Stop teaching pseudoscience in school

[_solomarineris]

And while you're at it, stop legitimizing homosexual behavior, planned parenthood, and socialism in the schools too please. Even better, abolish the public school system altogether.

While, you're at it why don't ya try to create 4'th Reich.
Heil, Sieg......

[_EAllusion]

So Bobby Jindal signed this into law. On the plus side, this wasn't surprising.

[_Fortigurn]

These people are enabled to continue their disinformation campaign by virtue of the various freedoms the political body grants them. If they're granted these freedoms of course they're going to use them. And given the way democracy works, they'll get plenty of political support from snivelling politicians who are grubbing for votes. I see this as the real problem. If these people were politically disenfranchised, they could rant and rave all they wanted like any one else on a soapbox in a park, but they wouldn't get anywhere.

Unfortunately they live in a country which enshrines inalienably their right to make life difficult for other people, who then complain that they are doing so.

[_Chap]

These people are enabled to continue their disinformation campaign by virtue of the various freedoms the political body grants them. If they're granted these freedoms of course they're going to use them. And given the way democracy works, they'll get plenty of political support from snivelling politicians who are grubbing for votes. I see this as the real problem. If these people were politically disenfranchised, they could rant and rave all they wanted like any one else on a soapbox in a park, but they wouldn't get anywhere.

Unfortunately they live in a country which enshrines inalienably their right to make life difficult for other people, who then complain that they are doing so.

Do I sense irony here?

Come on - people can exercise their freedoms to propagandize for their point of view, even if a lot of us think their propaganda is misleading. I am prepared to put up with this, because:

(a) I get the freedom to put my point of view forward too, and to point out how and why my opponents' propaganda is misleading.

(b) The lesson of history is that attempts to limit the expression of points of view to those that are judged "reasonable" or "well-based" mostly leads to a worse situation than letting all the crazies and dumbasses just have their crazy dumbass say, and leaving it to politicians to bear the responsibility of whose votes they want to go out there and get.

[_EAllusion]

Unfortunately they live in a country which enshrines inalienably their right to make life difficult for other people, who then complain that they are doing so.

Are you being sarcastic?

[_Fortigurn]

These people are enabled to continue their disinformation campaign by virtue of the various freedoms the political body grants them. If they're granted these freedoms of course they're going to use them. And given the way democracy works, they'll get plenty of political support from snivelling politicians who are grubbing for votes. I see this as the real problem. If these people were politically disenfranchised, they could rant and rave all they wanted like any one else on a soapbox in a park, but they wouldn't get anywhere.

Unfortunately they live in a country which enshrines inalienably their right to make life difficult for other people, who then complain that they are doing so.

Do I sense irony here?

None intended, that's for sure.

Come on - people can exercise their freedoms to propagandize for their point of view, even if a lot of us think their propaganda is misleading.

Why should they be permitted to propagandize in areas for which they have no responsibility?

I am prepared to put up with this, because:

(a) I get the freedom to put my point of view forward too, and to point out how and why my opponents' propaganda is misleading.

There's a difference between soapboxing in the park or handing out leaflets, and attempting to subvert educational curriculum materials. The former can be excused as exercising your right to speech, the latter is social conditioning, censorship, and in this case the completely unqualified attempting to brainwash the extremely vulnerable.

(b) The lesson of history is that attempts to limit the expression of points of view to those that are judged "reasonable" or "well-based" mostly leads to a worse situation than letting all the crazies and dumbasses just have their crazy dumbass say, and leaving it to politicians to bear the responsibility of whose votes they want to go out there and get.

This is not about limiting the expression of points of view to those that are judged 'reasonable' or 'well-based'. It's about the spheres in which people should be permitted to propagandize. Chanting 'Hare, Hare, Hare Krishna' in the street and wandering around with a bell is one thing. Demanding that educational curriculum material teaches 'Krishna Consciousness' as fact is quite another.

[_Fortigurn]

Unfortunately they live in a country which enshrines inalienably their right to make life difficult for other people, who then complain that they are doing so.

Are you being sarcastic?

No I am not being in the least sarcastic. What might be sarcastic is Chap's post, in which he explained why it's important to enshrine inalienably the right to make life difficult for other people.

[_Chap]

Unfortunately they live in a country which enshrines inalienably their right to make life difficult for other people, who then complain that they are doing so.

Are you being sarcastic?

No I am not being in the least sarcastic. What might be sarcastic is Chap's post, in which he explained why it's important to enshrine inalienably the right to make life difficult for other people.

My post was not sarcastic, but expressed my beliefs.

I don't want to quarrel with you, but I am sure you have thought this through beyond the level of your post, and I should like to know what law or constitutional amendment you would like to see passed in order to ensure that US citizens do not "make life difficult for other people", in the sense that your post intends that expression to be understood.

Do you think the present court system would be able to make the judgments required, or would we have to have some kind of National Reasonableness Referee? if the latter, how would we chose him or her?

[_Fortigurn]

I don't want to quarrel with you, but I am sure you have thought this through beyond the level of your post, and I should like to know what law or constitutional amendment you would like to see passed in order to ensure that US citizens do not "make life difficult for other people", in the sense that your post intends that expression to be understood.

The best way in this particular case would be to pass legislation preventing those holding religious convictions from active political involvement. That includes voting and holding political office. Without any lobbying power, religious fanatics would have no political voice, and weak and corrupt politicians would not fear them or exploit their support.

Do you think the present court system would be able to make the judgments required, or would we have to have some kind of National Reasonableness Referee? if the latter, how would we chose him or her?

As I have said before, this has nothing to do with 'reasonableness'. Please read my post.

Do you understand the difference between chanting 'Hare, Hare, Hare Krishna' in the street and wandering around with a bell is one thing on the one hand, and demanding that educational curriculum material teaches 'Krishna Consciousness' as fact on the other hand?

[_Chap]

I don't want to quarrel with you, but I am sure you have thought this through beyond the level of your post, and I should like to know what law or constitutional amendment you would like to see passed in order to ensure that US citizens do not "make life difficult for other people", in the sense that your post intends that expression to be understood.

The best way in this particular case would be to pass legislation preventing those holding religious convictions from active political involvement. That includes voting and holding political office. Without any lobbying power, religious fanatics would have no political voice, and weak and corrupt politicians would not fear them or exploit their support.

No modern democracy is remotely likely to legislate for a religious test for exercising political rights, and in any case such a law would be extremely difficult to enforce due to lack of certainty in ascertaining who holds religious convictions and who does not. You are not talking anything like practical politics here.

Do you think the present court system would be able to make the judgments required, or would we have to have some kind of National Reasonableness Referee? if the latter, how would we chose him or her?

As I have said before, this has nothing to do with 'reasonableness'. Please read my post.

Do you understand the difference between chanting 'Hare, Hare, Hare Krishna' in the street and wandering around with a bell is one thing on the one hand, and demanding that educational curriculum material teaches 'Krishna Consciousness' as fact on the other hand?

I find the former irritating, and would find the latter pernicious. Unlike you, on the other hand, I am only interested in the possibilities of opposition to the latter open to us in some political system that either presently exists, or can be reached from here with a reasonable amount of effort, and within the bounds of likelihood.

But on this board you are of course free to discuss other possibilities if you like, and if you can find interlocutors interested in pursuing them.