General attitudes

[Bob S.]

Ren asked in another topic:

"We're in a less kind world, where everything is contentious. So, what happened?"

Ren, I can only speak for the US, but we have found ourselves in a victim society. Dan Quayle was right when he said that there were too many lawyers in this country. It seems that we want to complain too much right now and try to go to the government to sterilize our society so we don't have to deal with anything bad.

And actually, taking a look at the whole of society, we have become a more kind society in how we treat others. But now, the media focuses on the bad much more prominently than the good. Bad news makes for better ratings. And because of that, a kind of paranoia has slithered into our society. Males are sex-fiends who rape women and children, nurisng homes are terrible places for your parents, etc. I myself, have had to put up with such prejudiceness in my work as I am a preschool teacher. In fact, when I was in college student teaching in a kindergarten class, I was told that I had to do my student teaching somewhere else as one of the parents (in a class of about 25) had a problem with her daughter being in the same class with me.

What needs to happen is those who want to find trouble in the smallest things need to just learn to get over it. Political Correctness needs to go away. We need to realize that going to the government to solve all of our minor squabbles only makes things worse.

Bob S.

[Bob S.]

Ren asked in another topic:

"We're in a less kind world, where everything is contentious. So, what happened?"

Ren, I can only speak for the US, but we have found ourselves in a victim society. Dan Quayle was right when he said that there were too many lawyers in this country. It seems that we want to complain too much right now and try to go to the government to sterilize our society so we don't have to deal with anything bad.

And actually, taking a look at the whole of society, we have become a more kind society in how we treat others. But now, the media focuses on the bad much more prominently than the good. Bad news makes for better ratings. And because of that, a kind of paranoia has slithered into our society. Males are sex-fiends who rape women and children, nurisng homes are terrible places for your parents, etc. I myself, have had to put up with such prejudiceness in my work as I am a preschool teacher. In fact, when I was in college student teaching in a kindergarten class, I was told that I had to do my student teaching somewhere else as one of the parents (in a class of about 25) had a problem with her daughter being in the same class with me.

What needs to happen is those who want to find trouble in the smallest things need to just learn to get over it. Political Correctness needs to go away. We need to realize that going to the government to solve all of our minor squabbles only makes things worse.

Bob S.

[Doug H]

I'm with you, but as long as it generates headlines and some sort of strong public response (positive or negative, doesn't matter). There are reasons that those who find themselves in positions of dealing with the media are taught how to "play the game." It's to avoid have the media "play the game" on you! I don't like it, but as long as the strong public response leads to ratings to income equation remains intact, we're stuck with it. Why? It's economically self-sustaining. Until the public collectively realizes that they're being "played", and starts refusing to respond, this'll keep happening.

Doug H.

[aunaturelone]

It isn't Big Brother tha will do us in. It is Big Care Provider. We are in the clutches of the Nanny State.

[namedun]

Daniel Quinn called it "mother culture" in his social philosophy book Ishmael. I highly reccomend this book. In fact, a great deal of change might occur if it could be put into the curriculum of some highschools.

Namedun /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Bob,

"Dan Quayle was right when he said that there were too many lawyers in this country."

Steady, now.

"It seems that we want to complain too much right now and try to go to the government to sterilize our society so we don't have to deal with anything bad."

One of the chief purposes of government is to protect people from everything from unscrupulous traders to vandals, and from bank robbers and murderers to drunken drivers and public nuisances.

I do actually agree with you that, in certain respects, the government's intervention has become intrusive. An example from my country are the laws on discrimination. If I own a business and choose to employ only a male, or only a white person, or only an able bodied person, or only a heterosexual, then, in my opinion, that's nobody's business but mine - my business is run on my own private premises. No government should interfere with the way I choose to recruit my employees.

"What needs to happen is those who want to find trouble in the smallest things need to just learn to get over it."

OK, but remember that what is small to you may be a massive problem to someone else.

"Political Correctness needs to go away."

I agree.

"We need to realize that going to the government to solve all of our minor squabbles only makes things worse."

I agree with the general tenor of what you are saying - I think government agencies are too keen to involve themselves in, for instance, domestic disputes and issues relating to the upbringing of children. It does, however, depend upon the nature of the squabble. If I buy some meat from the supermarket and find that it's bad then I expect my money back. If the supermarket refuse to refund me and continue to sell bad meat then I would expect some government agency to act. If we just give up on the small things, like selling bad meat, then we are effectively conceding ground to charlatans, crooks and petty fraudsters and failing in our duty to protect the ordinary and decent citizen.

