Forum: Author Hangout

Unfortunately, many people think that it means "freedom from religion, i.e. the government should protect their tender ears from having to hear or see anything related to "religious belief".

I always distrust individuals when they try to use the Constitution to essentially remove the rights of others. It is such a perversion of the intent that it always offends me.

This is one great one that a great many do. Also 1st Amendment is one I hear abused way to often as well. Especially when idiots seem to believe their right to talk (scream, yell, and rant at) means they have some kind of magical protection from consequences from such behavior.

A few years ago I had a crazy lady screaming at one of my employees, and after she refused to stop I asked her to leave. She screamed even louder that I was violating her 1st Amendment right. She really became unhinged when I said that did not apply, I was not the government and therefore it did not apply to me.

She was still calling me a fascist when the police came and hauled her away for trespassing. Personally, she could have gone and ranted to the birds in the parking lot all day long as far as I was concerned. But she was foul, I had children in the store, and my employee did not deserve that kind of behavior.

And if someone's religion is so fragile that seeing 2 men kiss they demand that it be illegal.

Hell, that kind of garbage was resolved over 40 years ago for goodness sakes. Most simply could not give a fuck.

It is only the most radical fundamentalists that really have an issue there. And even most Christians could not care less what they think.

However, there is also the issue of forcing it on others, where I do tend to draw the line. Myself, I could not care less either way personally. But when it comes to say some of the more lunatic things out there (Transvestite story time, forcing second grade kids through a reading of "Heather Has Two Mommies"), then even I tend to draw a line. Myself, I simply see that as inappropriate. School is to teach them, not to teach them beliefs.

many 'Origionalists'

Pretty sure those are few and far between. There are at least four more popular strikers in the Liverpool team than Divock.

AJ

Legally, you dan't just invent a new religion

Mormonism (Joseph Smith 1820s)
Scientology (L. Ron Hubbard 1955)
Seventh-Day Aventist (Ellen G. White 1860).
Nation of Islam (Elijah Muhammad 1930s).
etc.

Mormonism (Joseph Smith 1820s)
Scientology (L. Ron Hubbard 1955)
Seventh-Day Aventist (Ellen G. White 1860).
Nation of Islam (Elijah Muhammad 1930s).

You forgot to mention the religions that also call themselves political parties.

Legally, you dan't just invent a new religion

Suppose I wanted to start a new religion based on my supposed question and answer session with God a couple of years ago, if I can't start my own religion to spread Her message, isn't that denying my freedom of religion?

AJ

Many US Christians feel they live in a Christian country and thus feel free to force their faithful duties as a Christians upon all. School boards opening sessions with prayer to the Christian god come to mind.

This is the case of any "fundamentalist" group, that feels it has a duty to proselytize to others in order to gain converts.

And yes, I include atheist's in that. Most are simply ambivalent about religion, and as it does not apply to them do not care about the practices of others. But then you have what I call "Born Again Atheists", who feel it is their duty to preach the word of "No God" to everybody they can, and try to gain as many converts as possible to their beliefs.

However, local government is like the Homeowners Association in a subdivision. The ones that tend to run for those offices tend to be either the ones that want to be seen doing good things, butt into the business of everybody, or use it to launch themselves into a better position later. Not always, but all to often. But if you move higher up the political ladder, such things tend to matter less and less.

And yes, clergy are exempt (unless they request otherwise) from Social Security. But guess what? They also do not accrue or collect it either. And that was actually common in the military at one time. Myself, I see absolutely no reason to force somebody to pay for something they will never use.

And predominantly, the clergy that do not pay or collect SSI are those of the Catholic Faith. Where they already have in place a system to take care of them all the way into the grave. And for them, paying SSI would be rather retarded as they will absolutely never use the services.
And for a great many others, they actually have a "Day Job" that they do pay SSI on. Less than 40% of clergy are actually "full time", for most it really is a part-time job they do in addition to holding down a regular job.

So I did. My apologies to you. I have no idea how to re-direct it to Mushroom.

I think you have to delete it, then repost it.

But to respond, not all HOA are like that. Most I have been involved in tend to have people that are 110% Karens.

They run around with paint wheels and you get letters your shade of blue on the mailbox is not the approved shade of blue. Or that the grass in the front yard is not the correct blend of grass they approved.

Or even that there are complaints because the bird feeder is causing the birds to poop on the cars of another.

Church of the Revelation of Awnlee Jawking

Not going to happen. Even if you give any credence to my supposed conversation with God, She said she had provided no input into any human religion. I think She might get upset if I were to try to create an exception.

Besides, I don't think I'd be capable of going on TV and encouraging my disciples to send lots of money in order for them to qualify for the Bronze/Silver/Gold Afterlife Packages.

AJ

Do you have a manuscript of that conversation? It may be interesting.

For myself I keep things simple, Acknowledging the Norse holidays, a few simple traditions. Religiously while I acknowledge the entire pantheon, I only pay real attention to the All Father, Frejya, Jord, Hel, Thor and I give special attention to Sunna as I am specifically her devotee for lack of a better word.

I also have a hearth altar, well mine is a shelf as I have no fireplace, lol

Do you have a manuscript of that conversation?

No. Perhaps I should create one. The contents of internet forums may not be accessible forever.

