Jane's Posts

Jan 29 2004 6:15 pm

Well, yeah, but is an asshole going to be the best person for the job?
Anne

Well, to be honest, I think they're probably all assholes.

But do I think it's a prerequisite for good presidenthood? No, I do not. Because Lee's not an asshole, and I've got her earmarked for the job. After I die, of course.

jane

Jan 29 2004 12:38 pm

Now this is were things get dicey and I need you guys to tell me if I am over reacting please.

Okay. I'm going to rearrange your post, though.

1.The man just comes in the house doesn't knock.

3. He calls on his cell phone to say he's coming to get the kids not can he get the kid's. And he usually outside in our driveway when he makes the call.

If he just called from the driveway, why would he knock?

Still, if it bugs you, just say, "Tom, do you mind knocking when you get here? I need a heads up that someone is at the house." You can't expect him to read your mind.

2. Just goes and basically makes himself comfortable anywhere he wants. He even uses our bathroom whenever he pleases.

7. He has some of his stuff in our house !!!!!!!

These are just a few of the problems and you can't even say it's because that they relationship has just ended because there hasn't been any and I repeat any intimate things going on with them in the past 6 years.

There is "intimate" and then there's "intimate." The level of intimacy between the two houses is way outside your comfort zone.

Talk to your wife about it. This stuff is all about your marriage and really has nothing to do with the ex. This is like squeezing toothpaste from the middle or the end of the tube. You and your wife are the couple. You're the ones with different approaches to this.

Talk to your wife. Maybe tell her that he just has too much "presence" in your home and that you feel uncomfortable and beleaguered. Tell her that you need to figure out a way to distance him from yourself without distancing him from the kids or interfering with their parenting relationship. Just accept that everyone's needs and preferences are different and important, and see if you can work out an arrangement that suits everyone.

4. ... but does he really need to make a 8 yr old boy feel uncomfortable and upset!!

Just own this one. You and DW screwed up. Even if you didn't know and couldn't read his mind, she just had to know he'd be offended. He shouldn't have had to talk to his son, but he did and he did, and now everyone knows.

5. ..... Now I know this is there plan but when their plan interferes with my money I think I have the right to have some say!

Don't do this to yourself. Keep separate money, or segregate the CS money, but don't get into the hell that is CS.

6. He's now made me feel uncomfortable in my very own house with people I love. My Step kids are struggling to talk because they fear that he will get on them.

Don't talk to the SKs about their father. The situation is too tense. They're stuck in the middle, and they don't want people upset.

So should I say something to him, or to my spouse what?

Talk to your wife. Maybe half the issues involve DW and her ex and the other half involve DW wife and you. Figure out which are which, then stay out of the former (CS, SD visitation, notice before visitation, etc.) and try to resolve the latter (knocking, his things in your home, etc.). This is a tricky process, and many people get divorced over it.

Her ex is like your job. It's her business, but it affects you. You talking to the ex about CS is like her talking to your boss about your pay. Ex showing up in your living room unexpectedly is like you unexpectedly having to work late. You wanting her to push for regular CS is like her wanting you to ask for a raise. You talk about this stuff and let each other know how you feel, but you can't get caught up in making your mate handle it the way you want him to.

I mean I am really getting frustrated because I feel that there is no level of respect on his part. Thought?

Well, maybe he doesn't respect you personally. That's okay. That's workable. Your respect for him isn't boundless, either. Just make the most of what you've got. And apologize for the "Dad" thing.

jane

Jan 30 2004 12:53 pm

Ok Jane let me make things more clearer for you

Ahh. Set your back up a little there, did I?

But my Mother always taught me that if it is not your home knock before you come in!

Right. Sure. The thing is, your mother's etiquette is not given equal weight by everyone in this situation. Think of it as a conflict of cultures. I have to assume that the walking in was fine with everyone until you came along and that you want to change the current system. You're not going to get people on board with "my mother said." It's off-putting. You open a whole can of worms: What the fuck does your mother have to do with anything?...Your mother isn't Queen of the World... Are you calling *my* mother trash?... Your mother isn't here now... Well then go live with your mother.

When you do things one way and the family you're coming into does them another way, adjustments and accommodations have to be made. It takes cooperation, team work. Nothing undermines the process quicker than "because I'm right and you're wrong."

You're coming at this with the attitude that BF is wrong because he walks into his children's home. That's not wrong to everyone. You're not going to get anywhere with "it's wrong because it's wrong and you're wrong if you don't see it's wrong." You have a much better chance with "it makes me uncomfortable."

jane

Jan 29 2004 12:21 am

Jane is talking about righting injustices, and about making amends.

Pulling this back to the religion discussion...

I grew up Catholic. Confess and atone. I heard some woman on the radio say it better on the way home, "If you screw up, admit you screwed up, and try to fix it." That's one of my fundamental life principal goal thingies. A leitmotif in my life, if you will.

I am so tired.

jane

Jan 29 2004 1:00 am

I came up with Kucinich too. And second was Al Sharpton!
Vicki

Ditto, without the exclamation point. Who came after, though? I was surprised that Kerry matched me better than Dean.

Bush came in last for me - 4%.

jane

Jan 29 2004 1:08 am

BTW, there is something I just don't like about Kerry too, but I can't put my finger on it.

He's an asshole. Still, I'm not looking for someone to hang out with. I'm looking for someone to run the country.

jane

Jan 29 2004 6:15 pm

Well, yeah, but is an asshole going to be the best person for the job?

Well, to be honest, I think they're probably all assholes.

But do I think it's a prerequisite for good presidenthood? No, I do not. Because Lee's not an asshole, and I've got her earmarked for the job. After I die, of course.

jane

Feb 03 2004 1:08 am

We don't need a bunch of socialists

Now see, that's exactly what I think we need.

jane

Feb 03 2004 8:56 am

Everyone has some power. We have the power to choose carefully what we buy and who we vote for at the very least.

My life is defined by choosing food lately. Have I mentioned this here? The supermarkets are still on strike, and I'd prefer to die without ever having crossed a picket line, so I lost the stores where I did 80-90% of my food shopping. 7-11 is doing great.

But Lee, my precious child, is a vegetarian, and they don't carry tofu. Dairy products have to come from animals treated humanely. Not a problem, we can get organic cagefree eggs at the farmers market on the other side of town on Sundays. Unfortunately, they don't carry organic cheese and milk, which I get at the food coop on the other other side of town.

Then there's the low carb diet and the braces to factor in. Food has lost all its convenience. There is nowhere to dash out and grab something anymore. There's nothing to keep around the house to snack on.

jane

Feb 04 2004 11:55 am

The Wegman's workers are extremely happy with their jobs and working conditions,

You know that's crap. Think about it. It is not possible that all Wegman workers are extremely happy with their jobs and working conditions. That's just now how things work in this world. So bring it back to the real world. You and I both know that there are some people in that store who want a union and some who don't.

So what we have is a unionization dispute. I'm generally pro-union in such disputes because I believe collective bargaining is necessary to balance the power between the worker and the capitalist in negotiation. Norma Rae can't get the deal out of the company that all the workers in the factory together can. Besides, I want the store to be union for my shopping convenience. So I'm not crossing that line.

There could be a situation in which I would cross a picket line. Say if the union was on strike to oppose AA or women being admitted or something. I'd prefer that didn't happen, though.

jane "you won't get me, I'm part of the union" lawrence

Feb 04 2004 1:32 pm

No, they don't.

Then I'm not sure what significance you attach to them not striking.

And they are not expressing any dissatisfaction with their working conditions.

I'm quite sure the organizers have been around, but no one's interested.

This is what makes me crazy. Of course people are expressing dissatisfaction, and of course people are interested. How can you make these blanket statements? This is so not like you.

I'm not saying Wegman's should be unionized, or even that things would be better if they were. What I'm saying is that there is disagreement among employees on this issue.

You can cross a line. You can shop at non-union stores. Hell, you can shop at WalMart. It's your decision, based on your values. Just don't kid yourself that you're doing what the employees want. You're doing what some of the employees, maybe most of the employees, want. People who don't cross the line are doing what some of the employees want, too.

Here's a letter dated Feb. 23, 2003 from teamsters.org (can't get more union than that):

I read this twice. I don't get your point. The Teamsters' point seems to be that some Wegman's employees *are* unionized.

jane

Feb 04 2004 7:35 pm

This is so not like you.

Because when the majority of employees are happy, I'm comfortable with saying that Wegmans employees are happy.

Right, that's what is not like you. Usually, you are precise, you take care to say what you mean. If you mean "most workers" you say "most workers." You don't say "the workers."

And complain there, too, I'll bet.

Are you implying that if a person is dissatisfied with something about working at Wegman's then they will be dissatisfied whereever they go?

Why would they want me to shop at a different chain?

If people only shop at union chains, all chains will be union. Besides, if companies fear a union they generally improve working conditions and benefits.

jane

Feb 05 2004 11:15 am

They'd be apathetic, they'd be too busy, they wouldn't care one way or the other. People want unions when their working conditions are unsatisfactory. Other than that, they want to go to work, go home, and go on with their lives.

People vary on this like they vary on other political involvement. Some are active, informed, and involved, others are apathetic. It really bugs me that you are using this broad brush.

The workers at Wegman's

Again, there is nothing you can accurately or fairly say about "the workers at Wegman's." You saying that the workers at Wegman's don't want a union makes as much sense as you saying that they don't want the war in Iraq or they don't want gay marriage or they don't want NAFTA

The Wegman's employees are not picketing.

But Wegman's employees are not in the union. Why would they be picketing? You're talking about union workers picketing a non-union shop. They want the shop unionized. I'll support that.

We never unionized at RadiSys either. Does that mean that there were some employees who were harboring secret pro-union desires,

Of course. There are mes and geris everywhere. Possibly not at your Thanksgiving table, but other than that, you can count on different opinions on this issue just like any other. I don't even understand why we're arguing about this. It's in the "stuff we all know" category for me.

or couldn't it just mean that there was no reason to?

There are always reasons for unionization. Collective bargaining can be a powerful tool. I think probably no union was interested in them. Too many different kinds of workers, specialized fields, etc.

jane

Feb 05 2004 11:20 am

And so the workers get improved working conditions adn benefits, without union dues.

Right.

I'm not seeing the downside.

The workers don't have the other benefits that come with unionization. They don't have a shop steward to file grievances with or tell the store that union members won't work with the dicey meat slicer, etc.

The union doesn't get the dues. Without dues, the union will be less powerful, have fewer resources to sponsor legislation, negotiate with companies, etc.

jane

Feb 06 2004 11:49 am

If the majority of the actual employees of the company have considered and rejected unionization, why on earth would you support the picketers?

Because I support unions as a structural element in our economy. I don't care so much about the wishes of specific workers in specific stores. I believe that Wegman's management is fair to its employees; they can be, they're privately held. I want the grocery store industry unionized. I want workers at WalMart, who don't work for nice guys like the Wegman's, to have some clout in negotiation.

jane

Feb 08 2004 3:21 pm

I once used to think that capitalism was bad for the environment, because most of the costs are 'externalities' -- they don't feed into the company's cost structure.

But time after time, it's apparent that socialist governments have been at least equally bad for the environment. In China. In India (which is partly socialist, or used to be). In Russia.

Yabbut. Socialist governments being bad for the environment doesn't undermine the position that capitalism is. Capitalism is still the engine driving the global economy.

I think Geri may have a point about Americans

Okay, you know that whole fight about Wegmans workers? It applies to Americans, too. We're all over the board on everything.

jane

Feb 08 2004 4:38 pm

Not only that, a fair number of consumers don't really care either, as long as their goods are plentiful and inexpensive.

I want you to shut up. I'm not saying you should or anything. Talk away. I just don't want you to perpetuate the stereotype of the callous, materialistic American.

It's true that some people will say they don't give a rat's ass about anyone else and that they're fine with sweat shops, child labor, etc. as long as they can get more shit cheaper. What bothers me is the myth that those people are uniquely and characteristically American. It hurts my feelings when people talk about "Americans."

I'm not even disagreeing with what you said. A "fair number" could mean anything. You said "consumers" not "Americans." It's just....

Look, how about I listen to talk radio for a week and you listen to NPR?

jane

Feb 10 2004 1:27 pm

There is a limited amount of resource and it's offensive for a small percentage to consume more than the rest of the world together.

You will just have to be offended then, because it isn't going to change. As my brother puts it, " ... because we can. Who is going to stop us?"

See, but I don't want the rest of the world to think they have to blow us up because we're all assholes. Actually, I don't want it to be true, either. I don't like the idea that this country will keep consuming an inordinate share of what is available (to this generation and to those following) until someone stops us.

To be fair, this isn't an American thing. Granted most kids here grow up exposed to capitalist values. They learn that it is okay to own stuff and that it is okay for some people to own more stuff than others. But it is my impression that children in many other developed nations do too. And it doesn't mean that the entire nation is completely morally bankrupt, either. Most people I have encountered here feel a responsibility to the rest of humanity. Most people don't believe that being able to do something makes it okay.

jane

Feb 10 2004 1:33 pm

Globalization probably will actually. The American standard of living will very likely go down. I'm not sure that's such a bad thing though.

The thing is, I don't see a more equitable distribution of wealth following that. Internationally, yes, but not per capita.

jane

Feb 11 2004 11:51 am

What would be the point of working if you didn't get to keep the fruits of your labor, so to speak?

I look at my life, though. The least amount and worst quality of work is what I do for money. I kill myself in the garden because I like to see it grow. I've devoted a massive chunk of the last two decades to raising my child because her welfare is the most important thing in the world to me. I make fabulous dinners for my friends because I love to cook and feed people I love. I spend hours on ASSP every week because it helps me to wrangle problems through with other people. I could go on all day.

That is a free will thing.

It's all a free will thing, Geri. If you have two coats and I don't have one, you have to decide whether to give me one, and I have to decide whether to let you keep both.

jane

Feb 11 2004 12:22 pm

Do you think it is *not* OK for anyone to own more stuff than other people?
Lori

I don't see what would make it okay. If people are dividing up what is available - and they are, - it's clear to me that it should be divided equitably.

"Ah," you say, "but what is equitable"?

