Slashdot Mirror

As I recall, few people objected too much about that judge until he started making it clear that he did not see citizens before him, he saw Christians (harps playing) and damn heathens (faint whiff of brimstone).

This resulted in (reasonable) charges that the judge was biasing juries, and *definitely* biasing his rulings, on the basis of religious beliefs. This can be done in countless subtle ways (e.g., by explaining to the jury that a particular witness has to take a different oath than everyone else since he's a Godless atheist, but as good Christians they must give him the benefit of the doubt even though he refuses to accept God) and less than subtle ways (Mrs. Smith is unwilling to raise the kids in a God-fearing Christian home, so it's in their best interest for custody to be awarded to their father... a faithful deacon at his church.)

It's been so long that I don't recall the particular details of the cases in question, but I *do* recall several instances being mentioned in several newspaper reports. Naturally the supporters of the judge did not bring up his religious bigotry, and the mainstream media mostly dropped it from the discussion.

(P.S., I think his actions pretty clearly violates the "establishment clause." From what I know of the case, I don't think the judge should have been forced to remove the TC from his chambers -- I think he should have been immediately impeached and disbarred for violation of *his* oath of office!)

> Its funny, but this kinda of thing doesn't happen as much in countries with a lower crime rate.

Oh, that's classic... I'll have to put that in my .sig someday.

Countries with low crime rates do things like:

come around to your house once a year to insure you still live there (Japan). Not only that, but they come around to your door demanding that you pay your Television tax (UK and Japan). That would go over real well in the good old US of A.

Think the recreational sports of Rape and Wife Beating (tm) are a family matter (Japan, Korea, China, Italy, etc.).

have laws where you are presumed guilty before innocent (England). And a swift trial... fsck you and the prime of your life. God help you if you belong to an organized religion in a godless state with a low crime rate... you're basically fscked.

Beat/shoot/incarserate their population into submission (too many to list). Remember, your kids christmas toys were most likely assembled by either child or prison labor and definetly not that little North Pole lie you tell them.

Allow criminals to buy their way out of guilt and/or prosecution (Japan, Indonesia). I personally had the privledge of buying my way out of a traffic ticket in Bali. No license, minor moving violation wihtout any property damange. Worked out great at the exchange rate at the time (like $5 or a month's salery for the cop). Sucks if some rich bastard kills a close friend.

Do not allow their citizens to own dangerious pointy things, including large knives (Japan, must be registered) or guard dogs (again, must be registered). An ogisan was just put in jail for the remainder of his life sorry-assed-life for mataining ownership of a museum quality antique firearm incapable of firing a round.

...or just don't report non-violent, minor crime. (far too few). You want us to report that stolen car? Nope, that's out of our jurisdiction (which we just shrank by 50 square miles this year alone).

It is certainly NOT a factor. Nation states, just like individuals, commit crimes. It's just that the biggiest Nation state world cops never get what what they comming. Trust me when I tell you that you, and your measily right, have a about as much signifance as an ant under a sadistic 8 year old's magnifying glass.... I don't give a damned what your Magan Carta, Decleration of Independence or Brand Spanking New Constitution sez.

The world, as the "Founding Fathers" of the US constitution envisioned, died a LONG TIME AGO.

Probabally not as easily as you think. Laying cable is prohibitivly expensive, so the barriers to entry in the cable industry are quite high. This is why many local cable companies have effective monopolies in their areas. So far the only real competition comes from the Digital satellite people, but look how much legisation the local TV stations and cable companies managed to get passed against them. In my area, they are not shy about advertising the effects of this legislation either (YOUR LOCAL TV RECEPTION WILL BE TERRIBLE IF YOU GO WITH THE GODLESS EVIL SATELLITE COMPANIES! YOUR CABLE COMPANY LOVES YOU! SUBMIT!)

What you have to understand is that with all of the "Red scares" in this country, the mass media became very allergic to ANY talk about class at all. The lessons of McCarthy sunk in a bit too well in some cases.