I think I've already mentioned the major 'revelations' several times on here, and there's not much more to add.

AJ

What's ironic is my illness had left me with an inability to sweat. So I have to avoid exposure to the sun to keep from overheating.

Acknowledging the Norse holidays, a few simple traditions.

We already do, every week.

Monday, or "Moon Day", from the Norse "Mani", the personification of the Moon.

Tuesday, or "Tiw's Day", an older pronunciation of "Tyr".

Wednesday, or "Woden's Day", an older pronunciation of Odin.

Thursday, everybody should know that is "Thor's Day".

Friday, or "Frige's Day, who we now call Frigga.

Literally 5 days in our modern calendar are named after Norse worship days they fell on. Sunday is a wobbler, as most believe it is connected to Solis, but it might also be the Norse personification of Sunna.

Saturday is the only complete exception, being named after Saturn.

Wouldn't that be the toilet? sat urn as in I sat on the urn.

You're Absolutely right. I voted for myself That Sunday is Sunna's so I try to do something a little special on them.

@Dominion Sons

SCOTUS has interpreted the 1A text to include states not having that right. (i.e. they do not have the right to pass those types of laws.)

Actually, I am not sure why I posted the above. I think I intended to say - SCOTUS may have interpreted the 1A text to include states not having that right.

The Roberts court ruled that a corporation has religious rights under the first amendment, and that those rights are greater than the Obamacare law.

It is not just that. A long part of the law which goes all the way back the English Common Law is that a Corporation is to be regarded as an individual. In other words, a person. So any law that affects a person (or does not affect) is the same when related to a Corporation.

And that is largely semantics, because a non-corporation (private proprietorship) has one person who owns it, and they get the same protections as the owner does.

This is the same reasoning that allows a Corporation to release public announcements, and they get the same 1st Amendment protections as if you or I did it.

Corporations are just groups of people acting in concert. Closely held corporations, have only a few owners, who are in many cases (and particularly in the Hobby Lobby case) members of a single family.

Huh?

OK, what exactly is the point here? Is say Mag or Dell to be treated differently than General Motors of Ford?

Look, either the law is neutral and impartial, or it is not. How in the hell does how a corporation is held matter, unless you are saying that such things do matter?

Yes, it does matter. Aside from the rights issue, some of the liability protections provided by incorporation are actually a little weaker with a closely held corporation.

Oh, and you are the one complaining about the courts recognizing that such corporations have some of the same rights as people.

Yea, that is known as an LLC. Also much cheaper to set up, and much less paperwork.

I was complaining? I think you have me seriously confused with somebody else.

My wife was a part of Meet Me at the Pole when she was in H.S. Students of their own choice would meet at the flagpoles to pray. No staff allowed. I don't see a problem with it. What I do have a problem with is schools allotting resources such as rooms or providing dietary considerations based on religion. It leads to conflict.

How? Here's a simple one: Ham. Muslims and Jews think it's unclean. I am a member of the Norse religion. To us pork is a sacred food.

I think a school should serve culturally American food and those who don't like it can bring their own.

I like Japan's attitude about it. They say this what what we feed children at our schools. If you don't like it feel free to educate your children elsewhere. I am not a large fan of oriental foods and such a policy would work against my taste buds.

I guess if I was hungry enough I would eat, lol.

I would think discriminating against the religious practices is more likely to lead to conflict. Schools don't have to provided resources to religious groups unless they provide resources to non-religiously based groups.

My personal opinion is that there is nothing wrong with a government-run large school or college providing a space (call it a chapel if you will) where Christian students can go for prayer or contemplation or whatever. In the same way, there is nothing wrong with a government-run large school providing a space (call it a prayer room if you will) where Moslem students can go for prayer or contemplation or whatever. But I don't believe that all schools must provide those spaces, nor should schools have to automatically provide equal space to the Church of the Revelation of Awnlee Jawking or any other small group that might speak up. But if a different group does step up and demonstrate they have sufficient numbers to warrant it, then they should be catered for as far as is practical within the limits of the school's capacity (budget, space, etc)

Again it should be a reflection of the community in which the school exists. If the school has a large proportion of Buddhists, then they should go ahead and set aside one little area to build a stone garden for them to use. But other schools wouldn't have the need to do that.

Again, my personal opinion is that government-run schools should not compel their entire student body to take part in prayer sessions or listen to sermons or etc.

But schools should be allowed to acknowledge the existence of religious festivals or even put up displays relating to those festivals (eg Christmas Trees, or a Menorah for Hannukah, or drawings of Kolam to celebrate the Hindu festival of Pongal or etc depending on the community within which the school exists) but that doesn't mean that all groups (including the Church of the Revelation of Awnlee Jawking) should be given equal space.

My personal opinion is that there is nothing wrong with a government-run large school or college providing a space (call it a chapel if you will) where Christian students can go for prayer or contemplation or whatever. In the same way, there is nothing wrong with a government-run large school providing a space (call it a prayer room if you will) where Moslem students can go for prayer or contemplation or whatever.

To me, in this they should simply look to the military.

Religion there is largely ecumenical. Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, all share the same spaces, and even the same clergy. I have even cone to Protestant services with a Hindu pastor. And seen a Muslim pastor holding services for Jews.