Good question. I look at what we do IRL when fairness and peace are primary values and we're dealing with primal desires and people at their least civilized. We divide the birthday cake at kids' parties equally down to the crumb. So that tells me that on the most fundamental level we think "equal" is "equal."

However, once we're past the basic need, the cake, we change our approach somewhat. The ice cream is optional and variable. We give the kids no ice cream, a little ice cream, or a lot of lot of ice cream based on their input (unless, of course, their parents are there to intervene). So surplus we distribute according to individual taste and desire.

Within limits, of course. We do not allow one or two kids to take all the ice cream. We also don't allow everyone to seize whatever ice cream she can get. That would be a disaster, because the kids would not be considering how much ice cream they actually wanted; they would be thinking about getting as much ice cream they could. The two biggest kids with the most older brothers would be sitting in one corner with a 10 gallon tub of ice cream they couldn't eat and the others would be lying around the room bruised and ice cream-less and sobbing and hurt.

That's capitalism. We dissociate individuals from their needs and their desires and replace them with acquisitiveness.

jane

Feb 11 2004 12:24 pm

Why do you think it belongs to them?

If the person works for it or acquires it in any legal way, it belongs to that person.

Now we're down to tautology, though. Why does it belong to them if they work for it and acquire it in a legal way? Why are "legal ways" legal?

We decide what belongs to whom. After a person dies, money belongs to her heirs to the extent that we agree they can keep it. When a person has earned wealth, we take it away if we don't like the way she earned it. We make these decisions and a million like them already.

If a person is starving and another person is sitting on 3 warehouses full of food, why should we as a group decide that the food belongs to the latter?

jane

Feb 11 2004 12:37 pm

You would have to be pretty tough to get it away without my consent. ;-)

But you know, I think you'd have to be tougher to keep it away from me if I were cold. See, you would already be warm. You wouldn't have that same primal need to hold on to it that I would have to get it.

jane

Feb 11 2004 4:39 pm

Yes, *I* certainly pay income taxes. I'd be fascinated to know the percentage of people on welfare who have *never* paid income taxes.
Anne

I'm guessing zero. I am so not googling this, though.

jane

Feb 11 2004 4:57 pm

Or they kill you to get it. I have a question!! For Jane, I think. Do you think "us" deciding who gets what keeps social order and avoids mayhem?

Did I spell mayhem right? Heather..eek

I so love you. My heart is still pledged to Rupa for the religious freedom and law conversation, though.

I think us deciding who gets to keep what *is" the social order.

If A is capable of taking things away from B, C, and D individually, and A does so, it stands to reason that B, C, and D will get together against A. Eventually. But then B and C could take all D's stuff. Or D and A could take all B and C's stuff. So allocation of resources is a fundamental hurdle of civilization.

You know, I never took a course in Anthropology. I would love a course like The Individual and Society.

jane

Feb 11 2004 5:08 pm

I am so not googling this, though.

You say that, but you *know* you won't be able to help yourself.
Anne

I'm trying to WORK! For money! You're undermining the economy, you know.

jane

Feb 11 2004 5:41 pm

By midnight EST at the latest

I'm actually a little touched that you think I can hold out that long.

jane

Feb 12 2004 3:02 am

Massive dilution of incentives to work and accumulate wealth?

Thing is, many of us don't work for solely, or even largely, economic motives. However, if those motives don't exist, it's difficult to motivate people -- or even one's self -- to do the hard and boring stuff that still needs doing

I just don't see it. We do housework. We change diapers. We shovel snow. We pluck our eyebrows. I just don't understand why everyone seems to believe we will only work for money.

So if a town needs 10 nurses and 2 archaeologists, it might end up with 10 archaeologists, 1 nurse, and one person who is mainly a consumer.

Capitalism is not the only way to resolve this, though. In fact, I don't think it does resolve it very well.

jane

Feb 12 2004 3:17 am

Some people do. Some people don't. Making an assumption about all people based on that, well, I'll call you on it.
Tracey

I'm sorry, Tracey, I don't want a slugfest, but how you got to making an assumption about "all people" from "geri, you might" is beyond me.

Also, I don't know why you're taking this so personally. Melissa and Geri (and sometimes Brian) have their own relationship. I don't like it when people start yelling at them to stop what works for them. Sure, they're pithy and pointed. That's their style. We don't all have to prose on forever (me, not you).

It seems to me that for some reason you came back looking for a fight. So what's the deal?

jane

Feb 12 2004 3:38 am

Well, I don't know where I'm going with this, but...

I keep thinking of the middle class being eliminated. If you have ten starving, ticked-off poor people and two rich people, would the ten overpower the two?

At some point, yes.

Or would the two spread out the wealth to keep their physical safety?

Depends on their foresight. Sometimes they do; sometimes there's a coup.

Or would they just spread it out to five as in hiring them to keep them safe? That way staying in power and yet somewhat safe. But thinking about it again, I guess the five hired would be considered middle class, right?

Right. The thing is, I never can grasp exactly why the five don't realize that it's easier to just kick the two aside and take their shit.

But, thinking about it again, if the two rich people had means to destroy the mass of poor people (nuclear weapons) they could just whittle down the mass, couldn't they?

No. They need the mass to make the shit.

I keep thinking about how presently, in the days of nuclear weapons,

I grew up expecting nuclear war. Maybe I'm a funny age. At school we had drills and a bomb shelter in basement. SALT. Kruschev. Oh, and one of my best friends' father flew the plane that wasn't the Enola Gay. The Nagasaki one. So, I don't have a very clear grasp of anything but "days of nuclear weapons."

does majority necessarily rule or do the ones with the best weapons capability rule?

To be honest, I'm always a little surprised that the world is still here. I think that the knowledge that use of nuclear weapons would be globally devastating keeps things somewhat under control. Then, I listen to Dubya, as I have to several presidents before him, and I think, "this fuck is just crazy enough to think that nuclear weapons are an option." So I can never decide whether more people should have them or not.

jane

Feb 12 2004 11:35 am

They question is: should they force your neighbor not to take it?

Yes, we (the government acting in our stead) should force your neighbor not to take your second car.

(That statement presumes a stable civil society.)

You know, we/they really don't, though.

I find this fascinating. In this country people seem to believe what Geri said, that stuff belongs to whomever it belongs to. When you mention other people talking it away, virtually everyone brings up the government. Even the people who believe that government that shouldn't be messing in social programs and protecting the environment seem to support government protection of individual private property interests.

What interests me most is that many people seem to believe that the government actually does prevent other people from taking their stuff. And they don't. Theft is illegal, but it's illegal like smoking pot is. The government is not out there preventing it from happening. Remember Wendy mentioning someone taking things in her house? No one was shocked the government hadn't prevented it. No one suggested the government would get the stuff back.

Anyway, no one is forcing your neighbor not to take your car. If someone does take off with your $60K SUV, you can leave a voice mail message with the police department. They'll let you know if they pull someone over in it. In the mean time, you'd better be up to date on your insurance.

jane

Feb 13 2004 12:30 am

It could be about having money for other things besides food.
Wendy

Not if the dude walked up saying hand me some money because I'm hungry.

I'm uncomfortable with the assumption that "hungry" means "anything, and right
now."

I'm not saying Vicki's panhandler wasn't looking for money for drugs or an SUV,
but there are other reasonable explanations.

If you have a family, you're supposed to go out and get enough cash to buy
groceries so that everyone can eat. Splitting up cold fast food you've carried
around all day can't be too appetizing. And you know you're the scum of the
earth if you get a Big Mac but the kids get bologna and cheese.

And then lots of places refuse service to the panhandlers outside.

And then maybe he'd just eaten. As soon as you've eaten, you have to get out
there and start collecting for the next meal. Maybe if Vicki had offered to
come back in 4 hours, he'd have taken her up on it.

jane

Feb 13 2004 1:13 am

My theory is the world has more dirty diapers than people who would change them for sheer altruism, or because they want to.

Right. But you change your own kid's. Sometimes, you'll change other people's kids. So right there, just using mothers, you've got more than enough to change the diapers out there.

We do stuff for all kinds of reasons. Some carrot, some stick. I'm not sure it's ever possible to completely differentiate between the two. In my mind, the further you get from basic survival, the more time you spend on carrots.

So if a town needs 10 nurses and 2 archaeologists, it might end up with 10 archaeologists, 1 nurse, and one person who is mainly a consumer.

Capitalism is not the only way to resolve this, though. In fact, I don't think it does resolve it very well.

What's the alternative, though?

I don't believe that there is one optimal division of occupations. I don't think a town ever "needs" 10 nurses and 2 archeologists. Death rates might be higher with 1 nurse, but Archeology would be in great shape. Those who are passionate about conserving antiquities might choose that division.

See with capitalism, the goal is "efficiency," maximization of production. I can't really get behind that. I'm okay with 10 people happily digging in the dirt and dying younger. Or eating less. And if there's not enough food for everyone, I think it naturally occurs to people to produce more food. Archeology on an empty stomach is less appealing than it is on a full stomach. The value of food production has a new allure. Archeologists discover victory gardens.

Planned economies tried to resolve this dilemma by literally telling people what they could do -- or by only allowing 2 people to train as archaeologists, and encouraging 10 to train as nurses. That worked less well.

I don't know exactly what you mean by "less well." As you can see, "less well" might be just fine with me.

jane

Feb 13 2004 1:21 am

But you know? When my sister was in the final stages of her cancer and was largely comatose and we were with her all day, in her hospital room, the nurses kept us sane. They were kind, they were sympathetic without being mawkish, they treated my sister humanely and humanly, recognizing that she had been more than what remained at that point, and that we all remembered the alive, living Debbie. They were wonderful. They may have been disillusioned and cynical about the hospital, its management and their working conditions, but they never let it leak out on us, or on their patients. They were great, all of them, every shift, every day.

Ooh, ooh, ooh. My SIL is a nurse. She loves her job.

Just recently she was telling me how much she loved working with this terminally ill cancer patient's family. She said that she was very touched that they all came and spent time with him, and how wonderful it was to see someone surrounded by love in their last days here. They took care of him. They joked when he wanted fun humor and sat in silence when he needed quiet. When the food came, they helped him eat. When he vomited it up, they changed his shirt. When the patient died, she wished she could have sent him one of those notes saying "It was a pleasure to have to die here."

jane

Feb 13 2004 2:09 am

but my guess is that it has to be true of any complex human society, or no one would be able to accumulate enough wealth to *do* anything with it

Again, I'm not seeing it. Wealth does not have to owned and acquired to exist. People clearly can produce wealth without actually owning it. Most people on earth don't actually "own" squat, but they produce.

Someone would take it away, or there would be pressure to share it.

But here you're assuming that stuff is owned. If individuals aren't "owning" stuff, there's not taking away (transfering possession of property from one individual or group to another). There's also no pressure to share (dividing possession of property among individuals within a group).

We rely on the government to arrest and punish those people who break this underlying principle, so that society as a whole continues to respect individual property rights. This isn't to say that the gov does it perfectly, but it does it.

What I'm saying is that the government does not do that. I remember thinking they did, but either I got it wrong or things have changed. Police focus on order, violent crime, and drugs (and revenue production, but that's a different discussion). Larceny is not a priority. My recollection is that the police investigated larceny 20 or 30 years ago, but maybe they were just less candid about their inability to deal with it. Nowadays, they are pretty up front about saying "we don't investigate this kind of crime, but if we come across anything, we'll let you know."

Theft is accepted in our culture. We're not supposed to actually do it, but we know that people will do it to us. And we understand that when they do, we probably won't get whatever it is back. If we want to prevent shoplifting, we have to hire security. If we want to protect ourselves against someone stealing our car or our jewelry, we buy insurance. We lock our doors, and buy LoJack, and keep dogs. We have home safes and safe deposit boxes. We form Neighborhood Watch groups, where the police come and tell us not to plant trees in front of our windows.

Otherwise, someone could just walk into my house, and push me out, and move in...and it wouldn't be considered wrong.

Well, if she *physically* pushed you out, that would bring it into the violent crime area. But as a general rule, squatters and trespassing are not handled by the police either. I think that "sue him" and "take him to Housing Court" must be the two most common things police say on calls.

jane

Feb 13 2004 2:32 am

I see what you're saying, but I think 'don't' is oversimplifying. The high negatives of stealing (restoring others' property, jail time, loss of job/spouse/kids, etc.) are there not just to respond to theft, but also to provide that extra disincentive to hopefully sway the swayable away from stealing in the first place.

Okay, I have to clarify. There are no high negatives of most stealing. No one is going to jail. No one is going to catch you. No one really cares all that much. Taking other people's stuff is no big deal.

That said, you can get yourself in trouble involving theft. Using weapons is bad. Attacking people to steal from them is bad. Bank robbery is very bad. Breaking into people's houses to steal from them at night is bad. Grand theft, stealing very expensive stuff, can carry some significant penalities.

And I don't mean to say that there is absolutely no investigation of larceny either. No one is going to go looking for your SUV, but resources may be devoted to a stolen car ring.

jane

Feb 13 2004 4:47 pm

I don't agree that no one will go looking for the SUV I already don't have. The value cutoff where a reasonable amount of police work can be (or even should be) expected differs very much by police department size and the extent to which there's violent crime or more expensive thefts in the queue ahead of investigating the circumstances of my missing theoretical vehicle.
Kathy

Geez, I don't have an SUV either, maybe I'll move to California so I can just get me somebody else's!!

When my car was stolen, I filed a police report. It was one of six cars the guy had stolen. The police found it, and him, after he abandoned the car in a vacant lot completely trashed. Do I think there was an APB out on my car in the intervening time? I doubt it. But they *knew* who took it, the cop told me that the first night! But they didn't have the manpower to stake out his house and job.
Anne

Right. I'm not cop bashing, Anne. I think people tend to be startled when the police say things like this, though.

Police department size, unfortunately, is determined by population. Bigger areas have more police, but they have more crime too.

Yeah. I keep wondering about that variation thing. I'm not entirely sure that no one is looking for Kathy's SUV at all. Here, like Princeton, police "keep an eye out" for stolen vehicles.

So, of course, I'm googling. Beyond doubt .pdf is the end of civilization as we know it.