Race made a handy metaphor for class, and it's been used and abused in this fashion. And you better believe it pissed me off when a black student whose family makes more money than mine (and I don't exactly come from poverty) is getting scholarships that she doesn't need, while my parents scrimped and saved and rearranged priorities such that I didn't need to be on financial aid.

That's because Americans don't want to talk about class, and those who try get "You godless Commie!" screamed at them for their troubles. The exception is academia, but this does WHAT exactly to fix the problem? Nothing, really. It mostly becomes a concern to those who have access to higher education in the first place.

And there is something wrong with not asking the have-nots precisely what it is that they would like to have. Admittedly, you and I aren't likely to like some of the answers (as I've posted elsewhere, most of them seem to want white-bread suburbia to start with). But it would make a good starting point. :)

It's sort of like what happened to the feminist movement in the 1960s -- Betty Freidan made a huge tactical error that had all sorts of race and class bias tucked away into it: Women can't possibly be fulfilled by the "domestic arts," so hire a cleaning lady and live out your life the way you were meant to. Um ...? Needless to say, black women took offense at this, especially since at the time this was written, the South was still segregated, and "cleaning lady" was one of the easier jobs for black women to get.

I'd like to stay that other social movements (including those that try to advance education) have learned from this mistake, but I'm not so sure.

It used to be that as long as it traveled through the air, and onto (and into) your property, you had the right to monitor any and all radio communications, and that includes phone conversations. You were prohibited from divulging what you heard to anyone, but you could listen to your heart's content. That all changed a few years ago when the old-guard cellular industry successfully lobbied Congress to pass a law criminalizing monitoring radio waves that carried cellular phone calls.

This was a major blow to freedom! For the first time ever, the "land of the free and the home of the brave," "with liberty and justice for all" had gone and done what only the Godless Communists were supposed to do. Thank God the Internet came along!!!

Regardless of the correctness of this new law, rebroadcasting transmissions heard third-party is a definite no-no. And it really has nothing to do with invasion of privacy. It's more about protecting big business than protecting personal conversations.

When I read this and saw the enumeration of the causes of the problems, it appeared that the school systems were looking to everyone and everything including the influence of the Internet but excepting themselves as the cause.

As an ex-substitute teacher while I lived in Southern California my job was a mixture of fight-refereeing and babysitting.

Besides the expunging of God from our schools decades ago I attribute the causes of violence in the schools to two further reasons:

1. The implicit but incorrect understanding that a public education is a right and not a priviledge.

2. The mandates from the government which dictate the rules for school attendance, dicipline, and other non-local interference and incentives for keeping those in school who have little or no desire to learn.

Let me explain.

There were many situations during my years of substitute teaching that I would attempt to remove disruptive students from my classes only to have the school principals send the students right back. Once I was even admonished by one of these principals for sending a very disruptive student to his office as if it was my fault that the student was misbehaving. Perhaps other substitute teachers were just putting up with it but I was actually trying to follow the lesson plan and teach which is difficult to do when some students (back then) would talk back and disrupt the class as if it were an episode of Welcome Back Kotter (excuse me if I mispelled that).

Schools are not safe. Students are rude and not polite. There must be a mechanism where rude, threatening, and destructive students are removed from these schools. (I also substituted at some "continuation schools" where some bad ones actually ended up... same situation but worse.)
Students who threaten other students and teachers (yes I was threatened on occasion) should lose the privilege of attending free public school.

But it doesn't work this way because public schools and the NEA are BIG business. The more butts fill those seats every day the more funds flow into the schools.

When I was growing up I was sent to Catholic school. My parents worked hard to pay the tuition and to pay taxes for the public school kids. In Catholic school, public school was the place where bad kids kicked out of Catholic school went. I remember reading years ago that per student much less money is spent on a Catholic school education than on public school students but parents who can afford it send their children to Catholic, Lutheran, and other Christian schools. Attendence there is not a right, it's a privilege that can be lost... for good. The parents understand that and somehow the message gets conveyed to their children. Most kids got the message.

