WAY too Freudian, tight-ends.

Norma: In general, if I interpret correctly, I'm with you.

Although I personally favor the general goals of the FCA, I think the FJA, FMA, FSA, etc., should all be granted an equal footing. No favoritism.

As for "cramming," so far as I can tell, no one has been forced to drink the Kool Aid yet.

If Fountain Lake, or anyone else, has overstepped constitutional restrictions, let them take their knuckle rapping--it will build their character. Anyway, building character is what academic athletics is supposed to be all about.

Meanwhile, some of the biggest problems in schools are lying, cheating, stealing, killing, and unmarried sex resulting in teen-pregnancies.

The Ten Commandments have some things to say about those behaviors, but then it is unconstitutional to post those commandments in public schools--at least, in the view of some.

Weird world we live in where we decry lying, cheating, stealing, killing, and unmarried sex resulting in teen-pregnancies, but find it unlawful to post or teach a biblically-based moral code that would counter those very behaviors.

We wouldn't want to cram a moral code down the throats of our students.

Gets a little complicated, doesn't it?

IMHO,
Sky

I'll get back to you, Sky.

Right now I'm all choked up.

Okay, Sky.

I've finally swallowed my, uh, "pride" and can get back to stoning my disobedient ten-year old to death according to the "biblically-based moral code" you mention.

Bless his heart. He keeps screaming, "Mommy, don't!" and trying to shield himself with his hands even though I told him time and again to pick up his mess in the tent.

I keep aiming for his head but he keeps shifting. You know. Trying to save himself.

If only he were old enough to read.

Then he'd know what the Good Book says.

You know. Before I stone him to death.

God, won't he EVER stop screaming?

Thanks, Sky, for keeping me on task.

Yours in Love and Compassion.

Norma

Norma: I've never proposed imposing the full Judaic/Mosaic Code on ANYONE.

The whole thing about Christianity is that the law was fulfilled and legalism replaced by grace.

So please don't sail off like Strangelove or Severus or Chasv or LARGEA$$ on a tangent about something I never mentioned or intended.

I was speaking specifically about lying, stealing, cheating, killing, and unmarried-sex as addressed in the Ten Commandments.

I make no proposal to impose "thou shalt have no other gods before me," "thou shalt not make unto thee any graven images," "remember the sabbath day to keep it holy," and "thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain" on the general public--although I could go along with doing away with hard-core profanity.

It would be OK with me if they omitted the first four and posted only the last six--and called it The Six Commandments.

Atheists, the ACLU, and AUSCS (of which I'm a member) have succeeded in getting rid of some things they don't like from our public schools--and I have to agree that some of them were unconstitutional, but, unfortunately, they've given us nothing constructive to replace them. They've left a moral and ethical vacuum that is destroying us.

Granted, our constitution was intended to give us a secular government. And I'm solidly in favor of "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." But the courts in this country have gone FAR beyond "CONGRESS shall make no law" and in interpreting what is an "establishment of religion."

Increasingly, it is difficult--if not impossible--for society to reflect the moral value system of the majority of its citizens. More and more we're expected to reflect the moral value system of a very small minority.

And yes, I respect the intention of the constitution to protect the minority from the abuse of the majority. But I don't think the framers ever intended for the government or our society to be ruled by the minority.

But keep on sucking that ice cream cone, because that wasn't the right answer, but I like the way you think.

Incidentally, so far as I have been able to determine, atheists and government officials do not object to having Sunday off. Maybe we should allow them to work, rather than "cram a religious holiday down their throats."

Sky

Just to clarify a few specific details:

Let it be noted that in some instances I have been speaking in rather general sidewalk terms, not in technical court room or class room terms.

For example, no suit has actually been filed by AUSCS, so when I've spoken of a suit, I've spoken theoretically or hypothetically.

Also, we are not sure yet precisely who has said or done what. The AUSCS has sent a letter alleging some things, but the attorney for the school has responded that the district disputes certain allegations, so we don't know whether there have been any actual violations of anything.

We also don't know whether given meetings were voluntary or mandatory. And we don't know what may have been said or done in those meetings. In short, so far there's no evidence, or even allegations, of "cramming" anything down anyone's throat.

Calling the room the "FCA Room" may or may not constitute a "law respecting an establishment of religion." If FCA money paid for it, it might be called the "FCA Room" whether AUSCS and/or ACLU likes it or not. If John Deaux's money paid for it, it might be called the "John Deaux" room whether Mr. Deaux is a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Shintoist, Taoist, Buddhist, animist, pagan, infidel, atheist, heathen, pervert, convert, or revert.