But look at this adorable NJ crime statistics report.

http://www.njsp.org/info/ucr2002/pdf/2002_sect2.pdf

I love the analog stop watch. It looks as though you guys are in pretty good shape. The arrest rate is less than 6%, but recovery value is almost 57% and you're only seeing about $300 million per year in vehicle theft to begin with. So NJ cops seem to be doing a good job with keeping an eye out for abandoned stolen cars.

However, in California where we live, the total stolen vehicle value is about $1.25 billion per year, but the arrest rate is closer to 10%. (citing for Brenna) According to the FBI 2002 report, "The Western Region, with 22.8 percent of the Nation's population, had an estimated 32.9 percent of the motor vehicle theft offenses...the highest estimated rate, 625.1 motor vehicle thefts per 100,000 inhabitants...[and] the only increase, 8.0 percent, in rate from 2001 to 2002."

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/web/offreported/02-nmotorvt10.html

Anyway, there does seem to be some variation regionally and according to urban/rural character. And I do think there is some variation among police departments.

jane

Feb 13 2004 10:33 pm

Jane.
Back AWAY from the Google.

Well, I did. Lee and I went to hear Madeleine Albright speak. It was great.

jane

Feb 14 2004 12:18 pm

But which is it, efficiency or maximisation of production

Sorry, maximization of efficient production.

jane

Feb 14 2004 1:26 pm

Again, I'm not seeing it. Wealth does not have to owned and acquired to exist. People clearly can produce wealth without actually owning it. Most people on earth don't actually "own" squat, but they produce.

I'm not too clear what we're talking of, here. What is wealth?

What were you talking about? I thought you meant the wherewithal to invest. Surplus beyond fundamental subsistence.

(I'm assuming here wealth refers to a stash of goods of some kind, a very concrete kind of definition.)

Is that what you were talking about? That's not what I was talking about. But I was responding to what you said, and I might have misunderstood. I thought we were including tangibles and intangibles. Time, for example.

So how does it work? I dig up a piece of land that I like but don't own, and plant potatoes. When I harvest them, I leave them in baskets for anyone to take? And the man who wove the baskets gives them to me when I ask?

Do you mean this literally? Because that seems disorganized to me.

The issue of ownership comes up when any resource becomes scarce. If I like the land where I plant potatoes, but my neighbor wants it for carrots, how do we resolve it?

I don't agree with that ownership always comes up when a resource is scarce. Some, maybe most, property is already not possessed by individuals. We resolve allocation conflict in a variety of ways. With some things, like corporations, we have boards of directors whom we choose to make decisions. With others, like the tv in the livingroom, we might take turns deciding. Other things, like the food in the cabinet, individuals consume at will. Negotiation, give and take, compromise and collaboration all come into play.

Are we talking of collective ownership? So that the whole tribe owns all the cultivated land, and decides who will grow what where, and what will be done with the result?

Leaving out the part about owning it, yes.

Really? That's a bit scary. I'm imagining a situation where, say, I'm out of the country for a couple of weeks. Someone picks my lock and gets into my house, and takes up residence. I return to find him in possession of my home and all that's in it. If I go to the police, can't I get redress?

Sure, sort of. Breaking into your house is a crime. Cops do B&E.

But it's still your responsibility to protect your property in your absence. After two weeks, the cops will probably come and get the guy out, but you'll get the lecture about locks and stopping your mail and security systems. But say it's a month. The guys says he lives there because he's your caretaker and shows the cops some mail in his name at your house. You get the address of Housing Court.

Property requires care. Owners are responsible for taking care of their property. Monitoring it, securing it, keeping it safe. You can't just leave your property unattended and expect the police to take care of it for you.

jane

Feb 15 2004 1:15 pm

Okay, I have to clarify. There are no high negatives of most stealing. No one is going to jail. No one is going to catch you. No one really cares all that much. Taking other people's stuff is no big deal.

I think individual people care a great deal, irrespective of whether petty thieves or even not so petty thieves are caught and punished. Honestly, I think the attitude you're describing is really sad, and I hope it's not as pervasive as you're suggesting.

This stuck in my head enough that I felt I had to come back and reply. I think social class is involved in this. There seems to be a middle-class idea that the stuff you own just belongs to you. The government is there to make sure no one takes it away. IME this concept is foreign to the rich and the poor, who would never rely on the government to protect their stuff.

I'm having trouble figuring out how to explain. It's like a store. If you don't want people to shoplift, you hire security and install cameras. If you catch someone stealing from you, you might call the police. But stores don't expect the police to be their security. No one expects the government to catch shoplifters or even to punish them to any significant degree.

jane

Feb 16 2004 10:57 am

I think we're coming up against practical truths vs ideals. It may be true that the police are so stretched that they don't want to deal with anything less than, say, murder. And of course it makes sense for people to take security precautions.

See, no, I don't think that's what this is. That people take care of their own stuff is an ideal, not just a practical truth. It seems to me to be a fundamental value that runs through our law. What belongs to you is what you can acquire and take care of. We don't want property in the hands of people who don't take care of it. It's inefficient. If you leave stuff lying around, someone who can make better use of it should have it.

It occurs to me that cars complicated things. Having a chunk of a family's wealth on wheels put things in a different perspective.

But what's the logical end to all that? Private militias, as the Philippines used to have? Every rich man had a small army of men with weapons to defend him and his. In Bombay (Mumbai) a few years ago, rich men were so vulnerable to extortion that they had armed guards for their wives and for each child. In Delhi, most wealthy people have sentries at their gates; there are services that provide these guards, many of whom are retired soldiers or policemen.

In the US, most people don't (yet) feel the need for bodyguards, or for sentries.

Yeah, no, yeah, no. Private security does not sound significantly different here than in Bombay. It's an understood and accepted cost of doing business or of being rich. It doesn't even occur to people that the police aren't doing their job because Microsoft or Robinson's May or Bill Gates or Madonna have to employ security. But somehow there's still this belief that the government should be protecting their SUVs.

Also, you're blurring individual safety with protection of property. Kidnapping is something everyone expects the government to do something about. Robbery, carjacking, mugging, burglary - they're bad because they endanger people.

jane

Jan 23 2004 12:48 pm

I would not want my kids participating in a class where they basically are telling them that they should abstain, but since everyone knows most of them won't, here's how to have "safe" sex.

Right. I don't want my kid in that class either. I want them to cut right to the "here's how to have 'safe' sex" part.

jane

Jan 22 2004 4:04 pm

I understand that work requirements get in the way of things. But it's not Sheila's job that is causing the problems, it's not Sheila's fault that he's unable to see the kids when he's scheduled to and I don't particularly see that it's Sheila's responsibility

I'm with you right up to there.

to give up what she wants to do with the kids because of a job that's not even hers.

It's Sheila's responsibility to raise her kids. All I'm saying is to decide this as a parent. Do what's best for your kids. Don't get caught up in whether he's a narcissistic asshole or you're a bitch. We're the grown ups now.

And (in an attempt to head of the traditional rewriting of the the OP) yes, Sheila does have needs too. Yes, they are important, too. That just wasn't the question here.

jane

Jan 21 2004 12:08 pm

Am I out of line thinking BM should pick up the phone?

Only in the sense that it's completely useless to think about what BM should do.

What can I do to help SD in a situation like this,

Tell her you love her.

jane

Jan 20 2004 11:31 am

So his mother asked what it would take for him to do his homework, i.e. what reward would he like? He said that he wanted her and his dad, (my husband) to spend time with him by themselves once in a while. For instance, this week SS did fabulously on his math test, and as a reward they all went out to a movie together on Sunday. (Side note - my husband and his ex get along well. No shouting matches or petty sniping, just calm exchanges whenever they talk.)

My feeling is that a "reward" like that only adds to SS hopes and dreams of mom and dad getting back together again, and isn't an emotionally healthy thing to do.

I disagree. I think it's great that SS can talk about this stuff with his parents. I am very impressed with the way you all have handled this.

Every kid I've ever known had dreams of her parents getting back together. They knew intellectually that it was not feasible, but that didn't stop them from wanting it. And when you think about it, how could he *not* yearn for a warm, happy home with the two people who love him most? What else could make him feel as safe and loved and secure?

Maybe nothing. But at least his parents are understanding and willing to listen and to come up with a plan that gets him as close as possible to that warm fuzzy within the reality of the situation. Good for them. What better way to convince the kid that what he really needs is already there, that no matter how they feel about each other they will always love and care for him?

I also feel it undermines the family feeling we are trying to create between us.

Who's "we," though? You and DH? What exactly is "family feeling"?

The kid will feel most comfortable in an environment in which everyone's needs are met. That's safe.

Do you need something that you're not getting here? It sounds to me as though you do. Why don't you try doing what your SS did? Think about what specific thing would help you satisfy your need. For example, would it make you feel better if you and DH went out to dinner at night when he had gone to spend the afternoon with his ex and son? What if you, DH, and SS went out? What about - my personal favorite - going for a spa pedicure while they're off at the movies? You know, kick it around and see what clicks.

jane

Jan 22 2004 1:45 pm

We parents are the most important and influential force in our kids lives, and when we play into fantasies like this (and all for a reward for doing homework?), I believe we're doing unforseeable damage to them psychologically, and they don't choose to learn to live in the present.

This is where you need to focus.

Where did you get this idea? Why do you believe it? What evidence do you have to substantiate it?

To me, this is only a short-term band-aid, but with long-term negative consequences. What's going to happen when he gets to high school or college?

Optimally, he'll have built skills in organization, time management, tenacity. He'll associate academic achievement and work and learning with positive reward. With encouragement and reinforcement, he'll come to appreciate the intrinsic value of these things.

That's one way of looking at it. The other way is that we adults work for money. You're teaching him how to haul his butt to work when it's the last thing he wants to do because he'll get a paycheck at the end of the week.

Please don't take any of this personally...

Me? Don't worry about it.

it does feel good to put my thoughts down at least. And you sound like a person who can look at a situation like this in an objective way.

Well, sure I can when it's not *my* SS. This stuff comes up one way or another in most of our lives. Here, the last thing was my DH lending my daughter his car. We worked it out. She gets to drive his car when both say so. He has veto power on the car and I have it on the driving.

jane

Jan 18 2004 4:38 pm

Okay, this is my best religion story after the burning in hell forever one.

I was at a different job. I was in the lounge with a christian, an orthodox jew, a hindu and a Christmas tree. The jews children were outside. The christian suggested he bring them in and he refused, citing the tree. She said that she thought it really brightened the place up and that she knew jews who had one too and called it a "hannukah bush." He agreed, somewhat tersely, that jewish children grew up with parents who assimilated symbols of Christmas into their holidays.

Then she said, "and aren't they fortunate, too, to benefit from both cultural traditions." He couldn't take it anymore, and he spat out, "No it's not wonderful. They're not growing up with both traditions; they're growing up with neither!" I was getting really uncomfortable, so I turned to the hindu and said, "Yogi, how do you feel about Christmas?" He said, "It's my birthday, so I celebrate it."

jane

he was inconvenienced by it.

Jan 18 2004 3:04 pm

Well, Jane, I'll ask of you the same that I asked of Melissa: find one for me. Because, when I look at the publications of all different Christian groups: the Episcopal, the Methodist, the Lutherans, the UCCers, the Baptist, and the other Christian groups, what I see is a statement of belief that does include a statement that Jesus was divine. I'd be very interest in seeing one that puts forth a "good role model" definition.
Sheila

Find one what for you? A church that says "We think Jesus was a good role model"? Your talking about church dogma as though that were somehow determinative of people's belief.

I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone here. I just don't get what you're trying to say. If I cite a church that doesn't say anything about Jesus being divine, you'll just discount it because it's not a christian church unless it does.

Anyway, on a related note, I just asked Lee what a christian was. I'm a little stunned.

Lee: With a capital 'c' or a lower case 'c'?

Me: Either. What's the difference?

Lee: A Christian with a captial 'c' is someone who believes Jesus was the Messiah. A christian with a lower case 'c' is someone who is compassionate and giving.

She was very certain of this answer. If nothing else, this should clarify why some people don't want their kids to learn about religion in school.

jane

Jan 16 2004 10:56 pm

I see that if I act like a parent then I don't get to see my daughter anymore. Please show me where my reality is distorted, because I know it gets that way. Is there even a positive perspective to this?

Sure there is. Your daughter is growing up. She's learning a lot about life and relationships and choices.

When we make decisions, we mentally weigh the good things and the bad things about each choice in our heads. We try to figure out which one gets us the most of what we want.

This is not a skill to be sneered at. Did you ever take 4 year old to Baskin Robbins? They can spend hours, literally, deciding what flavor ice cream or yoghurt they want in a cup or a cone. And when they're 4, if you try to narrow it down to ice cream or yoghurt or cup or cone, they can be hugely indignant that they're not getting to have whatever you ruled out.

Then when they're teens, they just lose their minds. Half the time they're frozen in the headlights and can't make a decision at all (...but I want A AND B!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!), and the other half the time they base the decision on one all-important factor, which changes every half hour along with the decision.

I know you hate it that whether or not your daughter comes to your house is her decision. But it is. And it sounds as though she's learning to make a rational decision about it. "If I go to Mom's, I can do X and Y and Z, but if I don't I can go out with Tony."

It's completely understandable that you are hurt that going out with Tony trumps spending time with you. But it's not all for naught.

jane

Jan 16 2004 7:27 pm

Something either "rings true" or it doesn't.

I'm with Sheila. Which I usually wouldn't mention.

I have faith in what I perceive inherent "rightness" in.

jane

Jan 14 2004 2:36 am

Wanda,

What Wendy said about some people needing interaction, that's important.

Did you ever spend any time with monitors? Or lemurs? Some people are like that. They're not like us. We usenet people - and I'm going by my recollection of a remark Vicki made years ago - are more likely to be introverts.

Do you think he needs companionship on a completely different level than you do? Because if that's the case, he might not understand that you need time in isolation. The whole concept might be foreign to him. Have you tried explaining it to him?

I live near a good zoo, so I'd take him to see the pandas and the lemurs and explain that I was a panda and he was a lemur. But in a pinch I'm sure I could make the same point with cats and dogs.

jane

Jan 11 2004 12:48 pm

I think the best you're likely to do there is to have the judge say that you don't have to take them to church on your own custody time if you don't want to. Because there's no way in hell that *anybody* in *any* court is going to rule on what a person can teach their children about their religion.