Stu

[Bob S.]

stu, this was really a rant and had to do with the general condition of society as a whole, not mentioning anything relating to nudity. And I agreed that there were too many lawyers in this country, the USA, not any other country. Also, keep in mind that Dan Quayle and his wife are both lawyers.

"One of the chief purposes of government is to protect people from everything from unscrupulous traders to vandals, and from bank robbers and murderers to drunken drivers and public nuisances."

Its chief purpose is to assure the safety and health of its citizens. As I have writen in, I think the "Young Naturists" forum under the "Exposing the Children" thread, parents have taken to the politicians to solve problems that they do not want to deal with regarding the upbringing of their children. They have allowed the schools to teach sex-education, something which they themselves should teach their children, and then complain when the schools do it wrong.

This is mainly a rant about citizens, not the government who is trying to appease everyone at the same time. The problem is that everyone demands to be appeased at this instant. They can't let the problem go for even a day or so. It's impatience.

"OK, but remember that what is small to you may be a massive problem to someone else."

I am describing small things. I am not describing massive problems. I am talking about people whose feelings got "hurt". Or people who did not understand something and find that their confusion should be appeased by the company.

We have over here a weirdest label contest based on "Darwin nominees" (I'll explain that later) who use a product totally inappropritely or just don't think when using something. Examples:

A fire log sold here that gets fireplace fires started faster has a warning on the box: flammable.

Hair Dryers that have the warning "Do not operate while sleeping"

There's even a bathroom heater I read about with the warning: "Do not use in bathroom"

My favorite is a "Darwin nominee" who bought a recreational vehicle (a motor home) and happily drove it home, imagining all of the adventures he would have in it. He never got it home, however, as he decided to put the vehicle in cruise control and proceeded to go to the back to fix himself some coffee. Well, you know what happened next, the RV swerved off the road, crashed, and flipped over. The man sued the makers of the RV and won. Now, you will find a warning in the manual telling you not to leave the driver's seat when the car is moving.

That's what I mean about to many lawyers, thinking of ourselves as victime, and not taking any responsibility for our own thoughts or actions, even if the actions can be counted amongst the dumbest, most assinine in human history.

As Shakespeare wrote, "First, we kill all the lawyers."

Bob S.

[Bob S.]

I forgot to explain the "Darwin nominees." Let me explain it now. There is a series of books called the "Darwin Awards" (also at the website http://www.darwinawards.com ) that relates stories about people who die or are seriously injured out of their own sheer stupidity. The ones who die are given a Darwin Award. The ones who live are given Honorable Mention. I suggest going to that website for some laughs.

Bob S.

Bob,

I read some of the stories and can't believe how stupid some people can be. There used to be a TV program called "America's Dumbest Criminals". I could see why they were criminals. They were too stupid to do anything for a living--including be a criminal.

[nudeonLI]

I could not agree more with what most of you have said. I see three major porblems with todays society.
First is the inability of people to accept blame for their own mistakes. This refers to the "Darwin nominees". How absurd is it that there has to be a label on vending machines warning people that shaking them could cause them to tip over and hurt them? I believe that is the result of a successful law suit because someone was trying to steal from the machine.
Second is political correctness. Yes it has had some positive features. Making buildings more accessible to the disabled (Is it politically acceptable to use that word?) is one example. But do we really need braille directions on drive up ATM machines?
Third is our courts placing the rights of a few over the wishes of the majority. Yes, the rights of the minorities should be respected. The civil rights movement was a positive thing. But should we have to remove the word "God" from the Pledge of Alligence because a parent did not want his daughter to hear that word in a public school? Why not simply explain to the child that most people believe in something that your family does not and that the child doesn't have to go along with the beliefs of the majority? As a nudist, I do not expect the everyone to conform to my life style and I certainly would not try to impose it on anyone else.

"But should we have to remove the word "God" from the Pledge of Alligence because a parent did not want his daughter to hear that word in a public school? Why not simply explain to the child that most people believe in something that your family does not and that the child doesn't have to go along with the beliefs of the majority?"

I'm no fan of political correctness - in fact I spit in its eye at every opportunity. Nevertheless, it cannot be right to require someone makes a solemn vow and make them use an alien religious concept, i.e. God, in the process. That demeans the whole act - it makes it a lie from the very start.

Just take the 'God' phrase out for those particular people and allow the rest to use it if they wish. If a parent didn't want his daughter to hear that word, then let him or her take the girl out of school that day. But never force people actually to use that word if they're not comfortable with it.