All held in the exact same spaces that all other clergy use. One thing about those that answer the Calling to minister to those in Uniform. They all agree to put any religious differences to the side, and concentrate on assisting those who serve. They may not share the same religion, but the idea is that since all have to answer to "their god" or "god" (depending on interpretation), those who agree to do to do it to the best of their ability.

In this, I agree. Provide a place for this, keep it as "religious neutral" as possible. If an New Age Pagan wants to go in and whisper to rocks and crystals, they should feel free to do that. Just do not interfere with others who want to exercise their beliefs, or try to follow their own requirements.

Notice the common thread between Mushroom's posts and mine is the spirit of compromise. Whether it be in the military or in school or wherever, if people make the effort to look for a compromise that caters for as many people as possible then that is far more effective than a "majority rules" or a "it's my way or the high-way" approach.

Notice the common thread between Mushroom's posts and mine is the spirit of compromise.

That is probably because politically, I have "no axe to grind". In fact, politically I have quite often been called a "Militant Moderate".

I believe strongly in compromise, and here is the real joke. The more crazy I see somebody going in a political direction (EITHER side), the more I tend to take them as a complete and utter joke, and barely worth listening to.

The more hysterical I see somebody in their claims, the less seriously I take them. The more stupid and silly their claims become, the more I see them as a big joke.

Now, even if the views of a person are radically different than my own, if they make them calmly and logically with something to back them up, I will at a minimum consider them. But come at me with the "Everybody thinks" type of garbage, when I simply dismiss them because what they really mean is "Everybody that thinks like I do, which is all that matters".

I have never heard of a public school that provides a special place for any type of religious gathering.

Many US Colleges have them now, they call them 'Safe Spaces.'

Many US Colleges have them now, they call them 'Safe Spaces.'

You mean "Crying Rooms" or "Temper Tantrum Rooms"?

Yea, which is yet another reason why I decided to go to tech schools and not "Higher education".

Really, Kosher and Halal are not to be made in the same kitchen pork and other unacceptable foods are made. So is a school supposed to have two separate kitchens?

I much prefer Japans model. The schools are there to teach not worry about subcultures wants.

Really, Kosher and Halal are not to be made in the same kitchen pork and other unacceptable foods are made. So is a school supposed to have two separate kitchens?

I much prefer Japans model. The schools are there to teach not worry about subcultures wants.

As I said, dispensations. I have never heard of a common religion that does not recognize them. If a religion is so extremely fundamentalist it does not, then those children should not be in public schools.

And really, "subcultures" in Japan? Are you freaking serious? *rolls on floor laughing*

Of course they do not "cater" to them, the most isolationist and xenophobic country on the planet, and that is your example?

And yea, I have lived in Japan. I also have a great deal of affection and respect for them. But that does not make me blind to their shortfalls.

They do have subculture but they don't talk much about them or influence policy. Personally, I have no problem with a nation or people group or nation saying this is who we are and how we do things. Adapt to us, or shut up, or leave.

I'm personally not welcome in several countries of the world because I have tattoos that designate me as pagan that I will not cover up to suit someone. While you can't pay me to push my religion at people I won't hide it either.

I understand that I don't fit their culture so I won't go there. Everybody's happy.

Really, Kosher and Halal are not to be made in the same kitchen pork and other unacceptable foods are made

Actually, when you look at the rules they can be made in the same room, just not on the same table or with the same instruments as non-kosher / halal foods. So a kitchen where they have 2 preparation tables and one is for each group, there is no problem. Also, most general foods are kosher and halal, so they could be made for the whole student body.

I'm afraid, Sir, that you are significantly over-estimating the abilities of school lunch ladies.

The schools I attended back in the 1950s and 1960s usually had three or four food preparation tables they could work at as there were no school supplied lunches and they made every lunch sold, either via an order placed in the morning or as you ordered it while standing in line at lunch time. Most lunches were typical sandwiches, and some had hot food. There was typically 4 lines - orders placed to be collected, new hot food lunch orders, other new lunches to be made, premade foods / drinks. Everyone either brought their own lunch or bought it from the shop run by the volunteers from the Parents and Citizens Association who ran the shop as a service and fund raiser for school activities / equipment.

DS: Also, why should Muslim and Jewish parents pay taxes so your kids can eat pork at school?

IR: Why should Hindus have to pay taxes so your kids can eat beef at school? Or Buddhists pay taxes so kids can eat meat of any kind?

It's a question of scale (are we talking about a school with 20 kids, or 200 kids, or 2000 kids, or 20,000 kids?).

There's also the difference between what a school must do and what a school should do.

If we're talking about a normal school day and a school of 200 or 2000 kids has 2 who want to eat Helal (for example), then I think it's reasonable for the school to speak to those two and their parents and say "we're not set up for that but if you bring your own food, we can give you access to a microwave to reheat it." If the school is taking those two kids on a camp for a week then they should definitely make some sort of arrangement to cater for those students.

If a similar school had 25% wanting to eat Helal, then that school should be offering a choice of Helal/Non Helal. The school may not have to but it should do so in order to build respect and relationships with a quarter of its school population and the community in which it exists.