And if they do, in my opinion, that's a huge violation of her civil rights and will be overturned by a higher court anyway.
Anne

Hmmm.... I don't know about this one. Jane?
Melissa

I'm sorry. I can't keep up and I don't get long posts. What's the question?

I agree with Anne that courts here do not want to be in the business of deciding children's religion. They hate that minefield.

So what they do is what they do for most things, they jockey the parents into agreeing on something. "Mother will be solely responsible for children's religious training" or "Each parent will instruct the children in the tenets of his or her faith" or "Children will be raised in the relgion of Islam." Whatever. As long as both the people with the right to decide on the children's religion agree, the courts have no business even considering whether they are making the right choice.

So that's the deal most people are working with. If they can't agree in the beginning, the court can decide. Sometimes if the parents are fighting like cats and dogs, or if the parents' religions conflict to the point of being mutually exclusive, the judge will order that one parent will make decisions about schooling or religion or health care. OP seems to be arguing, from the bits I've read, that the status quo at the time of separation is assumed to be read into the parents' agreement, and that's news to me.

And Anne's point is well made. No court is going to tell her to bring her kids to a specific church. And they're not going to tell her not to discuss her religion with her kids, either. Public schools can teach children about different religions; it's not making a decision about the child's religious training.

The most you're going to see is something like the order Jess brought up, where the religion the child is being raised in requires some observance by the child while she is with the parent with conflicting religious beliefs. So if your kid is Catholic, you may have to find a weekly mass: if she's Muslim you might have to figure out where Mecca is five times a day; if she's a Jew you might have to live within walking distance of a synagogue. But you personally don't have to observe the religion in question.

To be fair, considering the 10 commandments in the court house, I have to admit that there are some judges some places who will just order this clearly completely unconstitutional stuff. People who don't have the money to appeal are sort of screwed.

jane

Jan 11 2004 2:02 pm

The issue was that the daughter not be forced to say the pledge, right? To me, this is also a civil rights issue and not a custody thing.
Anne

I cannot believe I'm getting sucked into this discussion. I even fricking googled.

The kid being required to witness the pledge every day involves *her* Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech. Those are rights *she* has under the United States Constitution.

Parents have those rights, too. They also have a right to raise their children and teach them about religion. They also have a right to sue to protect their minor children's rights. The custody thing comes in there. Melissa's right, the appeals court decided the guy did have that right even if he had no custody. He now has joint custody, though, and presumably will when the SC considers the case.

I'm a little confused on what that has to do with OP, though. He's not complaining about the government teaching his kids religion; he's complaining about their mother teaching them. That's a tough dog to hunt. It's not as though the family practised some established religion and the mother is trying to change it. She's just increasing their participation in the religion they were already going with.

jane

Jan 11 2004 2:14 pm

To many atheists, agnostics, humanists etc. its not which religion but the idea of religion period. I don't know what Rambler is or isn't, but I think if the parents agreed to a secular lifestyle before it makes as much sense to keep raising the children in that belief as it would to keep raising them in the same faith.

See, I don't buy this whole argument of continuing in the pre-divorce belief system. If you have a right to raise your children and instruct them in religion, the default has to be what you actually believe, and that changes as people mature and grow.

However, even assuming I did, the guy said they went to church sometimes. So we're not talking about a devoutly secular lifestyle. I can't buy the argument that church 52 times a year is some great insult to the beliefs that led them to church 2 times a year.

jane

Jan 11 2004 2:29 pm

Of course, there is no corresponding order telling the other woman she's not to expose the child to any anti-Christian rhetoric.

I don't know the case. There's probably no order telling her not to expose the kid to blue M&Ms either, though. I mean why would there be? Was there some compelling evidence that the kid was being subjected to anti-Christian rhetoric? Courts shouldn't go around ordering random stuff because they think it's a good idea, and they certainly should order a tit for every tat.

jane

Jan 11 2004 3:26 pm

My parents and I -- and my camp friends and their parents -- managed fine every summer. Is it just that east coast Jewish families don't need the constant contact, from either side?
-k.

You know I went to Barnard. I remember thinking that the jewish camp thing was the weirdest thing I ever heard of.

Except possibly for boarding school. I don't think it's that you were jewish, I think it's that you were rich. Summer camp is your Antie Em's farm. Eventually, Antie Em got a phone, though, and didn't see any reason not to let the kids talk to their parents.

jane

Jan 11 2004 5:54 pm

>>Is this another Americanism? Sorry to be pedantic, but it's per se.

Nope. Seen it both ways. Lawyer in the states writes it as per say. But I appreciate the correction.

You know, I think I'd have to kill you if you were my ex. It would be a shame leaving my child without a father, but it would have to be done.

I think sometimes that the greatest power in the world is the ability to admit when you're wrong. It frees up the 90% of your life you can spend proving you weren't.

I've been wading through this thread all at once. You're not totally wrong about everything. You do seem to spend a staggering amout of time arguing that you're not wrong when you don't have a leg to stand on, though. You can say you're only thinking of the children or afraid of the slippery slope of PAS, but it's not convincing. And if you're not convincing in this group, you don't have much chance of selling your point in the real world.

You don't get to talk to your children every night. No one needs it. It's not working. Telephone contact is one of those things that parents have to play around with to get right. Your message about calling the police was of legendary stupidity. Just admit you were wrong, apologize profusely, and ask your ex and your kids what arrangements they think might work.

No one is going to tell your ex that she can't bring the kids to church. Period.

You do not get a vote in your ex's day to day decisions about the kids. It doesn't matter what explanations you come up with for why you should. You don't. We don't have world peace.

Your kids are Americans living in the United States with their mother. You agreed to that and chose not to move back when she did. They are housed, fed, and attending school. I'm thinking there is a greater chance of nuclear war than there is of the judge ordering the kids removed from their home country to live with you. Significantly greater.

The success of long distance divorced parenting is directly related to the willingness and ability of the parents to work together. Regardless of what you say about your ex's attitude towards you, you clearly are not putting your time, effort, and money into building a team relationship with her. You're coming off as a bully. If you want to fight with her, fight with her, but don't expect the situation with your kids to get better. The best you can force out of her is grudging cooperation. You need real support. The longer you continue down this road, the harder it will be to get that support. You establish a history of opposition that is very hard to overcome for both of you. It's pernicious. It poisons your life, your ex's, and your kids'. It has caused a world of heartache for the people in this group, and it will continue to.

Every single person here wishes she could go back and do some things over. Do yourself a favor and listen. Stop discounting what they say and forming your rebuttal before you even finish reading it.

And get rid of whatever lawyer writes it "per say."

jane

Jan 12 2004 11:30 am

When you consider that this order *is* basically anti-Christian

Whoa! Where did that come from?

then there should be something changed. What it comes down to is that unless it is overturned, mom will not be able to legally bring her child to church.

Well, sure she can, Lori. Lots of us bring our kids to churches that do not espouse homophobia.

She can't put controls on her Pastor as to what he is permitted to preach.

Well, in many denominations the congregation does hire and fire the spiritual leader. More realistically, though, I can't believe that she can't find a pastor willing to give her a heads up when her sermon could conflict with the custody order. Maybe the simplest thing would be a church with a gay pastor.

It would also legally bar her from allowing her child to reach portions of both the old and the new testament because they would be considered 'homophobic".

I have some sympathy with this argument. The degree of dissonance between those texts and my beliefs is the basic reason I have not recommended Christianity to my child as a religion. However, I know many wonderful people who are Christians and Jews who manage to reconcile the conflict. If Gene Robinson can be an Anglican bishop, this mother can figure out a way to raise her child Christian without exposing her to homophobic rhetoric.

What do you say to your kids about not keeping kosher?

jane

Jan 12 2004 7:32 pm

I was just thinking, it's so rare that you and Sheila both make sense on the same subject, have you ever noticed that?
Anne

No, that's not right. If I agree with Sheila, I don't bother to reply. Of course, lots of times I think Sheila's wrong and I don't bother to reply, too.

Read nothing into my lack of response to Sheila. Or to most people. Or to anyone in any thread involving CS or religion. Other than that, I pretty much always post if I disagree with you.

jane

Jan 13 2004 12:45 pm

What it comes down to is that unless it is overturned, mom will not be able to legally bring her child to church.

Well, sure she can, Lori. Lots of us bring our kids to churches that do not espouse homophobia.

OK, first, phobia means fear. One does not have to be in fear of someone to believe that the lifestyle they practice is wrong.

Well, I'm always up for a dictionary fight. MW: "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals."

As I said before, I don't know this case. You, you, you said that the court barred the mother from exposing the kid to homophobic religious teachings. I believe you. I'm saying that she can bring the kid to church and avoid homophobic religious teachings. People do it every day.

Maybe the simplest thing would be a church with a gay pastor.

Not so simple, if you have come to believe that homosexuality is a sinful lifestyle.

I'm not getting the connection. Churches with gay pastors are out there, no matter what you believe.

Look, courts order people not to badmouth the other parent every day. This ruling just says that you can't get around that by arguing that you believe it as a religious matter. They're saying, "fine, believe what you want, but stay away from 'and God says Mommy is wrong, too.'"

I'm all about religious freedom, but I agree that religion should not be taken up as a tool to bash the other parent. What is being limited here is not the mother's freedom of religion but her right to parent without state interference. In this country, that's pretty limited. It's affected by the interests of the kid, the interests of the state, and the interests of the other parent.

But you see, there are many who believe that it's Biblical heresy to place this man in this position. They also have the right to their beliefs,

Yes.

and to raise their kids as they see fit.

Not entirely.

What do you say to your kids about not keeping kosher?

In what way?

Well, if the problem is working with the passages on homosexuality, can't you just say whatever you say about food restrictions? That Jesus's coming made both shrimp and gay sex okay? To be honest, I grew up Catholic, and I don't remember Jesus saying that either one was okay. I just remember the nuns explaining that we don't have to cut off people's hands for stealing anymore.

jane

Jan 13 2004 8:06 pm

Well, if the problem is working with the passages on homosexuality, can't you just say whatever you say about food restrictions?

That is not what I meant to say. I forgot what I was talking about.

What I'm trying to say is that there are plenty of parents out there who manage to reconcile translations of religious texts with their own apparently opposing beliefs. Isn't it in Leviticus that you're supposed to kill your kid if she curses you? Well, however you feel about that as a religious matter, as a civil matter, you're not allowed to do it. I'm inclined to think you'd be in some trouble if you even said "God wants you to die now."

Your belief is your belief, and the state really has no right to object. It's what you do that the state can regulate.

jane

Jan 13 2004 11:03 pm

They now have the right to regular, frequent time with the kids that yuou are not part of, have no say in, etc. They have the legal right to undermine the way you are teaching your kids. Why, they can spend the entire time they are with them, indoctrinating them to completely opposite beliefs, and teach them to hate what you have tried to give them. What would you feel then?

I know this one. My kid goes to school.

I tried to tell her that she wasn't allowed to stand during the pledge, but that was stupid. She gets to decide when she wants to stand (or sit, as the case may be) on principle.

I have plenty of opportunity to show and tell my kid what I think is right. She can't truly agree with me until she weighs that against alternative views. I have a lot of faith in her ability to decide for herself, too. I am certain that she will end up disagreeing with me on things. Everyone I know, love, and respect does.

So mostly I feel relieved that I don't have to go out and find all the alternative views for her.

jane

Jan 13 2004 11:56 pm

>Maybe the simplest thing would be a church with a gay pastor.

Not so simple, if you have come to believe that homosexuality is a sinful lifestyle.

I'm not getting the connection. Churches with gay pastors are out there, no matter what you believe.

Yes, but if you believe that homosexuality is morally wrong and Biblically prohibited, then you're not going to be *able* to take your kids to a church with a gay pastor. It would be morally wrong to do so.

I'm disagreeing with everything you say today.

Yes, you are able. It wouldn't be your first choice, maybe, but 90% of the things you do every day are not your first choice. For many of us, a huge chunk of our children's upbringing is not our first choice.

If you truly believe that something is morally wrong, then I understand why you might choose to disobey the court order. But you have made that choice. You are not bringing the child to church because you choose not to bring the child to a church that does not interfere with her relationship with her other parent, not because the court is ordering you not to bring the child to church.

So my feathers don't get ruffled when the court says that you can't have the kid on Sundays anymore. As Geri would say, bed, made, lie. And if you had chosen to have a kid with a person in Fred Phelps's church and the court was ordering you not to bash his followers, it would be the same issue for me.

jane

Jan 14 2004 11:56 pm

But even I can see what Lori's saying here, and I'm gobsmacked that others don't seem to. You're looking at this as though it's a matter of finding the right church, that says the right things. It's not, it's being true to what one perceives as ultimate truth. For Lori to go to a Baptist/Lutheran/Catholic/Whatever church that is tolerant and accepting of homosexual behavior would be sinful in her belief system. Period. There's no way around it. I don't see why this isn't clear.

Because no one is telling the woman anything about HER going to church. She can go wherever she wants. She can not bring the kid to church. But if she wants to go WITH her kid, they two of them have to go to a church that suits BOTH of them, and one of them has a mother who's a lesbian.

The legalities and what one can be compelled to do are different things. But to say "Sure, you can find an inclusive church!" begs the question. Everyone knows that there are inclusive churches. But, in many belief systems, "inclusive" translates into "heretical."

Well, fine you can choose that for yourself. You just can't necessarily choose it for your kid.

jane

Jan 15 2004 1:03 am

Courts don't make the law, they interpret it.

The thing is, Vicki, there's no clear line between the two.

Judges consider an orange and decide if they should call it a grapefruit or a basketball. I think a lot of outcry about judicial activism is from people who just don't like the decision the judge made.

If you think that step-parents *should* have legal rights, then take it to the legislature and have that codified.

See here's the thing. The parental rights that Lori is arguing about are constitutional. And there's no clause that says "parents have the right to bring their children to whatever church they like." So if the courts have decided that parents have a right to raise their children without undue state interference, then they also have to decide who "parents" are and what the "state" is and what is "interference" and what interference is "undue."

So the legislature is not the source of the right. It can make laws on the subject, but the courts just won't uphold them if they don't fit with the court's understanding of what the right is.