Stu

[Ren]

Actually the word "God" should be removed from the Pledge of Allegience, if the government wants to respect the meaning of the Constitution, which at last check was the document of ideals for the United States of America. Saying God tramples on that document. Look, I believe in god, so that isn't the issue.

In the 1950s, God was inserted during McCarthyism to fight against the so-called godless Communists. It was not in the original Pledge. It was wrongly put in there, but at the time, there was a lot of wrong going on politically in this country.

People point to God being mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. Remember, though, the Declaration did not create our national law. The Constitution did and does. And the Constitution goes to great lengths to remove religion and mention of god in the process. That is to protect law from religious interests and religion from being established by the law.

It's about freedom, and the moment a sanctified belief system (ie. religions who worship a deity with the name God vs., say, Allah or Budda) enters the public legal sphere, the Constitution is undermined and nothing but a piece of paper. Removing the word God from the Pledge doesn't negate your right to believe in a god or God, it protects our legal and publicly sanctioned systems from ascribing to the philosophy that includes God. To exclude the word God is to include all Americans.

[namedun]

Again, we come to the issue of percieved majority. Yes, the majority of religions in North America is christianity, as it is in the world in general. However, I was under the impression that the practicing of christianity is being ignored by an increasing amount of ppl, to the put where if you added in athiests (or agnostics....whatever) along with all the other religions, christianity would no longer be in the majority. I don't really want to back this up with any statistics cause i'm lazy.

Namedun /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

[Bob S.]

Regarding the US "Pledge of Allegience." Back in the 70s (?) there was a Supreme Court case (maybe someone can remember the name of the woman who brought the case) where an atheist woman sued so that her son wouldn't have to say the Pledge of Allegience. The Supreme Court agreed with her and decided that no one is obligated to say the Pledge.

That decision then made the Pledge of Allegience no longer mandatory. In high school, I was an atheist and just skipped that part of the Pledge. I didn't make a federal case out of it. This case, however, has to do with the legalities of the teacher-led Pledge.

And as a twist in this case, the father who brought this case was divorced and did not have custody of the girl. Her mother, who has custody, does not have a problem with her recitation of the Pledge.

And stu, just so you know, the Pledge is recited at the beginning of every school day so there is no way to make her late for school all the time.

And it just goes to show you that the government cannot make everyone happy.

Bob S.

[Nude\'n\'happy]

When I attended elementry school, the pledge as well as the Lord's Prayer were recited every day. However, anyone who did not want to recite them was not forced to. One of my class mates was from an athiest family and she never recited either. She just remained silent while the other students did their reciting with the teacher.

I was in high school from 62-65. During one of those years (I don't remember which), a cart was wheeled down through the dining room one day, and we were told to put any Bibles we had on the cart. Communism was in the making, and our religious rights were being taken away along with those Bibles. I didn't surrender mine. I heard all my life that this is a "Christian nation". Yea, right!

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jon-Marc:
I was in high school from 62-65. During one of those years (I don't remember which), a cart was wheeled down through the dining room one day, and we were told to put any Bibles we had on the cart. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That was clearly an illegal action - unless they were school supplied Bibles.

Religious freedom means the govenment cannot compel or support the practice of religion, but neither can it prohibit or discourage the private practice of religion by individuals whether within or without public institutions.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>What are the ground rules for religious expression in public schools?
Secretary of Education Richard Riley, at the direction of President Clinton, issued guidelines in 1995 and updated them in 1998 to reflect recent court decisions.

A synopsis of the guidelines:


Students have the same right to engage in individual or group prayer and religious discussion during the school day as they do to engage in other comparable activity.

Local school authorities have "substantial discretion" to impose rules of order but may not structure the rules to discriminate against religious activity or speech.

Students may attempt to persuade peers about religious topics as they would any other topics, but schools should stop such speech that constitutes harassment.

Students may participate in before- or after-school events with religious content, such as "see-you-at-the-flagpole" gatherings, on the same terms they can participate in other noncurricular activities on school premises.

Teachers and administrators are prohibited from either encouraging or discouraging religious activity and from participating in such activity with students.

Public schools may not provide religious instruction but may teach about religion.

Students may express their beliefs about religion in homework, artwork and other written and oral assignments. The work should be judged by ordinary academic standards and against other "legitimate pedagogical concerns." Students may distribute religious literature on the same terms other literature unrelated to curriculum can be distributed.

Schools have "substantial discretion" to excuse students from lessons objectionable on religious or other conscientious grounds. But students generally don't have a federal right to be excused from lessons inconsistent with religious beliefs or practices.

Schools may actively teach civic values and morals, even if some of those values also happen to be held by religions.