Most schools these days that serve food are offering vegetarian choices as a matter of course and by doing so they are covering most people who eat a specific diet for religious reasons as well as the people who eat vegetarian for philosophical reasons.

So my answer to DS and Irvmull is that tax payer funded schools should be catering for a variety of the students within their community and most parents of particular religions respect that when it does happen.

On the other hand, if the school says "Shut up and eat the hotdogs", then that's going to cause issues which will interfere with the primary purpose of the school, so for the most part they aren't going to do that.

If we're talking about a normal school day and a school of 200 or 2000 kids has 2 who want to eat Helal (for example), then I think it's reasonable for the school to speak to those two and their parents and say "we're not set up for that but if you bring your own food, we can give you access to a microwave to reheat it." If the school is taking those two kids on a camp for a week then they should definitely make some sort of arrangement to cater for those students.

Actually, it is pretty common for those with such requirements to be given a dispensation for minor transgressions to their dietary requirements.

Say to remove the cheese from a non-kosher hamburger. Both of which break the dietary rules, but Rabbis generally recognize that it is the intent of the individual that applies here, not the actual literal rules themselves.

We deal with this literally every day in the military. None of our meals are kosher or halal, but all clergy for those groups give permission because the best attempts are made to meet their needs.

And if a student belongs to such a strictly fundamentalist congregation that this is not enough, then Public Schools are probably not the best choice for them in the first place. I went to school with a great many who considered themselves strictly Orthodox, but still had no problem with simply pulling the pepperoni off of a pizza and still eating it.

Meat and milk can't be prepared in the same kitchen.

better check that with a Rabbi. From what I've read of the rules they can be prepared in the same room, but you must use different equipment and storage for them. What's more likely is the sandwich shop didn't have space to put in a separate commercial fridge that met the state and county standards, so they elected to not carry any of the milk products.

They don't, not specifically. Christians aren't claiming a religious requirement to eat meat generally or beef specifically.

Once again, I wonder if this is showing my age.

50 years ago, it was common for schools to offer a fish course on Friday. For those Catholics who followed the tradition of "Meatless Friday". The same reason McDonald's started to offer their Fish Sandwich in the first place.

But you did not have to take the fish (normally fish sticks), you were free to get whatever you wanted.

Fish is meat. Fish on Friday is not "meatless". I am familiar with the tradition you mention.

I am less then half a decade older than you are. And I went to schools in both California and Idaho. And even in a region that was predominantly Mormon, they served fish on Friday.

And if you say that is not "meatless", obviously you understand nothing of the tradition. Fish is exempt because of the tradition of the miracle of the loaves and fishes. It is called that because of the requirement to abstain from eating land animals and fowl.

I just think that exempting fish and still calling it meatless is an abuse of the English language.

Well, the tradition descends from a Latin tradition from the 1600's. So how it is translated into English really does not apply.

Latin is a dead language.

Are you aware of what a "dead language" really is?

There are linguistically 3 classifications. Extinct, Dead, and Modern.

Extinct means that nobody currently speaks it. The Mandan dialect of Lakota is extinct. Hittite, Olmec, and Sumerian are also extinct.

"Dead Language" simply means that it is no longer the "native language" of any community or geographical area. Which also means it no longer evolves. Without any "Native Speakers", a language stagnates. Which for scientific purposes is actually a good thing, as it no longer morphs or changes over time. As it was 100 years ago, it will be in another 100 years.

However, that does not have to remain the same. Hebrew became a "Dead Language" in the 2nd Century CE, with the diaspora of the Jews by the Roman Empire.

But guess what? That is no longer the case. In the late 19th Century, the Hebrew Language was revived. And is now the national language of at least 1 nation, and has over 9 million native speakers. And is again evolving and creating new words and phrases.

So quite literally, your statement of "Dead Language" does not mean what you think it means.

Also, IIRC the 'fish on friday' business was actually politically motivated - it was to help increase the income of the fishing industry by artificially inflating demand. The religious justification was added later.

Turns out that this is a myth. The religious reasons came first, as early as the first century according to the article listed below. It's actually a fast from eating the flesh of warm-blooded animals rather than a requirement to eat fish. Europeans didn't take to eating lizards or snakes so fish became the meal of choice during the Friday fast.

But then in England eating fish on Fridays became an issue after the English Church split from Rome in the 15th Century. The Catholics fasted from red meat on Fridays, so the Anglicans rejected that and stopped eating fish which devastated the fishing industry in Britain.

Then in 1547 fast days were re-instituted by law by Edward VI - "for worldly and civil policy, to spare flesh, and use fish, for the benefit of the commonwealth, where many be fishers, and use the trade of living."

So the political motivation part of the story is based on fact but it came after the religious reasons.

the tale behind eating fish on friday

Also, IIRC the 'fish on friday' business was actually politically motivated - it was to help increase the income of the fishing industry by artificially inflating demand. The religious justification was added later.

Oh yes, because we know how powerful the fishing industry was in the 1600's.

The tradition has existed from the earliest days of Christianity

That suggests it's of Jewish origin then.

AJ

That suggests it's of Jewish origin then.

Nope, no such tradition. It is first referenced in the 4th Century CE, as penance for the crucifixion. In essence a way to remember Lent throughout the year.