Remember Lawrence v Texas? It was the same kind of thing. People thought that certain behavior was awful, and they got the legislature to pass a law making it a crime. Eventually, the court said: you can't make that law; the legislature doesn't have that power.

jane

Jan 15 2004 11:19 am

I believe that any person that believes that God said homosexuality is wrong iedging towards the side of nutty.
Nikki

You're so funny. It's true though. Everyone thinks some religious tenets are nutty.

I think it's a different issue in this country than it is in yours. Whenever this subject comes up, the Americans seem to way more vehement than anyone else. Freedom of religion is BFD here. We grow up learning that the freedom of religion is our raison d'etre. We have a sense of entitlement that I don't think other people quite get. It doesn't always mesh well with our Duty as Americans to defend others' right nutty religious beliefs.

jane

Jan 15 2004 12:23 pm

Well, fine you can choose that for yourself. You just can't necessarily choose it for your kid.

Not only *can* you, but you have a moral obligation to.

And no court can tell me differently. And I'm really surprised to find you arguing that the court can dictate your child's religion.

Anna banana, we're talking at cross purposes. Whether you or I like it or not, to some extent they can. Actually, I'm okay with it, too. I don't like some of the outcomes of it, but I believe that boundaries of rights have to be defined.

You are coming at this on a personal level, as a parent and an individual. That's not where I am in this conversation. I'm thinking of all the places where courts *have to* make decisions on issues that involve religion.

Should they order surgery on a Christian Scientist? What if the CS is a minor?

Should female circumcision be legal?

Can ritual sacrifice be banned by law as cruelty to animals?

Is the use of drugs in religious practice a crime? What if the drugs are given to children? What if the children are given drugs and required to wander in the desert for 3 days?

If school dress codes ban headgear, can that include yarmulkas? What if a kid's church requires that males wear dorags? What about Chakras? Can a child disrupt a class by getting up in the middle and praying?

Can a child be required to say "Hail Mary" in class? Can she be required to sing songs about Jesus's birth in the holiday assembly? What about Hannukah songs? Can she be required to attend an assembly in which people sing Christmas or Hannukah songs? Can she be required to study alternative religions as part of her academic curriculum? Can she be required to study evolution? What about creationism? Can the government require parents to send their children to schools that teach things in opposition to their religious beliefs?

What if an orthodox jew wants to play football over his parents objections? What if only one parent objects?

Can a mullah legally order an intifada? What if it is clear to him that his relious texts require him to?

What about hate speech laws? Can they be applied to people stating religious beliefs? What if the religion requires them to speak?

No shit, Anne, I can go on like this all day. Literally. Maybe all week.

So if the court told you that you had to instruct Lee to stand during hte Pledge of Allegiance, you'd just suck that up, right?

Right. I think she used to have to, too. I'm glad this pledge case is going to the Supreme Court, but I wasn't willing to devote my life to it.

jane

Jan 15 2004 12:42 pm

I guess I did read that right when Jane posted it. I am curious about why you don't want her to stand for the pledge of allegiance. (I don't want to debate it - I am just curious.)
~~Geri~~

Good question. In fact this is my favorite question, because I fascinate myself here. I object for standard Establishment Clause reasons. I consider the words "under God" to be an obvious case of the government making a law regarding the establishment of religion.

What's more interesting to me is that I object on exercise grounds, too. Pledging allegiance to the flag is IMO prohibited by the First Commandment. I'm not the only person who believes that, of course, but I might be the only person who's neither a christian nor a jew. And it really, really bothers me on this level.

You know what Nikki said about nuttiness? I can see why people would find this nutty.

jane

Freedom of Expression grounds, too.

Jan 15 2004 10:21 pm

And I can see that. And as long as it doesn't personally affect me as an individual or parent, or touch on an area that is likely to affect me as an individual or parent, then I leave it up to the people who it is more likely to affect to start making the stink, which I may or may not jump in on.

It's more complicated for me. It affects me as an individual and as a parent approximately once every 20 seconds. So that's no good. I think the point where I feel morally compelled to make a stink is where the infringement seems pointless. Also, I trust my judgment better when the situation does not directly involve me. I'm more confident that I'm objecting on The Issue and not on my personal feelings.

So if the court told you that you had to instruct Lee to stand during hte Pledge of Allegiance, you'd just suck that up, right?

Right. I think she used to have to, too.

See, I just don't believe that. I mean, it may be true, but I can't picture it.

Yabbut, Anne, it's pretty what I do now. They recite the pledge at her school. Having her be pressured into reciting it is only slightly less offensive to me than her being forced to.

jane

Jan 15 2004 10:42 pm

What about the national anthem and standing?
~~Geri~~

More complex. I vacillate. It doesn't hit me where I live as idolatry in the same way. Singing with hand over the heart facing the flag is totally out. However, I could stand for the music alone at the beginning of an event.

People have given my shit for not standing sometimes. That bothers me. To me, that's clearly in the area where people should tolerate each other's different beliefs.

jane

Jan 16 2004 7:22 pm

I will rephrase - giving someone other than the actual parents any legal rights to the child *without the consent* of the actual parent, is taking away rights from the actual parents.
Lori

But you're completely ignoring that the court recognizes this woman as an *actual* parent.
Melissa

What the court did was rewrite actual fact. This woman has no biological or adoptive parental relationship to the child.
Lori

The court didn't rewrite facts. They looked at the facts and decided what the law was. Whether or not a person is a "parent" is not an objective fact, it's a legal judgment.

The court has to decide on custody of the child. To you, biological and adoptive parents are "parents." That is not the definition for the purposes of child custody, though.

Parental rights are not the only issue involved, either. The child has legal rights. Society has legal rights.

What they've done is attempt to make law without going the proper route, through the actual lawmakers in this country.

Again, I disagree. This judge had to make a decision on the laws that are already there. Colorado statutes, case law, the Colorado constitution, the US constitution... it's very complex.

If they wish to have it made law that any person who has lived in an unofficial, not legally certified role as a parent, shall be declared to be a parent for purposes of having rights to a child or responsibilities toward a child (which causes me to wonder, did they also order this woman to pay a nice big CS pmt every month?), theyn what needs to be done is to go through the procedure of getting it into legislation. I so completely disagree with the whole idea that judges, *any* judges, have the right to create new law.

I'm always a little stunned when people like you make this argument. The democratic, majority rules, let the legislature decide approach makes sense to me from people in the mainstream. If majority rules, and you're in the majority, then you rule.

But you know how much dislike of fundamentalist religion there is out there. You have to know that if it were put to popular vote, you'd be up shit's creek tomorrow. I might have to deal with my kid praying in school, but you'd have to deal with your kid *being* in school. My kid would be taught that there is a God, and your kid would be taught that the bible was not to be taken literally.

And then I don't understand how anyone can stand up for parental rights and criticize judges creating new laws at the same time. Your legal parental right to instruct your child on religion is the epitome of law created by judges. No legislature gave it to you. In fact, it comes from judges "making new law" by telling legislatures they couldn't make the laws they did.

jane

Jan 16 2004 7:27 pm

Something either "rings true" or it doesn't.

I'm with Sheila. Which I usually wouldn't mention.

I have faith in what I perceive inherent "rightness" in.

jane

Jan 16 2004 7:44 pm

There are a lot of people who seem to truly believe that children belong to the state, and the parents should have no real rights regarding them other than what the state allows. I disagree vehemently with that idea though. What rights the state "gives", the state can take away. I don't believe that the right to parent your kids as you see fit (barring proven abuse, neglect or molestation, of course), are state given rights. I believe they are not just rights, but responsibilities given to us by God.

I'm missing something. Whatever you believe about god and rights and responsibilities, you've got to deal with the state. You can decide that you'd rather go to jail on earth than go to hell in the afterlife. You can emigrate to another country. You can stick to your guns and kiss your kids goodbye. But it's not going to happen that individual religious beliefs are not going to interfere with society's decisions on how we'll function as a group.

So I have no idea what you mean by "real rights."

jane

Jan 17 2004 12:12 am

I don't homeschool because some law says I can, I do it because i believe

Right. That's why you choose to do it.

What I'm saying is that you are allowed by society to do it because courts ruled as they did. DSS isn't removing your kids from your home for truancy. They're not charging you and DH with neglect. You're not cooling your heels in jail until you reveal the children's location.

You know that they used to. You know that if the majority of people in this country had their way, they would be now.

jane

Jan 17 2004 12:29 am

That isn't going to happen when we hand them over to a government run institution for several hours each day.
Lori

Especially one that is afraid of offending every special interest group that pops out of the woodwork looking to be offended.
Geri

On some level, aren't we all special interest groups? Lori and I have the religious intersts outside the core 50%. You and Lori have children with special academic needs. All of us are parenting in a divorce or nontraditional situation.

I agree that some people are "looking to be offended." But really, is it too much to ask that schools send report cards to both parents? Is it too much to ask that kids observe religion outside school?

Well, actually in some religions, I think it is too much to ask, but you know what I mean. When it's not your interests at stake, it's easy to blow off.

jane

Jan 17 2004 12:01 pm

But what you don't realize is that it's not *all* kids being asked to keep their religion out of school. It's Christians. Muslims, Jews, etc bring their parents to school and do presentations about their holidays. And actually, I could have gone to school adn done a presentation about Christmas too... provided I kept it to trees and candy canes and Santa. (I was told this by Charlie's teacher - "Yeah, the only thing that would probably really upset everybody is a nativity or something. Don't talk about Jesus.")

Coincidentally, I just looked up law on holiday decorations last month. The current law comes from courts ruling on questions as they come up. Many people cannot wrap their minds around the idea that government should not be celebrating religious holidays. They want a tree and lights and a creche in the town square. They want their kids to have Christmas assemblies.

So they go ahead and do it, and someone brings them to court. Once they're there, they get a lawyer to pitch their side. Lawyers come up with great legal arguments on behalf of the government body. Like the idea that Christmas isn't about Christ and the argument that the city is not trying to celebrate Christmas; it is celebrating the winter and its cultural diversity. The people who want the Christmas celebrations do not believe those arguments, and so the rulings come out making no sense to them.

I've come to buy the Secular Christmas argument because Melissa talked me into it. It is not, IME, a big seller with jews. In any event, that's how you end up with plastic reindeer at your Christmas celebration. Christmas trees, christmas lights, candy canes, Santa Claus are okay because they have nothing to do with the birth of Christ. That's the government celebrating a secular holiday.

Dreidls come in when the town is celebrating its cultural diversity. They're not, of course, they're celebrating Christmas, which is a Christian holiday. But they've learned that people will lose in court if they throw a bone to Hannukah and a bone to Kwanzaa.

It's not the anti-religious restrictions that bother me, it's the anti-Christian bias with which those restrictions are enforced. Charlie can bring home dreidls, Brooke has learned about Ramadan two years in a row. And I have *no* problem with that. But don't say that people are expected to observe and practice their religions at home. Christians are.

There, school boards brought Christianity into the schools. The argument was that it was being taught as a social and cultural issue. A well-educated person has to learn about Christianity and the bible and Jesus to understand history and the world. Not a bad argument. But once you win on that, it's impossible to justify not teaching about other major religions as social and cultural issues.

Now I know some people are fine with that. But you shouldn't be.

No, no, I don't think any religion should be celebrated in schools. Still, I understand why it is the way it is. The antiestablishment clause does not mesh well with freedom of expression. The Constitution limits democracy. Individual rights conflict with group rights. Values change over time.

The bottom line is that freedom from religious persecution was a hugely important goal back in the day. The first words in the Bill of Rights are, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." They started right off with a doubly whammy on the freedom of religion issue. That amendment would never pass today.

jane

Jan 17 2004 2:39 pm

I don't think it's anti-Christian to learn about the cultural traditions of those holidays. I do think it is somewhat anti-Christian though when you get to learn about those cultures and traditions but it's a big "no-no" to learn about Christianity's cultural traditions as well.

Yabbut, it's not. It's just not.

I mean, if jewish kids and muslims are able to talk about their religions shouldn't Christians be as well (referring to cultural traditions, not witnessing).

No. I mean yes and no.

I don't think anyone actually believes that Christmas has to be dealt with in the schools to make sure that kids are aware of it. That is not true of Hannukah or Kwanzaa or Ramadan. Still, I'm fine with covering it in the same depth as the other holidays.

So Aaron gets to talk about Hannukah for 3 minutes and Omar gets to talk about Ramadan, and Cynthia gets to talk about Christmas. The 25 other Christian kids, the 3 other jews, the 4 atheists, and the hindu kid don't get to say anything. They all go home and tell their parents that other kids talked about their religious holidays at school and they didn't.

IMO, the price we pay for the pretext, for bringing religion into school through the back door is that everyone feels discriminated against. Non-christians are up to their eyeballs trying to teach their kids religion in a society with such a pervasive christian bent. Christians feel as though people are telling them to shut up all the time.

jane

Jan 17 2004 2:55 pm

Hmm. Well, she mentioned that she could do everything but mention Jesus which is the reason why Christians celebrate Christmas,

See, that's just what I mean about this secular Christmas thing.

if a muslim is talking about Ramadan, do they get to tell why they celebrate it?

Why do they celebrate it? Really, I'm 47, but I cruised through 19 years of schooling without ever picking that up.

People celebrate Christmas for different reasons. For some it's the day Christ was born, for some it's the day to celebrate the day that Christ was born, for some it's when Santa Claus comes, and for some it's a day to get together with family and friends. That's a real minefield when you're dealing with kids Anne's kids' ages. For example, parents do not want their kids coming home telling them that there is no Santa Claus or that Jesus was not born on Christmas. So you don't want to spend a whole lot of time on the specifics.

Also, the creche is a uniquely religious symbol of Christmas. No one buys that it fits with the secular Christmas that it is okay for the state to celebrate. If you're making the multicultural argument, if Jesus is God to some and it's heresy to make respresentations of God to some, then you're way further into comparative theology than the state needs to be. Go with the tree.

jane

Jan 17 2004 4:28 pm

Schools can't promote the establishment of any religion, but that has nothing to do with discussing how different groups view God.