My point? Don't let's get too far ahead of the facts and jump to too many conclusions about what has actually taken place at Fountain Lake and what is being done about it--and what SHOULD BE don't about it.

Just appealing for a little calm and reason, a bit of tranquility amid the storm--a kinder, gentler citizenry.

Respectfully,
Sky

No, Sky Pilot.

My GOD, you're defensive!

As well you should be.

You're a hypocritical Bibical cherry-picker.

Can't stand being called on your bullshit "biblical moral code" when it's spelled out.

Stoning my disobedient son to death?

It's right there in the fucking Bible, jerk.

You don't like it?

Fine.

But you'll cherry--pick other passages to justify your own religious bigotry against -- oh, who cares -- Sky.

Gays? Women? Disobedient children? Disobedient wives? Adulterers?

Who, exactly, do you NOT want to stone to death, Sky? In the name of God, of course.

Seriously. Clue us in.

Who is OKAY and who is NOT!

Your "lengthy" little post, above, is just an ugly attempt to justify your ugly little hateful frightened little tyrannical mind.

Honey, if you think enforcing 2000 year old maxims is cool, then let me tell you something.

When you get brain cancer, which you will, for God's sake DON'T take advantage of current science.

Go back to the fucking Bible for your medical treatment.

Brain cancer is "demons."

Right, sugar.

Leeches on your head.

Stay away from neurosurgeons.

Who the fuck do you think you're fooling, you hateful religious bigot? With your "kinder, gentler citizenry" crap?

We can ALL read the Bible. One of the ugliest, bloodiest, most psychopathic books ever written.

Hang on, Sky.

I'm almost done stoning my disobedient son to death, according to the Holy Book. Bless his little heart.

His little cries tear my heart out.

There.

I've stomped his little skull into the earth.

Finally he's shut up. He's dead.

Good.

Like your Biblical moral code says, Sky.

God is Love.

If only the disobedient widdle bastard had picked up his room like I told him, I wouldn't have had to snuff him like God said.

Sky.

You know.

According to your fucking "biblical moral code."

We're supposed to "respect" that crap, Dimples?

Tell ya what, Sky.

Strap on some explosives and head for a shopping mall in Tel Aviv and take out some kids and families in the name of . . . uh . . . Jaweh.

Work for ya?

What a hateful God you worship.

What a rancid heart.

And thanks so much for furthering the human race.

Sweet.

I mean all this in a NICE way, as you know.

Dear Norma: And you call ME defensive!

Believe what you want to believe, sweetie.

Or don't believe what you don't want to believe, precious.

You're as fervent, dedicated, and close-minded as chasv, strangelove, severus, and largeA.

You're sure you're right and anyone who doesn't agree with you is wrong.

You're a secular fundamentalist, a fanatic atheist.

You're full of certainty about origins and evolution and you find people to mock and despise; you offer caricatures and insults.

You, as a dedicated and informed biblical scholar no doubt, insist that anyone who is a Christian today is obliged to practice the entire Mosaic code and start stoning people. There's not a Christian alive who practices the ritual and sacrificial laws of the Old Testament. Yet you classify that as hypocritical and cherry-picking.

Incidentally, just how many years did you spend studying the Bible in seminary?

And you're as good at name calling as any of the rabid fundamentalists who've posted here.

But how did we get here from the AUSCS demand that Fountain Lake take down an FCA sign on one of its buildings? Haven't we strayed a bit from the issue?

You can be mean and ugly if you wish, and call names if you wish; I prefer to be kinder and gentler and practice the love of Christ as demonstrated and manifested in the New Testament. Don't lay religious bigotry on me. I'm not into bigotry against women, other religions groups, or anyone else.

And frankly, I'm not into criticizing or discriminating against homosexuals, nor am I prejudiced against them, so please don't put me in the camp of the gay bashers. That's not my group.

You've been associating with some trolls somewhere, lambchop; you've become infected.

You've adopted the technique of judging someone else and expecting people to accept it, just because you say it's that way: "your ugly little hateful frightened little tyrannical mind."

Where is the hate I have expressed?

What tyranny have I practiced?

How do you presume to explore the content of my mind?

Are you god? Or just a mind reader?

You've gone over the edge this time, Norma.

Hope you come back soon.

Meanwhile, we'll watch developments to see what happens about that FCA sign at Fountain Lake.

Respectfully,
Sky

Funny thing is, when I read about that plaque that was put up by atheists next to a Christian plaque recently, the Christians claimed the atheists were "in their face" about their thoughts about Christianity. Funny how that works, isn't it.