By that time the Christian faith had already been split up by almost 200 years from the Jewish faith. Only the earliest crossover traditions (Christmas-Hanukkah, Easter-Passover) remained. By the time of that tradition, the Christian faith had become largely "Romanized", and very little of the old Jewish traditions remained.

Especially as the closest event in the Jewish religious traditions would be the Passover Seder meal. Which did not have fish at all, but lamb or chicken.

It is first referenced in the 4th Century CE, as penance for the crucifixion.

BarBar's link says it's referenced as early as the first century AD.

IIRC, according to the Christian Bible, Jewish culture placed great importance on fish. It would be surprising if they didn't have a 'fish' day, just like we Brits have a (dwindling) tradition of Roast Beef and Yorkshire Pud on a Sunday.

What I don't understand is why they'd have a 'fish' day on Friday when it's followed immediately by the sabbath - two successive days without a real man's meal ;-)

AJ

Jewish culture placed great importance on fish. It would be surprising if they didn't have a 'fish' day, ... What I don't understand is why they'd have a 'fish' day on Friday when it's followed immediately by the sabbath

Unlikely. The article I linked to implied that it developed as a Christian tradition rather than something they inherited from Jewish culture. That's not to say that the Jews didn't do fasts where they avoided meat from warm-blooded animals so they ate fish, but that wouldn't be the day before the Sabath.

What I don't understand is why they'd have a 'fish' day on Friday when it's followed immediately by the sabbath - two successive days without a real man's meal ;-)

Because they do not. It has no basis in Jewish tradition.

It all as I said goes back to Lent. A time of fasting specifically the period from Ash Wednesday to Good Friday. It was simply decided to set aside every Friday as a form of Lent, to remember what was sacrificed for the believers.

And it is not immediately followed by the Sabbath, Christians had already moved that to Sunday by that point in time.

Jewish traditions are completely different. They have 2 "full fast" 24 hour periods where nothing is taken but water, and 4 "fast days", where nothing but water is consumed from dawn to sunset.

Then you have the Seder, which is not a fast but a traditional meal where each part symbolized their enslavement and release from captivity. Bitter roots, unleavened bread, and more including the roasted lamb or goat, intended to symbolize the sacrifice made that evening.

But no fish. Not sure why you keep trying to bring this up, as there is absolutely no Jewish tradition involved at all.

Oh, and there is no real "Jewish Tradition" of fish, that is entirely Christian. From the Sea of Galilee, the Fisher of Men, even the earliest symbol being a Fish. The traditional meals of Jews (OTHER than around the Nazarenes around Galilee) was lamb or goat. They started as a nomadic desert tribe, not a coastal fishing group. Kind of hard to herd fish through the desert.

And even their capitol (Jerusalem) is hundreds of miles from the sea. So any kind of tradition involving fish simply makes no sense.

Oh, and there is no real "Jewish Tradition" of fish, that is entirely Christian.

Fish and fishermen are mentioned frequently in the Christian Bible, but the people it talks about considered themselves to be Jews.

I suspect Judaism was considerably different a couple of millennia ago compared to the highly ritualised version that exist today, just like Christianity and other religions which outlive their time.

AJ

Fish and fishermen are mentioned frequently in the Christian Bible, but the people it talks about considered themselves to be Jews.

Which if you know were written by Christians. And actually 100 years or more later. Most are written well into the Second Century CE, after the schism occurred. Christians were not even "Jewish" by that point anymore, and were well on their way to becoming "Romanized", in addition to being Hellenized.

And as an FYI, even though they considered themselves to be "Jews", quite a few Jews did not consider them to be even before then. The largest sect in the Nazarene region were the Essenes, which in "modern terms" would be seen as a rather radical fundamentalist group. No swearing of oaths, a strictly literal tradition of how to interpret the scriptures, refusing to sacrifice animals, no slaves, no trading, little in the way of private property, and communal living.

They also viewed everything that was written by, about, or from their Scriptures to be a "Holy Work", which is why they are responsible for the largest collection of Jewish writings of this time period. They also believed in an "Immortal Soul", something in contradiction with more traditional Jewish beliefs.

And some groups took their belief about sacrifice even further, being vegetarians. And having a belief that eventually all animals will evolve into eating only plants.

Remember, this is the group that was living around the Sea of Galilee. They were largely "Jews in name only", which became an issue in the middle of the 1st century CE.

The connection would not be unlike going up to an early 20th century Catholic, and saying that the members of the "Church of Christ, Scientist" were "Christians". Or the members of the LDS church a half century before that. Or by the Third Century the various Coptic and Agnostic Christian sects.

You keep trying to bundle all of these groups together, but it is nowhere near that simple. The only "Jewish Sect" which had any real "Fishing Tradition" were a heavily Hellenized group, which was also practicing a radically Fundamentalist belief, which was very different than that of most Jews.

Even fertile Mediterranean countries had a heavy reliance on fish, so the fishing industry would be important somewhere as arid as the holy land.

The events detailed in the Christian Bible are highly debatable. However the cultural references are probably trustworthy, just as yours would be if you wrote a Western, or mine would be if I set a story in Dickensian times.

AJ

Even fertile Mediterranean countries had a heavy reliance on fish, so the fishing industry would be important somewhere as arid as the holy land.