I wouldn't say it has *nothing* to do with establishment, but I'm with you. The problem with discussing religion as religion in school is that it undermines individual and parental rights. Lori is not the only homeschooler out there who does not want her kid getting religious instruction from other people.

I'm all over that, too. How much do we as a society need our children to understand comparative religion for that to outweigh parents' right to instruct their own children in religion? Religious education of children is about as fundamental a fundamental right as there is. More maybe than sex in marriage.

And why not teach **about** Jewish theology? Who is that going to hurt?

Presenting alternative views undermines the parent's right to teach their children that there is one true religion, their religion, whatever that may be. You and I may be okay with our kids learning other specific religious beliefs. But there is no way to do it without implying that it is okay to have other religious beliefs than yours.

Religion isn't culture. They are deeply intertwined, but you can't teach religious practices as simply cultural practices. That's just dishonest.

Right, but the only reason to teach anything about religious practices, if you accept that religious instruction is a right of the individual, is for their cultural resonance.

jane

Jan 17 2004 4:36 pm

Our son, OTOH, is older and is more able to understand that the differences in religious beliefs doesn't mean that some- one has to be 'wrong' in their belief, something that our daughter is not so understanding of. If he were to want to take a class that, as a part of the curriculum, presented one or two religions and discussed them in depth (which he does, BTW) and ignores the others, he's at an age where he's not going to believe that studying that religion means that that is the one true religion and all of the others are wrong.
Tracey

Lee has studied about specific religions in HS, too. I'm okay with her studying it. Saves me time. But I don't think that study should be a compulsory part of education, even in HS. I don't think that parents should have to homeschool to avoid it.

jane

Jan 17 2004 6:23 pm

I don't think it's anti-Christian to learn about the cultural traditions of those holidays. I do think it is somewhat anti-Christian though when you get to learn about those cultures and traditions but it's a big "no-no" to learn about Christianity's cultural traditions as well. I mean, if jewish kids and muslims are able to talk about their religions shouldn't Christians be as well (referring to cultural traditions, not witnessing).
Heather

But Anne didn't indicate that she couldn't.
Melissa

I didn't *indicate* it, I came right out and said that Charlie's teacher told me not to!

No, no, she said that you could refer to the cultural tradition, just not the religious details. You get the candy canes and tree for Christmas, the dreidl and minorah for Hannukah, that thing that's not a minorah for Kwanzaa, the mistletoe and holly for Yule. Bringing the specific gods/spirits/forces worshipped into it is carrying it into the realm of religion.

jane

Jan 18 2004 12:13 pm

The entire foundation of Christianity is based, not on Jesus being a good man, but on him being the Son of G-d. Vicki identifies herself as a Christian. Therefore, it only makes sense to me that she would need to believe that Jesus is the Son of G-d to be a Christian.

Yabbut people are different from you. I could see you saying that *you* would need to believe that.

You are lumping faith and belief and religion and church all together.

People belong to churches and call themselves followers of a certain religion for many reasons, some of them have nothing to do with faith or belief.

Geri's a Lutheran because she was born into a Lutheran family. Vicki, too, to some extent, but also because she could find a church that corresponded with her individual beliefs enough to provide her a framework for religion practice and education of her children. When I go to church, I go to a UUA church because they don't get into the congregants individual beliefs or faith or religion. The person beside me at the UUA church might be a jew who believes in Jesus.

I'm fine with a church that basically said, "Eh. Jesus probably didn't rise on the third day, but, he was one heck of a good guy, worth emulating, and so we'll just build a church here he'll be our guide, but we don't have to believe that he was of a virgin birth, or physically died and was alive again three days later." But, that really isn't Christianity, at least not today, nor for the last two millenium.

Either I don't understand you, or I completely disagree. There are hundreds, maybe thousands of christian denominations. They are all over the board on their beliefs. I don't think that there is a single unifying belief.

You are suspending rational thought for faith and belief.

Most people have spiritual beliefs that go beyond empirical evidence. Humans have limited evidence, limited senses, limited intellectual capacity. So choosing to have faith is a rational decision. It enables one to go on with life.

jane

Jan 18 2004 1:59 pm

*BUT*, I can almost assure you that in 97% of liturgical churches they say either the Apostle's Creed or the Nicene Creed

I don't agree with your stats, but they don't matter, anyway. Beyond doubt, there are a number of beliefs common to the majority of Christians. I am saying that I do not believe that there is a single belief common to all of them.

Christianity was --and is-- based on the premise that Jesus is the divine son of G-d.

I don't agree as a matter of historical fact. IIRC, christianity began as a jewish cult. Jesus was a prophet. Actually, NTITOI, it was a lot of different cults with a lot of different beliefs and gospels and tenets for a long time.

In any event, what the hell does that have to do with people's choice of religion today? A lot of people think of getting into the historical details as nitpicky and pointless. The historical facts really have nothing to do with their beliefs. They're in it for the values, not the factual accuracy of something that happened two millennia ago. Whether or not Jesus ever walked on earth, he still symbolizes what they believe in.

I guess the question is "Are you a Christian because you say you are, or because you meet some definition of one?"

For me, this is a nobrainer. A person is a christian if she believes she is. She may not meet your criteria on what a christian is or should be, but I only care about people's individual understanding of their religion. I don't care what Sally thinks about Sue's religious identity.

Most people would agree that the central tenet of Christianity is a belief that Jesus is the divine son of God, and we should follow him *because of that*.

IME the majority of American christians are of the "good role model" variety. They don't believe that it is helpful to get too caught up in the "son of God" aspect of things. Their fundamental truth is that they should live life a certain way. The texts are a guide. The importance of the parables is in the values they contain. So it doesn't really matter whether Jesus actually literally turned water into wine.

But, if you wish to deem that anyone who says the words "I am a Christian", with an idiosyncratic view of what that is, well.... I guess you can! But, it rather makes for a difficult discussion, and it flies against what most would say.

That's interesting to me. I think that *you* have an idiosyncratic view on this. I have heard christians say that other people were not christians, but I took it to mean that they weren't living up to their faith. I didn't think they meant that they actually weren't "christians."

jane

Jan 18 2004 3:04 pm

Well, Jane, I'll ask of you the same that I asked of Melissa: find one for me. Because, when I look at the publications of all different Christian groups:

the Episcopal, the Methodist, the Lutherans, the UCCers, the Baptist, and the other Christian groups, what I see is a statement of belief that does include a statement that Jesus was divine. I'd be very interest in seeing one that puts forth a "good role model" definition.
Sheila

Find one what for you? A church that says "We think Jesus was a good role model"? Your talking about church dogma as though that were somehow determinative of people's belief.

I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone here. I just don't get what you're trying to say. If I cite a church that doesn't say anything about Jesus being divine, you'll just discount it because it's not a christian church unless it does.

Anyway, on a related note, I just asked Lee what a christian was. I'm a little stunned.

Lee: With a capital 'c' or a lower case 'c'?

Me: Either. What's the difference?

Lee: A Christian with a captial 'c' is someone who believes Jesus was the Messiah. A christian with a lower case 'c' is someone who is compassionate and giving.

She was very certain of this answer. If nothing else, this should clarify why some people don't want their kids to learn about religion in school.

jane

Jan 18 2004 4:11 pm

But there is no way to do it without implying that it is okay to have other religious beliefs than yours.

I don't see how you can avoid it. Knowing that there are people who hold other beliefs than yours is as basic as knowing that the earth is round. Knowing something of those other beliefs is simply part of knowing more about the world and its people.

Two things, though. First, as far as my decision about my child goes, you're preaching to the choir. My issue is with the government making that determination for an individual parent.

Second, it's not that other people *do* have different beliefs. It's the idea that it is *okay* for them to.

I remember years ago I was working with a woman with fundamentalist beliefs. She said that she belonged to her religion because she wanted to go to heaven. The conversation went on, and I finally piped in with, "Well, what about me? I never heard of your church." She looked me straight in the eye and said, "I believe you'll burn in hell forever." I still laugh when I think of that.

Anyway, I don't think religious tolerance can be taught in school without encroaching on the issue of religious acceptance. It is a tenet of some people's religion that every other religion leads to burning in hell forever. That's okay, too.

jane

Jan 18 2004 4:15 pm

I came to the conclusion that "Christianity" was actually a misnomer for the Christian church as it stands

And my point is that there is no "Christian church" and that Christianity is a very non-specific term.

jane

Jan 18 2004 4:25 pm

It would be the same as if someone were to make a presentation saying:

The thing is, Rupa, there are Christians who would go absolutely apeshit. I think by the time you got to the end, most Christians would be upset.

The major fighting issues you hit were Joseph as Jesus's father, the acceptability of Santa Claus, and that Christmas is the most important holiday.

In the Christian sect I grew up in, for example, Joseph was not Jesus's father, he was Mary's husband. Easter was the most important holiday, and we were reminded of that regularly.

Christianity is so diverse that it is really hard to say anything about Christmas without upsetting someone.

jane

Jan 18 2004 4:38 pm

Other than that...I'd say acknowledge all the holidays you can.
Rupa

Okay, this is my best religion story after the burning in hell forever one.

I was at a different job. I was in the lounge with a christian, an orthodox jew, a hindu and a Christmas tree. The jews children were outside. The christian suggested he bring them in and he refused, citing the tree. She said that she thought it really brightened the place up and that she knew jews who had one too and called it a "hannukah bush." He agreed, somewhat tersely, that jewish children grew up with parents who assimilated symbols of Christmas into their holidays.

Then she said, "and aren't they fortunate, too, to benefit from both cultural traditions." He couldn't take it anymore, and he spat out, "No it's not wonderful. They're not growing up with both traditions; they're growing up with neither!" I was getting really uncomfortable, so I turned to the hindu and said, "Yogi, how do you feel about Christmas?" He said, "It's my birthday, so I celebrate it."

jane

he was inconvenienced by it.

Jan 18 2004 7:08 pm

Jane tells me from a legal perspective that Atheism, Humanism etc. could/ should be considered religions. Emotionally the idea makes me want to throttle her, but after this school discussion I'm starting to get it.

Oh, great! Thanks.

My point was that the values that lead us to protect religious freedom apply equally to Atheism, Humanism, Wicca, Judaism, Christianity, etc. The most fundamental right of the individual is to persue her spiritual quest, whether that leads her to belief in Jesus, Allah, Buddha, Vishnu, no god, many gods, the Goddess or to the belief that the knowledge is just not hers to know. The specific outcome is irrelevant.

You know, I was talking to someone the other day, and she said, "Well, I don't think [one of the major religions] should be protected." No one ever said that to me before. That didn't upset me. I sort of liked it. I disagreed with her, of course, but she was being honest. Like the burn in hell woman.

jane

Jan 19 2004 12:22 pm

Ok, how about this aspect? In France right now is a big brouhaha about a new law soon to go into effect which bans Muslim headgear,

Okay, but... I'm telling you I love this topic. Schools are a fascinating area in this because children and required attendance are all wrapped up in it.

Over here, that's a pretty clear violation of freedom of expression. That's in the realm of religious persecution. Some sects in Islam, Judaism, and Christianity require specific apparel. It's not even just a statement of religious belief; it's a tenet of their faith. So the question here IMO would not be whether this interfered with freedom of expression but whether the state had a good enough reason to do it.

Generally, I just roll my eyes at antiestablishment arguments in schools. You know, the argument that Atheism is being established as a religion by banning talk of God. But here I can sort of buy it. This law goes so far into interfering with individual practice, that it sort of does establish No Religion (not Atheism) as the official religion in schools. Do you see what I mean? The state is actually taking a position against religion instead of just refusing to choose among them.

jane

Jan 19 2004 1:11 pm

Well, when the government keeps public schools open every year on December 25 and Good Friday, and closes them every year for Hannukah and Passover, your argument might carry more weight with me.
-k.

Kim, I don't know if you're aware of this, but I don't control when the public schools open or close. I stop short right after controlling the speed at which the planets revolve around the sun.
Anne

Yes and no. No one is holding you solely and personally responsible for schools being closed on Christmas, although I bet your kids would be nicer to you if we did.

But Christmas is a Christian holiday and a federal holiday. Can't you see that a Christian saying that she is being discriminated *against* over Christmas can make a Non-christian's brains blow up? Every public school, government agency, public building is closed on your religious holiday. Everyone else has to work on theirs or take vacation days or miss finals.

When you complain that you didn't have time to talk about Jesus at the holiday party, some people think "You have a whole fricking day off to talk to your damned kids about Jesus, which I get to spend thank you very much explaining why Santa doesn't come to my good little girls and boys. But don't worry, we should have it covered by the end of two fucking weeks of Christmas fucking vacation which my kids will spend making up the school work they missed during our holiday."

It's not that you are personally responsible. It's not that there's anything wrong with Christian religions or holidays or worshippers. It's the lack of acknowledgement of the intrusion of Christmas on their lives and their rights.

jane

Jan 19 2004 1:35 pm

In a way, all are winners in this scenario. God is completely removed from the public school, in any way, shape or form. The children's right to a public education is covered by that money given to the religious school for those kids.

What about the people who do not see themselves as winners in this scenario, though? What about taxpayers who don't want their hard-earned money spent teaching kids religion? When they say if they in any way participate in teaching children a heretical belief they will burn in hell forever, what do you say?

jane

Jan 20 2004 12:34 am

No. But the fact that it's a federal holiday can cause you getting on me about schools being closed that day to make *my* brains blow up!

Anne, I didn't see kim to be getting on you. I'm certainly not. I'm just trying to explain why the argument can be maddening. You're completely dismissing or ignoring the other person's interests. It's like a husband walking in the door and seeing his pregnant wife collapsed on the couch with a half dozen kids yelling and jumping over her crutches and saying, "Damn, I had a rough day! You going to get me a beer or what?"

Every school, government agency, public building is closed on this *federal* holiday. Just like they're closed today in remembrance of Martin Luther King Jr.

Well, federal holidays celebrate things important to our nation and commemmorate our greatest leaders. Washington, Lincoln, King, Independence Day, Labor Day, Veteran's Day, etc. They are holidays established by the government to so that every citizen has the opportunity and encouragement to reflect on the importance of the people and events to the nation.

Christmas doesn't even remotely begin to fit in that category. Unless, of course we were a Christian state in which case Christ falls in just fine with Lincoln and King.