If the Christians put something up that espouses Christianity it's "sharing their faith" but if others put something up, it's "in their face" (i.e. the Christian's face). Don't guess that them putting up something that says that anyone that doesn't believe in their god will go to hell is "in their face" to them, right? Putting up threatening things that say that anyone that isn't Christian is going to burn forever isn't "in their face," right?

If you are wondering what says that, look to the 10 Commandments. It's all there, telling anyone that reads it that they are going to suffer terribly if they don't believe in the Christian god. Talk about threats!

rablib: I agree with what I infer to be the foundational concept in your post; I take your implication to be "what's fair for one is fair for another"--in other words, equality before the law, or equal time before society.

I think that is a concept that cannot be logically disputed in a democratic society.

But I think you've missed a few details:

1. I haven't read anything about a plaque being put up by atheists next to a Christian plaque. What I have read about is the atheist poster that was placed adjacent to a nativity scene in the capitol in Olympia Washington.

I would interpret a poster that starts off "There is no god," placed adjacent to a nativity scene, which has no words at all but is purely symbolic of the Christian belief in the incarnation, as being "in your face." But that is subject to interpretation. I suspect that if you had a dog in your yard and your neighbor posted a sign saying, "Dog's are creatures of the devil," you'd feel that was rather "in your face."

2. Your second paragraph speaks to conditions that do not exist, so far as I've ever heard. I've never seen a nativity scene that suggests, "If you don't believe in my God you're going to hell." In fact, I've never seen a Christian message posted in public that makes any mention of hell. I have seen a lot that say, "God loves you," "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son," "Let's meet at my house before the game," etc., etc., etc. So I think you've introduced a concept contrary to facts--at least contrary to any facts in evidence in this discussion.

3. Your third paragraph is pure fiction. Read Exoduc 20:1-17. You won't find a single word in there about hell, or even suffering terribly, if they "don't believe in the Christian's god [sic]." It simply is not in there. And when you say something is there that is not there, you're not telling the truth.

4. In fact, the Ten Commandments are not a "Christian document." They are a Jewish document, published centuries before there was any such thing as a Christian. That the majority of Christians accept the Jewish Ten Commandments and publish them is without debate; but Christians did not originate them. In fact, Jesus spoke of only two commandments. When asked what was the greatest, He said it was to love God with everything in your power. And He added that the second one was similar: love your neighbor as yourself. Not a single word about hell, punishment, or suffering of any kind.

5. There is no evidence that at the time the Ten Commandments were given the Hebrews had any concept of eternal punishment resembling the Christian concept of hell. The Hebrews had a concept of death as "Sheol," the place of the dead, or the realm of the dead. In other words, where you go when you die. There was no concept of separate places of punishment and reward. So you're completely off base when you speak of the Ten Commandments as telling people about a place of suffering or punishment. You say, "It's all there." But it's not. There's not a single word about it, let alone "all."

So: That if it is fair for Christians to have displays related to their faith, then it is fair for people of other faiths, or people of no faith, to have displays, gets no argument from me. That's one of the points espoused by the AUSCS--and many Christians. The AUSCS goes a step further in saying that there can't be any displays of faith on govenment property. Not all Christians agree with that view. Courts have ruled in different directions on that one.

As for "in your face," I would say that if the atheists had placed a "There is no god" poster adjacent to the Ten Commandments, no one could say much about that and it wouldn't be considered "in your face." But when the nativity scene--purely symbolic, no words--was placed first, then the atheists placed their "There is no god" poster adjacent to it, that could fairly be interpreted as "in your face."

I think your "fairness" and "equal time" implication is right on. No argument there.

But when you say of the Ten Commandments, "It's all there, telling anyone that reads it that they are going to suffer terribly if they don't believe in the Christian god," you have "borne false witness," and that's a violation of one of those commandments.

It helps to tell the truth when you're making arguments about God. It's true that God loves you, but He doesn't really appreciate people who don't tell the truth. And He especially doesn't appreciate people who don't tell the truth about Him. IMHO

But this thread wasn't really about "in your face" or "equal time." This thread started with the AUSCS's demand that Fountain Lake remove its "FCA meets here" sign and stop referring to the building as "The FCA building."

Perhaps we could stick to the issues raised by the thread and not chase all over the universe of theological or religious debate.

Respectfully,
Sky

Yes: "Exodus 20:1-17," not "Exoduc."

My poor arthritic fingers.

(My poor wearing-out brain.)