In a region close to the ocean or with navigable rivers, sure. Remember, this is an era without real good food preservation techniques. Where salt was so valuable that it was a common currency. Goods were generally walked by it's own locomotion to where it was needed, and then butchered and consumed as quickly as possible.

Neither of those is the case for most of Judea. And in a culture where fish alone was all they were allowed to consume from the sea. Goat and lamb would be far cheaper than fish.

It was instituted because the Pope had a monopoly in the fishing industry of the time around Rome.

Wow, really?

That is really interesting. Now why a Pope who was born, raised, and died in Egypt because the church was outlawed in the Empire at the time would have a monopoly on fishing fleets in Rome, I have absolutely no fucking idea.

Can you please explain that to me?

This is why I have a hard time taking so many of these arguments I see seriously at all. Quite literally people simply making things up and expecting people to not bother to check if their claims were bullshit in the first place.

Or just as bad, being told a line of bullshit, and not even bothering to see if they were correct in the first place.

Oh, another huge problem. There was no "Fishing Industry" around Rome then, the closest port was in Ostia, almost 30 miles away. But even that had almost no fishing industry, it was the main shipping hub for bringing in grain.

The main Roman fishing port was in Herculaneum, over 140 miles away. There it was salted or pickled then sent to Rome.

So I would love to hear how an Egyptian Pope owned the fishing industry in a town that did not even have a port because it was inland. And the nearest port did not even have a fishing industry.

No, the majority of private schools (at least in the US) like private hospitals* are religious and run as charities.

*The Catholic Church (via various Catholic Charities) is the single largest hospital operator in the US. They run more hospitals than even the government.

Exactly.

Heck, one of the in-jokes I included in one of my stories is that one of the largest "Religious K-9" schools in the LA area was "Christian", but had a large number of Jewish students. And for those who are not aware, it is quite common for Catholic Schools to have a sizeable Jewish student body.

It always amazes me how strongly people insist on holding onto completely wrong stereotypes.

You're right, I should have said charter schools.

Uhhh, a lot of "Charter Schools" are religious based as well. They simply can not have religion as part of the curriculum. A great many Charter Schools are directly created by or funded by religious groups.

The more you know...

Also a fair number of charter schools run by secular charities.

Did I ever say "all"?

*looks up*

Nope, did not think so.

Why should parents of the European Old ways pay taxes to be told their children can't have pork with their meals?

The problem is gov does run the entire daycare system unless you go to private school or homeschool.

Why should parents of the European Old ways pay taxes to be told their children can't have pork with their meals?

*sigh*

I would love to learn of these magical school systems where the students are only served a single meal, with absolutely no choices.

Holy hell, I went to school in the 1960's, and even then we had choices. I really do want to know of a school system that approaching the end of 2020 does not allow their students any kind of choice in what they eat.

... the answer is to get rid of the public schools.

You want to get rid of public schools because you think serving lunch is too complicated?? Seriously??

What do you suggest is put in it's place? Maybe leave it up to the religious organisations to run schools. How popular do you think that would be if the only schools available are run by organised religious groups.

Or would you prefer that the only people who can get any form of decent education are the people who can afford to pay for it. In a modern world where a basic level of education is required for every available job, you would quickly end up with a sizeable proportion of the population who were unemployable.

People mostly aren't getting a decent education from the public schools.

That is a common perception but like most things, it is a crude generalisation. I don't live in USA so I can only go by the statistics. The statistics say that your "common perception" is partly true and partly bullshit and depends a lot on what is meant by a "decent education" and it varies a great deal depending on the economic areas in which those schools are placed.

The International PISA rankings for best developed education systems placed USA second though this refers to overall education system and is not limited to government-run schools even though their first listed criteria is the public education system.
PISA Rankings 2020 Best Education Systems

The most recent PISA tests for 15 year olds (maths, science, reading) was in 2018 when USA students ranked 25th which is not as good as you'd want it to be but a heck of a lot better than many other developed countries.

PISA ranking 2018 15-year-old scholastic performance rankings

The breakdown for within USA makes interesting reading:
PISA USA 2018

The real answer here is to get rid of public schools. If the government isn't running the schools this becomes a non-issue.

Didn't you say this or did I misquote?

There we agree. The sad part is a lot parents blame the teacher instead of taking/making the time to watch over their children's education.

I mean an actual overview of score trends and their child's study habits, ect

My wife and I once went to my child's principal because my daughter was getting really good report cards but all the work we saw did not reflect the given grade. Come to find out, the teacher was cooking her grade book so she looked good.

As a parent, how am I supposed to guide and nourish my child's education if I am not aware of issues because the teacher lies?

My question is how many parents would have even noticed the discrepancy?

Over the last several decades, the national average per-pupil spending by public schools has increased dramatically. Over the same period there has been little to no improvement in outcomes for students.

This is supported by the data:

The trend lines of United States' mean performance in reading since 2000,
mathematics since 2003 and science since 2006 are stable, with no significant improvement or decline.

But there are exceptions.

Nevertheless, in reading, the share of 15-year-old students who scored at Level 5 or 6 (top performers)
increased by almost 4 percentage points – a statistically significant increase – between 2009 and 2018,
to 13.5%.

However, when I read your comment, I did wonder whether or not your increase in per-pupil spending was adjusted for inflation.

What I do have a problem with is schools allotting resources such as rooms or providing dietary considerations based on religion. It leads to conflict.

How? Here's a simple one: Ham. Muslims and Jews think it's unclean. I am a member of the Norse religion. To us pork is a sacred food.

I think a school should serve culturally American food and those who don't like it can bring their own.

And I can't think of a school I had ever gone to that did not offer an option. And yes, I am old enough to remember when every Friday was fish in school. But there was also another meat to choose from, you did not have to get fish. Pizza or Hamburger, Burrito or Salisbury Steak. And why would even offering an option be a problem?

That to me smacks of intolerance. I can understand not requiring them to go out of their way to provide something that is crazy (say like "dead plant vegans"), but the purpose of a school lunch is to feed children. Not to try and force things down their throats.

yeah, when we were young, school pizza and burgers were barely recognizable as food

The pizza and burgers were awesome at my school and most of the others wasn't bad. Some of the best damn soybean burgers I ever had.

I think a school should serve culturally American food and those who don't like it can bring their own.

The down side of that is in many schools now you are not allowed to bring your own lunch and you're made to eat the school provided lunch. The answer to the problem you raise is to have a two or three meal choice set and the students have to designate which they want the week before so the kitchen staff can cook accordingly.

I didn't know that. Where, specifically, is that true?

I do know how many states it relates to and for how long it's been the case, but over the last 10 to 15 years I've done research on public schools in Texas, Arkansas, New Mexico, and Arizona. In each case I found that there was a compulsory lunch program at the school designed around a 'healthy and nutritious' lunch as per a federal government lunch program. I also found that during the first Obama Presidency the rules on what food was allowed to be served in public schools was changed to ensure they were all healthy and this affected the snacks available for the students to purchase.

Reference the US National School Lunch Program for the original underlying system that's been altered over the years.

Yes, with good intentions, Michelle Obama tried to get kids to eat healthier meals at school. Unfortunately, most of that food went directly into the garbage cans.

Ayep, give kids food they don't like the taste of and it doesn't get eaten. Better to give them a range of choices so they eat what they get.

However, the problem is people like Michelle deciding the main part of the issue is what they eat and making rules to change that when that isn't the case. The major cause for juvenile obesity is not what they eat but the fact it's almost against the law for them to get the amount of exercise they need. Before the Covid lock downs there were lots of cases of parents being in trouble for letting their kids run around in the local parks or for being out on the streets visiting friends, be it on foot or push bike, before they're 14 or older. Hell, when I was 10 I spent most of the after school daylight hours on foot visiting people in the area or playing games in the parks, most of which involved running around. Also, breaks during the school day involved running around the playground with various games - schools don't allow any of those games today because of the rules put in place to minimise the school being sued if some kid fell over and got a scratched knee.

The major cause for juvenile obesity is not what they eat but the fact it's almost against the law for them to get the amount of exercise they need.

First came some parents not letting their kids roam, unsupervised, then came the peer pressure on the parents who still did ("You're letting your kids run wild! There are kidnappers and pedophiles on every corner!") and then that push got translated into ordinances.

I notice that Utah made a change in 2018 that undid some of that:
UTAH Free Range Parenting Bill

The other major causes of childhood obesity are that too many kids spend too much time being entertained by electronics TV/video games/internet etc so they simply don't want to go out and get enough exercise of any sort, let alone roam the streets the way their parents did when they were kids.

That, combined with a diet high in sugars means energy in is greater than energy out, so wham!!!

The clear solution is to reduce the sugar intake and increase the exercise. Hence the push for healthy lunches and the requirement in some places for schools to have a minimum of some given number of hours of P.E. per week.

So drag a couple of grumpy old men away from the online forums where they spend all their time complaining about the way things are and plop them on a bench in a park where they volunteer to supervise the neighbourhood kids for the afternoon. It has to be adult supervision, it doesn't have to be the parents.

It has to be adult supervision, it doesn't have to be the parents.

sadly, in some legal jurisdiction it has to be either parent or someone with a state approved training course certificate an license to supervise the kids - thus they wan to be paid to recoup the thousands of bucks the training and licenses cost. Then some states require such supervision happen only in approved facilities with a huge list of requirements and equipment.

the requirement in some places for schools to have a minimum of some given number of hours of P.E. per week.

don't know about elsewhere, but where I grew up 2 periods of PE and 3 periods of sport each week were compulsory since before WW2 - and we still spent hours each day running around.

You might want to check on current requirements.

current requirements in my state are still the same, although actual physical activity is now less as one of the PE periods each fortnight is an in classroom period of teaching labelled "Health and Hygiene."

I didn't know that. Where, specifically, is that true?

This has been bouncing back and forth now for well over a decade.

For students at Little Village Academy in Chicago, bringing lunch to school is verboten. Principals of Chicago's public schools are allowed to implement a "no bag lunch" policy if they say it serves the needs of their students. Principal Elsa Carmona began the ban at Little Village Academy six years ago in response to seeing students eating chips and soda during school field trips. "Nutrition wise, it is better for the children to eat at the school"

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/ban-the-bag-should-kids-be-forbidden-from-bringing-lunch-to-school-176233622/

There has yet to be a firm court decision, because no schools have been willing to take the fight that far. But a great many do all they can to discourage students from bringing in their own meals.