If I want a day off to remember a leader for my race I have to take a vacation day or fake a funeral. What's your point? Federal holidays, stuff is closed.

I don't get this argument at all. MLK was black. GW was white. Both are celebrated as great leaders. Growing up, MLK was one of my greatest heroes, he is IMO our greatest leader. You seem almost to be implying that he was a leader just for black people. Then it still wouldn't make sense, because why wouldn't GW and AL be leaders for white people?

But you've been just as vociferous on the other side of this argument, claiming that I have no right to be insulted when atheists put up Christmas trees and celebrate *my* deeply felt religious holiday, because it's a federal holiday.

Okay, I'm sure I didn't say anyone had no right to be insulted about anything. I don't associate rights with things like "being insulted." I frequently hear Christians complain about the commercialism of Christmas and how distanced it has become from their understanding of it. That doesn't bother me. What bothers me is, "How could anyone not like Christmas?" That drives me nuts.

Find a side of the fence and land there.

You haven't been paying attention. I don't believe it's possible for anyone to consider this subject and come down totally on one side of the fence.

jane

Jan 20 2004 11:54 am

Ah, but those who believe as I do, believe that *your* view is damaging to the world, that acceptance of anything which goes against God's word is damaging to the world. :-)

This is where I have the most confidence on my personal opinion in this debate. I am certain that Lori has as much right to believe this as I have to believe the opposite.

NTITOI, that's pretty much how I decide everything. So I guess I'm like Sheila in that way. I don't believe something I feel it. I have to check the facts and see if they jibe.

jane

Jan 20 2004 12:04 pm

I actually think that would be unnecessary, and would be very annoying to most people. If it's in the Bible, that's all that matters, to me, and it doesn't matter how often it's mentioned, either. I did give scripture reference regarding this issue. Lori

It is a foreign concept to some people that one's view of "truth" could be dictated by an external source. For them "truth" is something that one searches for and discovers throughout one's life. Your position, if I read you right, is that the only source of truth is the bible. It's not that you don't search; it's that you only search where you believe you will find it. That's a matter of faith.

jane

Jan 21 2004 7:27 am

What bothers me is, "How could anyone not like Christmas?" That drives me nuts.

Well, I'm sorry it drives you nuts. Since I've never said it, I'm not sure how that info is relevant to this conversation, but I promise to file it.

I'm not accusing you of it. I'm explaining where I stand.

I don't believe it's possible for anyone to consider this subject and come down totally on one side of the fence. No, but I certainly do think that it's possible not to argue both sides so that the Christians are wrong no matter which way we feel!

I am so not willing to own your feelings. I am fascinated by the law of religion, and I love talking about it. I believe that people should talk about it more, because I believe that people get frustrated because they don't understand what is going on.

This is fundamentally an intellectual issue to me. My mind loves it. Where my emotions become engaged is at "How could anyone not like Christmas?" I am not implying that people shouldn't say it. I just want to drive spikes into concrete with my forehead when they do.

jane

Jan 22 2004 12:30 pm

I've been wanting to answer this for days. I'm just going to have to give up the job and the family if I want to keep up with this group.

The teacher cannot take the responsibility for reinforcing any religious beliefs. To my mind, the kind of exclusivity implied by "We won't discuss any religion because we might offend the tenets of one that says all other religions are wrong" is in fact catering to just such religious beliefs, and thus is a religious stance in itself.

Yeah, no, yeah, no. I love this post.

The antiestablishment part of freedom of religion is a very strong theme in the development of law here. So is the doctrine of freedom of worship. There is a very strong belief among the citizens that they have "freedom of religion," even though they're often talking about different things. This I do believe should be taught more extensively in schools. Because when people waving their right to be free of established religion bump up against people waving their freedom of worship, I don't think they understand what the other one is talking about.

My point is that "catering to religious beliefs" is necessary to the individual's freedom to worship. IMO, that French law is just never going to pass here and if it did, the courts would strike it down. It's pretty well established that your right to freedom of religion does not exist merely within the church. A jew has to wear a yarmulka wherever he goes, and he doesn't lose his right to be a jew when he walks into school.

So, it's really a tricky area of the law. You have to support religion and you can't establish it.

Like saying we cannot teach evolution in school because it clashes with the Creation Myths of various religions. You could argue that not teaching evolution is an ommission, so it cannot be considered a religious act. But to my mind it is, because evolution is a normal part of any curriculum that deals with biology.

Again, I know I'm getting redundant, but IMO the real sticking point here is the conflict between the individual and society. We have schools because society needs kids to be educated. However, there is no consensus on the specifics of what we need our kids to learn. If you want to teach something that conflicts directly on what a parent wants her child to learn about religion, you have to deal with her right to teach her kid about religion herself. You have to justify subordinating her right to the social goal.

So the question is where and how you draw the line between teaching what society needs and respecting the parent's right to raise her child as best she can without interference. It's never simple. You can't justify teaching evolution because the majority of people want it taught in the school unless you're okay with people teaching that Christ is a god and that all religions are acceptable to God simply because the majority of people want those things taught in the schools.

There's another issue here, too. This country is not homogenous. What is generally considered of immense and overwhelming importance in Rhode Island may be generally of little importance in Mississippi. And people in Mississippi can go apeshit if you tell them they have to teach something in school because it's important in Rhode Island. So when does it have to be important on a national level and when is it determined locally?

That there are a variety of religions is a similar fact.

Again, though, who decides what is a "fact"? Some would say that it is a fact that there are a variety of religions. Others would say that there is one religion which some follow and some do not. Do you see my point? Saying that there are a variety of religions is like saying that there are a variety of gods.

jane

Jan 22 2004 12:48 pm

It most certainly is not right for *any* teacher to undermine parental authority, when it comes to what the parents want their children to have as values. This counts.

Yabbut. There have to be limits on the parental right, too. The state has an important interest in children's education. And there just is no way to separate religious belief from everything else. Religious beliefs are implicated in everything.

They have a duty to protect the rights of underage citizens, too. There is conflict between the parent's right to instruct and the child's freedom of religion.

jane

Jan 22 2004 1:08 pm

I don't kmow, Melissa. If all other things are equal, grades, extracurricular activity, etc, etc, and the *only* difference is that one is a minority and one is not, more often than not these days the minority will get the job, the admission into school, or whatever.
Lori

I swore I wouldn't get into this. That's just not true. I don't know how you can look around you and believe it is true.

But that's not my point. AA isn't about individual benefit. It serves societal goals. They're just not goals that you can get behind.

jane

Jan 22 2004 1:17 pm

It's not February. We don't have to even THINK about taking them down until February!
Sheila

Oh ROFL.

No, no. She's right. I heard on NPR that the pope doesn't take his down until after Candlemas. I may not believe the pope is infallible, but I recognize him as an authority on this.

jane

Jan 22 2004 1:31 pm

This was not in a science class. The child was in *kindergarten*, and the class took books home each week from the library. I see no reason whatsoever that parental wishes as to content shouldn't be gone along with.

Because that would require the teacher to go through each book and compare its content to each child's parent's wishes. I want teachers to spend their time on other things.

jane

Jan 22 2004 6:52 pm

So I guess I'm just asking myself if it's wise to take a translation as literal, on behalf of the translator, or is it better to do the research yourself?

I majored in Classical Studies. I studied four foreign languages and linguistics, too. Dozens of years of language and literature in other languages.

I took some courses with a biblical scholar from Israel. He had at least ten times as much experience with and interest in language and translation as I did.

I remember one day he went off for a good half hour 45 minutes on the translation of one word (which, incidentally, was not in the text we were studying). It was the "easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle" line. Not the contextual reference thing that the eye of the needle was the gate to the city. He went on and on and on about the "camel" part. The many different ways it appears in many different texts in many different languages. Etymological derivations, regional differences, the history of language and people and migration in the region.

The bottom line was that the camel was a rope that had been mistranslated because of the etomylogical similarity between the Aramaic word for "camel" and the Sumerian word for "hemp. I am pretty sure those are not the right languages, but you get my drift.

jane

Jan 22 2004 11:02 pm

Let me ask this... when it comes to schools teaching sex education, for example, who should have the right to decide what the child should be taught, the state, or the parents?

How funny. Such a good question.

See I *would* think that the state interest overrode the parent's right there. It is very important for public health reasons that people know about ways of preventing both STDs and pregnancy. That said, I don't think they have *any* interest in teaching teens what they actually do teach - abstention but no other disease and pregnancy prevention measures. So in that area, with what is actually being taught, I'm going with opt in/out.

On the issue of human sexuality, I think that the state's interest overrides in teaching anatomy, physiology, laws related to sex, etc. We need our citizens to know that stuff.

jane

Jan 22 2004 11:26 pm

I'll give you that, you're right, I can't. I don't think you can force diversity and be successful.

Well, diversity there is, and diversity there will be.

People, regardless of what race they are, tend to spend time with those most like them.

I don't. Then again, there is no one most like me. All my close friends are different from me in some demographic - skin color, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, political affiliation, age, education level.* If I stuck with people like me, I'd be alone. Besides, I don't learn anything from people just like me. I already know what I know.

I'm not denying that there is some level of xenophobia in each of us. My experience is that people choose to be with people like them and unlike them, though. We're drawn to some varying level of "alike" and "different."

jane

* Except my SsIL, and they have different personality disorders.

Jan 23 2004 12:48 pm

I would not want my kids participating in a class where they basically are telling them that they should abstain, but since everyone knows most of them won't, here's how to have "safe" sex.

Right. I don't want my kid in that class either. I want them to cut right to the "here's how to have 'safe' sex" part.

jane

Jan 24 2004 7:38 am

And I think that people looking for an excuse to discriminate will find one.
Melissa

Yes, but Melissa, sadly you're just not going to solve that with legislation.

It makes people that are already inclined to obey the law paranoid, and people that aren't resentful.

Okay, but Anne, paranoid and resentful is not necessarily the end of the world.When poeple say that you can't legislate equality, I think they forget how horrible slavery was. Yeah, maybe things suck now, but not like they sucked then.

I'm researching people around the Civil War now. Some of this stuff just makes me sob. Something in the old records will just bring it all home to me. Like I'll be looking at birth records and realize that instead of the mother's and father's names, it lists the mother's and the owner's. Or I'll come across a newspaper notice that a woman whose children were born into slavery and taken away from her would like to locate them and see them again before she dies. Or some soldier's widow has to bring her neighbors in to testify that she was sleeping with him before he died so that their kids qualify for a pension because they could not legally marry while he was alive. That one has made me sob four times now.

And people say that that was then and this is now, but I'm looking at these people's lives and following them for generations. It's crazy to pretend that the kid who was sold at auction had the same life as his owner's kid after Emancipation. He had no money, no family, no education. He had no last name. It's crazy to pretend that his children or grandchildren had the same opportunities as his owner's descendants did.

You say you can't solve stuff with legislation, but you can to some extent. I was looking at an old law today, the Mulatto Bastard Act. People actually sat down and passed a law saying that babies were slaves if their mothers were. Newborns. They would come into this world and spend their whole lives owned by someone else. These guys just sat down and made that a law. If legislatures can do that, they can damn well try to undo it.

jane

Jan 26 2004 1:36 pm

No, that if profiling is indeed being done against *any* demographic, is it possible that that demographic has a higher crime commission rate (and I am not saying that it is - which is why I asked about statistics)?

The thing is, once profiling exists, it's impossible to know.

If you primarily stop and frisk blacks and you find contraband primarily on blacks, that proves nothing about contraband possession on a comparative basis. It's like looking for acorns under one tree and then trying to prove that that tree produces the most acorns.

And then there are all the other factors that come into play in conviction. Prosecutorial discretion, political sentiments, legal representation, victim and witness participation, prior convictions, other resources. Those and other factors magnify the difference between commission and conviction rates.

While we're on the subject, though, look at terrorism. There is widespread fear of Arabs, Persians, and muslims committing terrorist acts. Terrorism in the US is and always has been a white male crime. It's not like contraband possession where people could be doing it and you don't know. Everyone knows when churches are burned down and buildings are blown up and people are massacred. And there's concrete evidence of the identity of the perpetrator. Nonetheless, there's no outcry from law enforcement that we have to disproportionately limit the 4th Amendment rights of white males.

jane

For statistical accuracy, you'd have to control all the other variables that come into play in conviction, too. Prosecution choices would have to be color blind, which they're not. Quality of legal respresentation would have to be equal. The victims and witnesses would have to be equally motivated.

Jan 26 2004 5:40 pm

The NBA is a money-making organization. There is no way they're going to refuse to put a really great player on a team because of his race.

Yeah......... I don't know. Don't forget I grew up in Boston. The Celtics HAD TO get Larry Byrd. Team stars had to be white.

jane

Jan 27 2004 10:06 pm

Okay, well what about my women ancestors who built up a lot of the financial foundation of this country with slave-wage work in factories and sweatshops, not to mention back breaking work, emotional abuse, rape, plus the continuance of all of these things well after they could vote?

Can you see the parallel now?

I totally support AA for women. Beyond doubt they have been abused and discriminated against. I absolutely agree that we have a moral obligation to correct those inequities as well.

But Anne, they bred slaves. Like the horses and the cows. Slave owners hung out and talked about what buck to breed with with what negro girl. They sold stud service. Then they did whatever the fuck they wanted with the child. They did this for hundreds of years.

What I don't understand is when people don't see what this has to do with them. Just on the most basic level, aside from unjust enrichment and atonement, just knowing that people do this to other people has to affect you. You know, it's like the holocaust. How can you not see what that has to do with you?

jane

Jan 28 2004 11:25 am

IMO, the majority of women in this country do not wish to have to make the same sacrifices men have had to make (family time, etc), instead, they seem to think equality means making it easier for them, things like company paid for daycare, flextime, etc. I'm not against those things, but I am against the idea that the only way women can get to these positions is if we provide them with things that men didn't have.

You know, though, like it or not, the change in the workforce requires changes in the workplace. Our entire economy depends on women working outside the home. A consequence of that is that there is no longer a person assigned to work full time in the home.