Students may display religious messages on clothing to the same extent they may display other comparable messages. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>More info:

A Parent's Guide to Religion in Public Schools</A>[/B]<A HREF="http://www.ed.gov/Speeches/04-1995/prayer.html">
Religion in the Public Schools: A Joint Statement of Current Law</A><A HREF="http://www.csub.edu/jross/msoto3/religion.htm">
Religion in Schools</A>[/B] - list of links on this topic, at California State University at Bakersfield (CSUB) <A HREF="http://www.fac.org/publicat/gap/8recom.html">
Religion and the First Amendment</A><A HREF="http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2001/5/10/112133">
Michigan School District Defies Supreme Court Rulings - Bans Religious Material</A><A HREF="http://216.239.39.104/school_houston.html">
Houston school officials confiscate student Bibles; call them 'garbage'</A><A HREF="http://216.239.39.104/school_houston.html#West">
Helene Schroeter religious discrimination case</A> - controversy erupts when English teacher is accused of banning scriptures from free reading time <A HREF="http://www.mormonstoday.com/000625/N1SchoolPrayer02.shtml">
Supreme Court ruling on prayer at school football games</A> - how school-based discrimination led a Catholic and Latter-day Saint family to sue in Santa Fe, Texas

-Mark

[aunaturelone]

Perhaps the purpose of the British government is to kiss children's scrapes when they get hurt.

The purpose of the US government is to protect our rights. Our rights consist of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Note that there is no right to be happy, just the right to pursue it. National defense, laws and law enforcement, regulations, taxation, all exist solely to further this end.

Anything beyond this is cake and ice cream. Nice in reasonable quanities but unhealthy and ultimately destructive if it becomes the main part of our diet.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sound familiar?

[aunaturelone]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Teachers and administrators are prohibited from either encouraging or discouraging religious activity and from participating in such activity with students. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Very recent Supreme court case ruled that a teacher could not be prohibited from wearing a crucifix. (A public school could not require her to wear a crucifix, either. That's symmetry in the law.) Schools may not have a policy that either encourages or discourages crucifixes, yarmulkes, or any other religious emblem. I suppose if atheists came up with a generally accepted symbol, that would have to be protected as well. Freedom of religion includes the freedom NOT to be religious.

Gets very sticky when you start talking about Satanism.... /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

The first amendment explicitly prohibits Congress from designating a state religion but also prohibits Congress from preventing the free excercise of religion. The 14th amendment extends this limitation to all governmental agencies in the US. Schools cannot endorse a religion but the private citizens in that school may do so as long as they don't incorporate it into the lesson plan.

Some misguided souls attempt to claim that the freedom of private religious expression doesn't apply to schools or public property because they equate tolerance of personal displays of religion with endorsement. It is perfectly obvious that tolerance isn't the same as endorsement but try to get that through the head of a fanatic.

A parochial school could indeed ask you to turn in your Bibles if it were written into the educational contract. That's because the 1st amendment ONLY restricts the government, not private citizens on private property.

Mark,

The Bibles weren't handed out by the school. I don't think there were very many that had them, but someone didn't want students to have Bibles in the school. I remember when a teacher would start the class with prayer and Bible reading.

I heard a sick joke once about a teacher who saw some boys kneeling on the corridor floor. She ran up to them and shouted, "What are you boys doing there?" "We're shooting craps." said one of the boys. "Oh thank goodness." said the teacher. "I thought you were praying."

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jon-Marc:
Mark,

The Bibles weren't handed out by the school. I don't think there were very many that had them, but someone didn't want students to have Bibles in the school. I remember when a teacher would start the class with prayer and Bible reading.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Clearly that was an illegal confiscation.

I too remember teachers starting class with a prayer - long after that was ruled illegal. About 1/3 of my elementary public school classmates were Jewish, yet the class day began with the Lord's Prayer (Protestant version).

-Mark

[Trailscout]

There is a great organization that fights in court to protect the civil liberties of people of faith in public settings, especially in schools:

American Center for Law and Justice (http://www.aclj.org/)

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trailscout:
There is a great organization that fights in court to protect the civil liberties of people of faith in public settings, especially in schools:

American Center for Law and Justice <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Great as long as you agree with their anti-liberal, anti-abortion and anti-homosexual agenda. Wanna bet how they feel about Christian-naturists?

Freedom of religion is important. But lets not confuse it with the freedom to oppress.

I prefer the ACLU. I know they are doing the job because they regularly piss me off. For them the first amendment is the purpose, not just a means to an end.

-Mark

[Chief78CJ7]

Christian Nation?... hmm... what about those that aren't christians? Are they somehow not a part of our nation?