I know parents who, though non-Catholic, wish to send their children to Catholic schools because "they'll get a better education". Hmmmm... EDUCATION! That's what it should be about!


So whenever I hear of the current administration calling for lower class sizes I laugh. It's not about class sizes stupid! It's not about money spent per student. It's about discipline and providing a place for children to learn who wish to learn and expelling children who don't wish to learn from our schools. I think Catholic and other Christian schools who insist on students wearing a uniform exercise a wisdom that provides an environment where one is not judged based upon the clothes they wear.

For some parents, even the private schools don't cut it anymore. The bending of our religious organizations to the melting pot of American culture to be accepted has caused a slackening of standards even at these formerly pristine examples of education, discipline and virtue.

Thus I don't even send my children to Catholic schools anymore. That's mostly because one of my son's teachers was teaching heresy but the "Am-Church" Catholic dilemna is an issue for a different forum.

My children are now homeschooled. They each have access to computers with many educational programs as well as manual assignments. I can guarantee that my children are 100% drug free and that obscenities don't spew from them like I used to hear in public school or even on the Catholic school playgrounds. Personally I think that homeschooling supplemented by computers and the Internet will be the primary means of education by the mid twenty-first century. Unfortunately there will be a big battle. The one-world planners want women to work. (It lowers the birthrate.) The NEA does not want to lose their power and influence (which evidently means more than the best interests of the children... witness the outcries against homeschooling and taxpayer choice when it comes to tuition vouchers used at private schools...) All those who feed at the trough of "it's for the children" will not want to give up their grasp of tax dollars... money extracted with the proverbial gun-to-our-taxpaying-heads.

Unfortunately there's no freedom of choice in this supposedly free mobocracy for parents who cannot afford to send their children to private schools or who cannot homeschool. So each generation of public school children, raised in a godless environment becomes more and more violent, rude and disrespectful. They end up learning less and demanding more from society. They become the drug users, welfare cheats, workmen's compensation cheats, and deadbeats that we all end up paying for. Thank the societal planners of 40+ years ago. The Goals 2000 type of social engineers. Their vision has succeeded. America is ripe for the conquering.

don't forget punks. godless, heathen, freethinking, insurgent, fun having, and loud kids.
if i was afraid of anyone pulling a gun, it'd be some crazy jock or one of those uptight military kids who don't have any friends because they're such dickheads. not geeks, losers, nerds, weirdos, goths, punks, or whathaveyou. (yeh i don't dig the labels, either. but they admittingly fit a lot of people.)

I'm a government school product. I know of dozens of homeschooled kids, and know over a dozen very well. Without exception, they are far better socialized than their government-educated peers. The reason ought to be obvious: they are not plunged into the pit of peer-pressure hell. Instead, they interact both with other children (of all ages) and with adults (note: not just their parents; homeschoolers frequently collaborate).

One pair of kids I know was government-educated through 5th or 6th grade. They wouldn't even look you in they eye when they talked with an adult, and they avoided that at all costs. Within 6 months of being homeschooled, they not only would look me in they eye, they would strike up conversations with me!

If you have bible-thumping fundamentalist parents who teach you that evolution is a sinister conspiracy of godless atheist scientists, you're going to be laughed out of college.

Ha ha ha! That was cute -- no, really. I know one homeschooled girl who scored 1400 on her SAT and was an A student in college. She rejects evolution as so much garbage (and rightly so). It obviously didn't hurt her education, and it surely wouldn't, either. But hey, I suppose you had to get in your digs at Christians somehow. Feel better?

If you spend most of your life at home, with relatives, and with a few close friends, you don't learn how to deal with other people. That could be a serious problem.

I'm a homeschooled HS junior and I agree here, but with reservations. The isolation can be a bit of a problem, but I was isolated in public schools anyways. I've found that as long as I can get a bit of time with a friend my sanity remains intact. I know that I'm atypical, but most people who would be considering this could say the same.

Also, leaving the education of children up to the parents only works if the parents are themselves responsible enough to teach the children. If you have bible-thumping fundamentalist parents who teach you that evolution is a sinister conspiracy of godless atheist scientists, you're going to be laughed out of college.