Businesses have had to adjust. They cannot assume that their workers' home lives will rarely interfere with their work day during work hours. There is no longer a wife or extended family to take care of the home and children during the work day. Day care, flex time, parental leave, etc. are adjustments to the change. Both male and female workers require these things. Our society needs them.

jane

Jan 28 2004 12:02 pm

Is it possible this 'confederation flag' ( Im not really sure what that is all about) has another meaning for those that like to display it? I mean could it be an expression of patriotism?

It's a regional thing. IME the battle flag expresses a belief in white supremacy. But I've only lived in the North, the West, and Florida, which is in the South, but doesn't count. That the battle flag is a racist symbol isn't a particularly controversial issue in those places.

Now in the South, it's a whole different kettle of fish. Those states allowed slavery. They attempted to secede from the US when it was outlawed. Despite amendments to the country's constitution and civil rights laws, the southern states segregated non-whites from whites in private and in public and banned marriage between them for another hundred years. They flew the confederate battle flag on their public buildings. Their politicians ran for national office on segregationist platforms and refused to integrate. The national government had to send in troops to force the states to comply with the law.

So the flag is a controversial issue in the states that allowed slavery. Some people claim that it is a symbol of pride in their heritage. For others it symbolizes the part of their heritage that they are least proud of. Most recently the controversy has been over removing the battle flag flying at public buildings in various southern states. People foam at the mouth. My perception is that within the south there is urban/rural and white/blue collar tension. Oh, and of course the Republican/Democrat thing.

jane

Jan 28 2004 1:18 pm

Read and learn:

I'm not getting your point. I don't think it's news to anyone that there were tensions between different areas of the country. Agriculture/manufacturing, industrial/feudal, state control/federal control. I assure you Lee covered all this in school.

But Geri, you just cannot get around the fact that slavery was the core issue. You can claim that the flag stands for states' rights, but the state right at issue was the right to own SLAVES. You have to see that it's difficult for some people to get behind a desire to preserve the interests of an agricultural economy built on SLAVERY.

I'm not saying that this isn't a complex historical situation, just like any other. I'm just saying that you cannot white wash the slavery out of it. And if you can't take slavery out of the war, you can't take it out of the battle flag.

jane

Jan 29 2004 12:11 am

And what I don't understand is this blanket assertion that these things don't affect me. Have you ever *met* me? Ever *talked* to me? Do you know me at all?
Anne

I'll answer the rest after I get some sleep. But damnit, Anne, you're doing that thing. I did NOT make any such assertion about you. I said "when people" not "when you," and if I had meant "when you" you ought to know I'd have said it. Take it back.

jane

Jan 29 2004 12:21 am

Jane is talking about righting injustices, and about making amends.

Pulling this back to the religion discussion...

I grew up Catholic. Confess and atone. I heard some woman on the radio say it better on the way home, "If you screw up, admit you screwed up, and try to fix it." That's one of my fundamental life principal goal thingies. A leitmotif in my life, if you will.

I am so tired.

jane

Jan 29 2004 12:51 am

I see your point, and I thought about the swastika in all of this. I think what I'm trying to convey, is that here, in my experience, people that like the rebel flag often don't equate it with slavery.

IME, people who display the swastika don't associate it with the holocaust, either. In fact, they tend to deny that the holocaust happened. Sort of like people write slavery out of the Civil War. Of course, where I come from the same people have both.

I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings, Heather. That's not my intent. I never heard it called the "confederate battle flag" in my youth. We called it the "Klan flag." I don't think I'd ever ride in a car with that flag or a swaztika on it, or even walk down the street with someone with one of them on their clothes. It is, to me, and to most people I walk down the street with, a symbol of evil. And that is so not a word I use lightly.

jane

Jan 29 2004 10:15 am

Uh, you said "when you". If you mean "when people" then say "when people."
Anne

I said WHEN PEOPLE.

However, looking back, I see that I also said, "How can you not see what that has to do with you?" That was a generic *you* and not an you personally *you.* Maybe I should have used "they," but I avoid "they" in these situations because I find it dichotomizing. So I guess I should have gone with "one," even though the sentence would have ended in "oneself."

I take back the take back. I can see how you could have taken it as you did.

jane

Jan 30 2004 10:46 am

You're right, we should be providing daycare and flexitime for men too.
Wendy

I'm sorry, I was not feeling well and mis-typed what I meant... what I meant to say is that I'm against the idea that women are *entitled* to these things, because men (generally) do not need them in order to move into higher level positions in the business world.

But of course they do. Both fathers and mothers are responsible for their children. Both need daycare and flex time. I don't see where "entitlement" plays into this. Or AA, for that matter.

jane

Jan 30 2004 10:51 am

Speaking for myself, I don't feel I owe reparations to anyone. My family wasn't even here 100 years ago. (I don't think anyone else does either.)
Lynn

Right, but they chose this country with it's assets and it's debts.

It's like SPing - you buy the whole package.

jane

Feb 01 2004 12:24 pm

But to be perfectly blunt, I don't give a rat's ass (sorry!) about anybody's sob story; I am sick and tired of the government picking my pocket.
Lynn

Well, since we're covering all the uncomfortable subjects...

I'm sick and tired of people whining about paying their taxes. It's unseemly. We all have to pay taxes. We'd all spend them differently if we were Queen of the World. I swear, I'd rather a person start talking to me about sports.

I always think "Just shut up and quit whining." or "Did you think everything was going to be free?" or "I bet you count out what everyone had when the dinner check comes too." I look out the window and I see a million things I pay for with my tax dollars. Roads, lights, military bases, schools, prisons, parks. Sure, I'd spend more here and less there, but I don't feel put upon because I have to pay.

jane

Feb 01 2004 12:31 pm

It is the past. Is there anyone alive now in the US who has owned a slave or who has been owned?
~~Geri~~

My MIL grew up with a former slave. He worked in her parents' house.

But the present is the sum of the past. Right? I don't understand the whole "the past is the past" thing.

Yes, there have been slaves for millennia. Slavery exists today. Yes, all those years and all those slaves leave a scar on our society. We have no choice but to deal with it. We can spend the money on prisons or we can spend it on schools, but we are living with the consequences of the choices this country made.

jane

Feb 01 2004 9:37 pm

I'm sick and tired of people whining about paying their taxes.

Are you including me in the "whining" category?
Lynn

Your post. Yes.

See when you say

But to be perfectly blunt, I don't give a rat's ass (sorry!) about anybody's sob story;

I think, "How charming!"

But when you say

I am sick and tired of the government picking my pocket.

I think "Call a wambulance."

It's ironic. I start out disdaining your position and end up adopting it. I have no sympathy for your lack of sympathy. It's your sob story that I don't give a rat's ass about.

So I guess I'm agreeing with you.

jane

Feb 02 2004 11:07 pm

Not to mention my own great-great- grandfather who, apparently, had at least 3 wives (without benefit of a divorce that anyone can find)

I know! Not in my family, of course; our men die young. But when they talk about the divorce rates skyrocketing, I can't help thinking that it's because you can't just leave town anymore.

jane

Feb 02 2004 11:21 pm

it's acknowledging that governments regularly represent events in the best possible light for them, rather than the most honest one.
Wendy

Hush your mouth!

Did you hear that our great leader is appointing a independent WMD panel to ferret out "all the facts" about the discrepancy between what he said then and what he's saying now.

You know that think about paying taxes? I'm not thrilled that they're going to spend tens of millions of dollars to come up with a nice way of saying "you lied."

jane

Feb 02 2004 11:24 pm

No, I am saying that people need to take personal responsibility for the choices they make and not rely on the government to cover them.
~~Geri~~

You know, Geri, your SD is sucking off my tit. Not that I mind, of course, I'm just saying.

jane

Feb 03 2004 8:14 am

That's not just history, though, Tracey. Here-and-now, first person accounts we filter through our own perceptions, biases, and opinions. You can't expect people to understand all the ramifications of what they experience.

What? I'm not sure who's confused here. Me or you all. IMO, if you read the experiences and thoughts of 100 people from 100 years ago and those 100 people say 'We did X because of Y', I can't see how you generic can then turn around and say 'No, you didn't. You did it because of Z' *without* proof that they were lying. And I ain't seen no 'proof', just different opinions.
Tracey

Okay, now I'm lost.

I don't think that people in general have a great deal of insight into or honesty about *why* they do the things they do.

That said, I think what we have here is people with different experience of what the 100 people have been saying for 100 years. Each believes the other is trying to change the story to fit modern conventions.

jane

Feb 03 2004 8:22 am

abandoned children,

They're everywhere. My great grandmother was an ex posta. They had this little revolving door on the church so that parents could abandon their children. People talk about how shocking these new laws about ERs are, but it's old news to me.

jane

Feb 03 2004 8:42 am

People should not have more children than they can support. That is true. But people will do what they damn well like and society has to deal with that.

It's more than that, though. Things change. People aren't prescient. You live and you learn.

Life is full of challenges. Your primary wage earner could lose his job tomorrow. Your child could get sick. Your house could burn down.

I think that people react to the knowledge that the person in desperate circumstances could be them in different ways. Some people want to help, because they want others to help them if they are in trouble. Some people want to blame the person; if they find a reason, something the person did wrong, they can reassure themselves that it won't happen to them, because they won't do whatever it is. Some people just can't bear to think about it because it's too sad.

jane

Feb 08 2004 3:59 pm

Personally, I don't have a lot of problem with the choice to be an exotic dancer. But let's not introduce the notion that it was her one and only choice, other than to let her kids starve naked in a ditch in the freezing rain.
Vicki

I don't know, Vicki. It's rough out there. Cleaning crews get $10/hr, $80 for an 8 hour day. That's $400/wk, $1700/mo. Deduct cleaning supplies, the vehicle and equipment and taxes, and you're at about $900/mo. You cannot rent an apartment here for that never mind feed and clothe your kids and pay for daycare.

Remember when I was running that homeless shelter? I was surprised by how many homeless people are working full-time.

jane

Feb 10 2004 10:14 pm

No, getting it because you're a veteran is getting it because you made the choice to serve your country and an employer, appreciative of that, wants to give you a break.

It's just that that doesn't have any connection to reality. Employers, appreciative or not, are required to give a break to vets, whether they chose to serve their country of not, because the legislature decided that they were a disadvantaged class.

It's exactly the same kind of AA as race and gender AA. I don't understand why vets shouldn't be too proud to take the free handout.

jane

Feb 10 2004 10:15 pm

Yeah, so? That's big news. We're not changing world policy here, we're saying how we feel.
Anne

Pfft! You talk about how you feel. I'm changing world policy.

jane

Feb 11 2004 10:53 am

to accept "a little preaching." It's a *church*, what in the *world* is your problem with preaching at a church?
Anne

I don't know about Melissa. Preaching at a church is fine. But Lori's point was that this is how social service programs *should* be. I don't want social services tied to religion because it interferes with freedom of religion. If you need a job you shouldn't have to pay with your soul.

jane

Feb 11 2004 11:04 am

AA for veterans transcends race, gender, social class. How you guys can not see that it's different...

I read this and I think: Yabbut, AA for women transcends race, veteran status, and social class. There is some difference in your mind that I just can't see at all.

Vets shouldn't be too proud to take the "free handout" because it isn't free! They've earned it with service to their country.

Only to the extent that blacks have earned it through their slave labor and women have earned it through their taxation without representation. All these programs are designed to help bring disadvantaged and economically slighted classes of people into the mainstream.

jane

Feb 15 2004 2:32 pm

The state Constitutional Convention has been adjourned until March 11, without passing any of the proposed amendments to the constitution defining marriage.

Thanks. This is pretty interesting. It reminds me of the brouhaha over antimiscegenation laws. Remember this?

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

jane

Feb 17 2004 10:35 pm

As far as I can see, Michelle is taking issue with a theology that condemns the truly innocent to Hell, to eternal torment, for the sins of the fathers. I do too, although I do count myself a Christian. She's asking how thinking, caring people can adopt such a theology, and I have to agree, too. (It is the single most powerful reason that I have for *not* reading the Bible literally. It is so much at odds with God as a loving parent, that I can't accept it.)

But I don't see her saying "I'm going to condemn Lori's beliefs, *whatever they are*, just for the heck of it." And that's what you're accusing her of.
Vicki

You know what, though? I'm uncomfortable with this line of discussion.

I have as much respect for Lori's theology as I do for yours or Michelle's. I may not agree with it, or find it moral, or identify with it intellectually, spiritually, or politically, but I don't see what difference that makes.

It's easy to say that Lori's religion is fucked. I'm just not a big believer in saying that anyone's religioin is fucked. Even if it is.

jane

Feb 17 2004 10:52 pm

I'm afraid I don't agree. I don't see Michelle accusing Lori of going to hell because of her beliefs, or lack thereof.
Wendy

I just don't see that as "accusing." People believe different things, and they attempt to live their lives according to those beliefs. I'm certain that Geri is not going to heaven, and she's certain that she is. That's no big deal to either of us. Lori knows that she is duty bound to proselytize, and I feel no duty to listen to evangelists. That's fine with both of us.

I'm just saying. Religious tolerance means showing respect for religious beliefs that you think are fucked.

jane

Feb 18 2004 11:03 am

Do you even believe in heaven?
~~Geri~~

No, but if I did, picket line crossers wouldn't get in.

jane

Feb 21 2004 12:17 pm

No reasonable person could possibly justify the existence of partial birth abortion.
Lori

Lori, no reasonable person could take the bible literally, so that argument isn't going to work on me.
Melissa

Yes, they're right on the same level alright.
Anne

I think the point is that "no reasonable person could believe " is one of those things you don't say if you want to continue the discussion. It's like "you're just stupid."

jane

Feb 22 2004 9:18 am

I think the point is that "no reasonable person could believe" is one of those things you don't say if you want to continue the discussion. It's like "you're just stupid."

In which case, I can rephrase, but only to say that I don't *understand* how any reasonable person could believe it. I truly don't, which is why I asked the question.
Lori

What question? Never mind. I'm not the referee. I don't care at all about this conversation.

I'm taking about discussion in general. If you're having the sharing of ideas kind of conversation, you've got to stay away from this kind of remark. It chills the flow of ideas you're looking for.

I'm not sure that couching it in terms of your lack of understanding is much better. It does invite the other participants to help you understand, but the "if you don't agree with me, you're not reasonable" is still lurking in there.

jane