Religion, like nudity and whether you like beer or whiskey is a personal choice.. non of which should be supported *at all* by the government.

If we would freakn' get over all this hogwash as a soceity, maybe someone would get a clue about more important things, such as.. what does an atheist think about swearing on a bible when he's sworn in. Doesn't that pretty much provide a means for an atheist to lie?..

As an atheist, if I ever had to swear on a bible, I'm unsure what I'd do.. I'd be afraid that if a lawyer wanted to try and pick me apart, they could find out I'm an atheist and start with me 'lieing' in the swear.. I guess to be honest, I'd have to not swear on the bible.

How about we just put down the religious artifacts and leave them at home and grow up. I'm unsure when, but eventually human kind will outgrow the 'warm fuzzy' we get by going to church, being pious, and following rules. Religion has been used time and time again to "rule men's mind". How come more people can't see that?..

And if all these religious theologians are so smart, why are they point their fingers at each other about who has the Truth about the afterlife and our supposed Maker.

So.. a little boy (or man) born in the wrong part of the world is just screwed according to many religions because he didn't see THEIR version of the 'light'.

Give me a break.. Religion/Gods were made up by men to explain things like the sun, the stars, how we came to be, etc... just like Zeus, Odin, Ra, etc.. We outgrew those religions and someday will out grow all those in vogue now.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chief78CJ7:
Christian Nation?... hmm... what about those that aren't christians? Are they somehow not a part of our nation? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>At the moment the non-Christians are officially tolerated. But John Ashcroft has some contingency plans in place ...

It is little wonder so many people recoil from Christianity when the loudest and most persistant voices are the RRR extremists. The Falwell's and Robertson's and Ashcroft's don't consider most of us to be 'real' Christians because of our insufficiently narrow viewpoints.

-Mark

Chief

I rejected Christianity as a teenager. I studied the doctrines of many of the world's religions and found them to be based on faith - a concept I have no time for. After all, we have brains and we don't accept things as fact unless we have evidence. That applies whether you are a scientist, a detective, a researcher or a jurist.

The only religion that I know that expressly discourages faith and encourages objective investigation is Buddhism. Instead of answering the big questions, it teaches you that you are asking the wrong questions in the first place. It offers some extremely interesting (and useful) perspectives on humanity, life and the universe.

Stu

[Bob S.]

"After all, we have brains and we don't accept things as fact unless we have evidence. That applies whether you are a scientist, a detective, a researcher or a jurist."

We also have emotions and our "gut feeling." We must rely on all external and internal clues to determine our own world. Based on your own unscientfic polling of your friends, you have decided that the majority of the populace shares your views on nudity, but you have no evidence.

Sometimes, facts don't add up to the correct conclusion. It takes what you believe to finish the puzzle.

Bob S.

Bob,

"We also have emotions and our "gut feeling." We must rely on all external and internal clues to determine our own world. Based on your own unscientfic polling of your friends, you have decided that the majority of the populace shares your views on nudity, but you have no evidence."

How else do we arrive at beliefs where there is a lack of empirical evidence, Bob? Or are we not supposed to rely upon our own knowledge of the world and the people we meet? If I asked you: "Do the majority of people in the US believe that gun ownership should be banned?" I think you could have a pretty good shot at answering that even in the absence of hard evidence. There are also plenty of people even in here, a naturist forum, who would agree that my perceptio about this is correct.

"Sometimes, facts don't add up to the correct conclusion. It takes what you believe to finish the puzzle"

To break any law in a democratic country is a very serious step to take. You are, in effect, saying that you are entitled to flout laws made on behalf of the people by the people's elected representatives. That can only be justifiable if two conditions have been fulfilled, namely

(1) the circumstances are extreme - e.g. a matter of life and death, and

(2) all lawful means have been tried and tried again.

The furtherance of naturism in democratic countries fulfils none of these criteria.

Stu

[NudeAl]

To each his own Stu we know where you stand on the issue and you know how some of us feel.

I would say we are pretty much beating a dead horse here. Debate, while fun, is not going to change anyones mind.

[Bob S.]

OK stu, you totally misread my entire message. Congrats!!

In your first paragraph, you are agreeing totally with what I said.

In your second statement, there was nothing in there concerning civil disobedience. Actually, I as thinking of detectives trying to solve a case. Sometimes, a lot of the evidence may point to one person, but the detective somehow knows that the person in question could not have committed the crime. That's when they use their own "instinct" to take those pieces of the puzzle and arrange them properly.

And just to respond to your condition #2, many lawful means have been tried and triefd again.

Bob S.