LOL! Every so often we get some catalogue of Christian teaching materials, including creationist science texts. Always good for a laugh. I don't know why they assume that if you homeschool you must be into that stuff.

Well, homeschooling obviously has its advantages, but it also has its disadvantages.

If you spend most of your life at home, with relatives, and with a few close friends, you don't learn how to deal with other people. That could be a serious problem.

Also, leaving the education of children up to the parents only works if the parents are themselves responsible enough to teach the children. If you have bible-thumping fundamentalist parents who teach you that evolution is a sinister conspiracy of godless atheist scientists, you're going to be laughed out of college.

Did anybody see the abc tv coverage of this tradegy last night? I did. I cringed. The news reporter just didn't get it. He affixed blame to video games, the Internet, Marilyn Manson and a "goth" lifestyle. He failed to recognize that today's disaffected goth is quite similiar to the switch-blade wielding hood of his era -- similiar, that is, in feelings of alienation and torment.

If there is a possibility for a cure for these massacres, then it is that people -- both teens and their parents -- must learn to not be so cruel to each other. Yes, it seems adults encourage the cruel behavior that particularly harms melodramatic youth.

A religious "grounding" helps. It helps judge and quickly eliminate thoughts of such godless acts as we saw in Littelon. Bashing religion -- and the religious right -- is bound to eventually contribute to something like this.

There is no magic pill to wake us up from this nightmare. Bashing the internet + rock music + video games + dark clothing has never worked. Society should do more soul-searching instead. Changing attitudes and broken moral values is more intelligent than pulling the plug on the PC and taking a censoring view of entertainment.

>>>
Sure, Windows costs lots of money and Linux is free. But suppose the purchaser is gifted enough to make lots of money from the use of a program (e.g. by buying a graphics program and selling pictures). With Microsoft, once you pay for your software license, it's paid for. Everything you make, after that expense, is yours.
>>>

I know this doesn't apply to Microsoft, but have you ever heard of runtime royalties for development tools? How's that for infinite price?

>>>
With Linux, you always owe something back to the community, and no one can say how much. The more you make, the more people will expect. In practice, it's a debt that can never be repaid.
>>>

YOU say how much you owe. There may be expectations, but you are free to ignore them. You are under no obligation. "From each according to his abilities."

(And in case you're wondering, yes, I am a godless commie.)

This has everything to do with religious fundamentalism. From the beginning, the parents of the victims tried to paint it as a work of evil godless atheists trying to destroy Christianity by shooting at a prayer meeting. Then they found out the shooter was Christian. I guess that sort of ruined things, so they're looking for a different scapegoat. Instead of the evil atheists, it's now the evil game, movie, and porn industries.

In case you have any doubts as to their motives, take a look at a quote from this article:

Neither attorney was available for comment prior to going to press, though the Adrenaline Vault learned one of them has a history of being associated with cases supported by conservative Christian organizations.

If we wanted to make this a Bible study we could also analyze the word thanatos vs the word hypnos and how they are translated..

The definition of the word has not changed (at least not per se). It merely has developed a -really bad- stereotype. For example, let's take the word "communist" for those of you who lived through the Reagan era here in the US. What did "communist" mean back then? Did it mean "a person belonging to a political party that strives for equality of the working class by means of community wealth and shared means of production"? Or... did it mean "those godless bastards that want to enslave our children and take away the world's freedom"?

Imagine yourself as a communist living in the US during that era. You don't have any problem with families or religion, and wonder why the word you use to describe yourself has become so profaned in the last five decades.

There are lots of other stereotypes that could be drawn based on what a person calls himself or herself, but that doesn't excuse the fact. We, those who consider ourselves "hackers" really, honestly DO NOT like to be thought of as "a malicious computerexpert (sic) who breaks the security of computer-systems (sic) not to steal or destroy sensitive information but mostly just for the kick." It was our word first, just like "communist" belonged to the communists first.