But I am betting it is only a matter of time before a school does push it that far.

At one time schools would tell kids who didn't want to partake in prayer (always a Christian prayer) to go to another room. Talk about putting a crosshair on their backs.

And when was this exactly?

1950s probably. SCOTUS first ruled that school led prayer in public schools was unconstitutional in 1962.

Great, over 50 years ago.

Personally, I could not give a fuck what happened over 50 years ago, is it happening NOW?

For exactly how many decades are people going to flog things around that ended decades ago? Personally, I find it funny that people will call me a "reactionary", yet they will refuse to let things go that have not happened in over half a century.

I don't know. Ask the NAACP (has members still pushing for slavery reparations), or the Southerners still bitching about the "War of Norther Aggression".

That is normally not "Southerners", it is the butt-hurt racists that think that way. The ones so out of touch with reality that they will distort reality to fit their narrative. I have seen people from New York try to use the "Northern Aggression" garbage.

As far as reparations, fine. Bring up somebody that was a slave in the US and I will be the first to say they should get something.

Heck, I even agree to the "40 acres and a mule" concept. Heck, take it a step further. Give anybody descended of slaves 400 acres, a tractor, a mobile home, 2 years of free education at an A&M, and a line of credit to operate their farm for 10 years.

Heck, I got no problem with that at all. And goodness knows the BLM has tons of land they can grant. And the very intent was to make such freed slaves independent, and able to create their own destiny. Not just to throw money in their pockets.

It all falls along the lines of "Teach a man to fish". I would much rather see that, then simply throwing fish at people.

I was pointing out that one of the reasons for the ruling was that schools were telling non-Christians to be quite or leave the room. Anyone that did was ripe for bullying by those nice peace-loving Christians

Fine, great, super.

*golf clap*

Over 50 years ago. Of course, we also had some areas of the country that had things like special bathrooms drinking fountains, and dorms for "colored students".

We don't anymore.

No, wait, never mind. We actually do have some of those things even today. And people requesting even more.

I still laugh when one of my "radical liberal" friends told me in shock he was requested to leave a "Black Studies" class in college, because he was not black. Then the very next year asked to leave a "woman's studies" class because he had XY chromosomes.

And I wonder why people question my belief in "Advanced Education" anymore.

Who asked him to leave? The college itself?

The teachers and other students. The instructor flat out said he would only get a D grade, in keeping with what was done to minorities in the past.

He dropped (so it had no impact on his GPA), but ironically he accepts he should not have tried to take the classes.

I still consider him a friend, even though I think he has a questionable grip on reality. Of course, I was also one of the few that did not "turn against him", and actively defended very vocally 20 years ago when he told everybody he was bisexual. And said he still finds it hard to comprehend why I would do that. And each time I simply say I could not care less, who he sleeps with is of no concern to me. Every 3 or 4 years he will try going on a rant to me against "Conservatives", which quickly ends when I point out I am Conservative in general disposition, yet how have I always treated him?

In general, we both agree to never bring up politics. I have no interest in trying to "convert" him, all I ask is the same respect in return.

One sad thing about that part of the US Constitution is how it is being systematically broken by people distorting what it says to stop people from exercising their religion on government property. This is because they falsely claim it means 'freedom from religion.'

I believe that's "separation of church and state."

Which may be because of freedom of religion or no religion. Don't let the state dictate the religion. For example, atheist parents objected to their children listening to prayers in public school.

Don't let the state dictate the religion. For example, atheist parents objected to their children listening to prayers in public school.

The government employees should not be conducting religious services at their place of employment unless it is part of their job description - think military padres here. However, that does not mean the non-religious people have a right to stop religious people from having such basic services for themselves.

In that regards the teachers should not be conducting prayer sessions, nor should they be stopping students from having prayer sessions in their own time.

The religious people have as much right to say their prayers as the non-religious people have a right to not listen to them.

Because Government land is own by the tax payers.

Yes, and your point is what, exactly?

Does that somehow strip the rights of others to practice their faiths, so long as it does not infringe on others?

Many feel it is the government supporting a religion.

Yea. And many also believe the Earth is flat, and that dinosaurs once coexisted with humans.

But feel free to ask me how much I give a fuck about how "many" feel things. It is not the job of the government to give in to "feelings".

If their feelings are hurt, let them go and buy a towel. Then they can go and cry into it, because I do not give a fuck.

Exactly which Constitutional Amendment is it that protects people from being butthurt and having their feelings abused?

Speaking of made up religions, Im surprised no ones mentioned the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Hey, want to wear a colander on your head in your driver's license photo, be my guest. DILLIGAF?

One thing I love about the majority of Pastafarians. They honestly do tend to believe in leaving others alone for their beliefs, so long as they are not forced on others.

although you could probably get Planned Parenthood to help you fight that last one, particularly if the 'babies' were only carried to term for the express use as sacrifices

That is so fucked up. I think I love you. It's not common to think that far outside the box. I don't agree with the idea, but still that's just awesome.