If you agree with me, join the Hacker Anti-Defamation League. If you don't, I honestly feel sorry for someone so narrow-minded.

Hmm, nothing like the smell of fresh flame in the morning.

Since my previous comment has generated somewhat more than the quantity of replies I had aimed for when I wrote it, I will do myself a favor and rectify it.

* stdisclaimer.h: "I speak for no one but myself." This should be included with every message posted on /., and I'm considering adding it to my sig block right away. As for connotations of "people", "those in the /. community", etc., it was a broad generalization gathered from the extensive reading of hundreds of replies to Mr. Katz's postings on the site. I'm sorry if it doesn't apply to _you_ specifically, and if you genuinely believe that it means I don't consider you 'people' if you like Katz's work, I suggest you lighten up.

* On the "live and let live" thing, I agree completely. I was just trying to take this chance to point out to the author that there might be some point to the endless flamings that usually followed his postings.

* "Pinko Femmo Lesbians": No, I'm not usually a stereotypist (sp?) kind of person. It just seemed from the writings of some of the irate posters that the (somewhat) general position was that.

* On the subject of what it means to be a "radical materialist atheist": my definition of materialist is a person who will try to see the world for what it really is, instead of blaming it on a floating abstraction. Not a cold heartless bastard who'll do anything for the money. I know plenty of materialist people, and very few of them actually have money as their ultimate goal in life - unlike many so-called spiritual leaders out there. (NO, I'm NOT referring to Katz, I know VERY LITTLE/NOTHING about his philosophy, try and don't take this the wrong way.)

* pohl - "Life, the universe, and everything is an awe-inspiring subject of thought -- and that's all that spirituality really is. There's nothing about being godless that prevents one from experiencing the mental state that some call "spirituality". The relationships between matter, energy, and information alone do it for me -- as do minds, memes, and media. Or models & mathematics. The quantum universe and the macroscopic. Endless meta-levels of abstraction. Transcending the holism/dualism dichotomy, badump-crash." You put it very well. I subscribe to something like that PoV myself.

* I _admire_ Mr. Katz. I admire anyone who can make it to the bookshelves, let alone the Top 100, by sheer work quality, instead of relying on worn-off marketing gimmicks. I admire anyone who can pull off coming up with an original piece of work in a time when everything that could be said about the subject seemed to have already been said (and either worshipped like the Word of God or disregarded as drivel). I admire a person who can write a 3-page-long story for /., get two hundred comments, many of them complaining about his verbosity, and reply to those in a 5-page-long text. This comment was IN NO WAY meant to offend him. It was all I could do in the way of constructive cricitism at the time, and considering that I had only five minutes to go through /. before lunch break was over, I think I did pretty well.

Conclusion: Yes, this was mostly my fault. I apologize - to both Mr. Katz, for any further offense he might have taken from it, and to the /. community in general, for accidentally misrepresenting you. But anyone who's not a complete novice here should know better than to read too deeply into most of what's posted here.


Peace,

--
Kaufmann, Going Out to Buy "Running to the Mountain"
rnedal@olimpo.com.br
#include "stdisclaimer.h"
(ignore this last line)

In my youth, I was hostile to the concept of "spirituality", mostly because it was an oft-thrown-around word which nobody seemed to be able to adequately define, for my tastes. Now that I'm older, I understand it better, yet managed to remain steadfast in my faith that there is no god.

Life, the universe, and everything is an awe-inspiring subject of thought -- and that's all that spirituality really is. There's nothing about being godless that prevents one from experiencing the mental state that some call "spirituality". The relationships between matter, energy, and information alone do it for me -- as do minds, memes, and media. Or models & mathematics. The quantum universe and the macroscopic. Endless meta-levels of abstraction. Transcending the holism/dualism dichotomy, badump-crash.

Oh, and the vastness of space. There's a good one.

P.S. Thank you, Jon Katz, for challenging the vocal minority of intolerant simpletons. And thank you, Rob Malda, for letting everybody know how you feel about their hostility. Put it in the FAQ for posterity.

sorry too tempting

"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad