NationStates Jolt Archive

So, not necessarily making the main news run, but certainly something worth mentioning. And at #17, it would appear there've been a few more beforehand.

So if i and a few other folk were so inclined, how would we be received (as a terrorist group or some other "unruly mob" just waiting to have our rights as citizens revoked) if we were to engage in a cover-to-cover aloud reading of
The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Would it be taken well?
What accomodations are given these people, and who do they bother about getting a reading of such nature and length ON THE CAPITOL LAWN?



http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/4/212006h.asp

The 17th annual U.S. Capitol Bible Reading Marathon will begin on Sunday, April 30, launching a week of prayer for America and reading of God's Word. The Bible will be read aloud from start to finish during 90 continuous hours, with the readings taking place on the west lawn of the U.S. Capitol. Rev. Rob Schenck of the group Faith and Action will host a ceremony marking the start of the scripture-reading marathon. Across four days, thousands of believers will gather to read and to listen as the Bible is read aloud in its entirety. Pastor Michael Hall, executive director of the International Bible Reading Association, says he believes the Lord is "using this vision singularly to call this nation back to the simplicity of God's Holy Word." All the participants in the event come for one purpose, Hall says, which is to honor God's revealed Word by reading it "without comment or interruption from beginning to end." For the duration of the 90 hours, prayer stations will be available for individuals and groups wanting to ask God's blessing on the nation.
--
The number is given on the site if you wish to join in heralding their cause, an addie too, i think.

:rolleyes:

If it bothers you that much you could just ignore it. You have, after all, just advertised the event to at least one new person who had no idea it was happening.

Now this is certainly a very convenient situation to get rid of a lot of braindead retards all at once :D

Ah, better to have them just praying for change instead of actualy mixing secular and spritual power. Seriously, you would have thought that Protestants at least would have learned a little about why not to mix secular and spritual power from the Reformation.

:rolleyes:

If it bothers you that much you could just ignore it. You have, after all, just advertised the event to at least one new person who had no idea it was happening.
Better than not saying or doing anything, as is quite the problem in a place which is supposed to have strong democratic underpinnings.
It's a further extension of peculiarity that i, as much as i try to stay abreast of things, am only finding this out this year (#17??!?!)

It isn't the idea of free public assembly that bothers me - nay, i'm all for that.
It's the likelihood of being received as a terrorist under other circumstances ... say, reading aloud in the same place, same circumstances:
Michael Moore's Stupid White Men,
Craig Unger's House of Bush, House of Saud, or
Molly Ivins' Bushwhacked?
Just how does one go about this kind of congress, and what would really happen?

Now this is certainly a very convenient situation to get rid of a lot of braindead retards all at once :D
You wouldn't happen to know if the govt still uses Agent Orange as a "lawn defoliant"?

Ah, better to have them just praying for change instead of actualy mixing secular and spritual power. Seriously, you would have thought that Protestants at least would have learned a little about why not to mix secular and spritual power from the Reformation.
Old habits die hard, and it's conservative persuasion to resist change. :(

Maybe it would be better if another group read from the bible backwards? That'd really scare the shit out of them.

OK even the religious morons have the right to speak but how the fuck did they get on the West Lawn of the Capital?


Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. - Thomas Jefferson

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. - Thomas Jefferson

Ah, better to have them just praying for change instead of actualy mixing secular and spritual power. Seriously, you would have thought that Protestants at least would have learned a little about why not to mix secular and spritual power from the Reformation.
A bit of the spiritual can be a big benefit to Government. I would rather lawmakers paid a little more attention to the 'spiritual' commandments of not killing or envying their neighbours possessions and a little less attention to the 'me me me' individualistic and materialistic culture.

I've said it once, I'll say it again:

You keep your Church out of my State and I promise I will keep my State out of your Church.

However, if you force your Church on my State, you will have to do the following:

1] Pay taxes on all church revenue.
2] Make all church revenue a matter of public record.
3] Judges can order you to reveal the nature and specifics of Confession.
4] You will be open to all manner of civil lawsuit concerning malpractice if you perform councilling on any parishioner without a proper psychiatric license.
5] There will be no more hiding. Your Priests will go to prison if they diddle little boys.
6] If the State permits concealed carry licenses, you must allow weapons in your sanctuary.
7] If the State permits homosexual marriages, you must perform said marriages.
8] As precident has already determined that saying "Your time is running out" is a threat, you may no longer say anything along the lines of "The end is coming" or you will face criminal prosecution.

Shall I go on, or would you rather just stay separate?

That's what I thought.

Maybe it would be better if another group read from the bible backwards? That'd really scare the shit out of them.
Ooh!!
I like your idea. :fluffle:

I bet quite a few NSr's would be willing to do that. I sure as hedoublehockeysticks would! I'd commence and finish, and i'd do Job (or just Job) if the situation presented itself.
Granted, there's a few good chapters ... but i'd rather not read them backwards.

OK even the religious morons have the right to speak but how the fuck did they get on the West Lawn of the Capital?That's EXACTLY what i want to know!!!!


Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. - Thomas Jefferson

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. - Thomas JeffersonGood quotes. *bows*

A bit of the spiritual can be a big benefit to Government. I would rather lawmakers paid a little more attention to the 'spiritual' commandments of not killing or envying their neighbours possessions and a little less attention to the 'me me me' individualistic and materialistic culture.
Sure spirituality's great... until the 'spirit' moves someone to infringe upon your liberties to conform to their religion...

A bit of the spiritual can be a big benefit to Government. I would rather lawmakers paid a little more attention to the 'spiritual' commandments of not killing or envying their neighbours possessions and a little less attention to the 'me me me' individualistic and materialistic culture.
Yet another EXCELLENT example as to why they shouldn't be incorporated in the United States of America, you know, that capitalist nation.

I've said it once, I'll say it again:

You keep your Church out of my State and I promise I will keep my State out of your Church.
Sigworthy. *bows*

Sure spirituality's great... until the 'spirit' moves someone to infringe upon your liberties to conform to their religion...
>Harriet Miers<

Sigworthy. *bows*

I expanded on it. Had to edit the post for greater clarification of my stance on this issue. :)

Yet another EXCELLENT example as to why they shouldn't be incorporated in the United States of America, you know, that capitalist nation.
Wouldn't you have prefered it if Bush had heard the 'spiritual' "don't go around killing" and "don't take what isn't yours" rather than the materialistic "we need oil, go get!"

I expanded on it. Had to edit the post for greater clarification of my stance on this issue. :)
Actually, you have a fairly unique view of current issues regarding peaceable assembly, given your trip a few months back. What do YOU think would happen for either the FSM reading or the other material?

Wouldn't you have prefered it if Bush had heard the 'spiritual' "don't go around killing" and "don't take what isn't yours" rather than the materialistic "we need oil, go get!"
Ah, heard, yes. But that's not the position he's taken.
I'd rather that miserable genetic trash of unholy union between chimp and fascist never uttered any words about spirituality. Whatever his "misunderstimating" of it is, he clearly has no place declaring it as policy, NOR making his liasons as such with taxpayer money. I invite you to investigate his history on "Faith-Based Initiatives".

Here's a good "spiritual" quote from him that puts it into perspective about what he should and shouldn't say/endorse:

"I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn't do my job." —in Lancaster, PA, July 9, 2004

What do YOU think would happen for either the FSM reading or the other material?

I do firmly believe that so long as the First Amendment is in place and as it currently reads, the FSM folks have just as much right to speak on the White House Lawn as any other citizen of the United States has. That is not George Bush's house and it is not the President's house. It is your house and my house and every other citizen of the United States's house. We, the people, own it and we, the people, are the only ones who can decide what goes on there.

We, the people, did ordain and establish a Constitution that guarantees the right to speak. While that does not extend to private property or public business property or even public thoroughfaires; to usurp the right of any person who is a citizen of this country to have their voice heard on National Property is no less than treason.

I do firmly believe that so long as the First Amendment is in place and as it currently reads, the FSM folks have just as much right to speak on the White House Lawn as any other citizen of the United States has. That is not George Bush's house and it is not the President's house. It is your house and my house and every other citizen of the United States's house. We, the people, own it and we, the people, are the only ones who can decide what goes on there.

We, the people, did ordain and establish a Constitution that guarantees the right to speak. While that does not extend to private property or public business property or even public thoroughfaires; to usurp the right of any person who is a citizen of this country to have their voice heard on National Property is no less than treason.
Agreed. I wonder if there's any poster who knows of any other particular religious texts that have been undertaken in this kind of task, ones that AREN'T Abram-based (no i don't mean "Abraham) ...?

A little clarification, the west lawn of the Capital is not the same as the west lawn of the white house. From what I can gather, peaceful assembly on the west lawn of the capital is allowed as long as you don't cross any police barricades. The white house's west lawn is behind tightly secured fences...

I did a little research and answered my own question.

Agreed. I wonder if there's any poster who knows of any other particular religious texts that have been undertaken in this kind of task, ones that AREN'T Abram-based (no i don't mean "Abraham) ...?

Didn't the Satanists read LaVey's book a few years back? I also seem to recall something about the Wiccan Rede at some point. Memory's a little hazy on it.

If I got to pick, I'd say read "Penthouse Forum" with a little waka-chika music in the background. Now *that's* spiritual, baby.

A little clarification, the west lawn of the Capital is not the same as the west lawn of the white house. From what I can gather, peaceful assembly on the west lawn of the capital is allowed as long as you don't cross any police barricades. The white house's west lawn is behind tightly secured fences...

I did a little research and answered my own question.
Fair enough - i'd originally punched up "White House" lawn (as Paul Harvey implied earlier) but instead got as such. Still the capitol lawn, though.
And for the White House lawn ... how many times has that fella gotten busted for hopping it? :D

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/custom/newsroom/sns-ap-white-house-intruder,1,6980725.story?coll=chi-news-hed
Four times?

Didn't the Satanists read LaVey's book a few years back? I also seem to recall something about the Wiccan Rede at some point. Memory's a little hazy on it.I don't know. That would answer my question, though.

If I got to pick, I'd say read "Penthouse Forum" with a little waka-chika music in the background. Now *that's* spiritual, baby.Sock puppet theatre? ;)

A bit of the spiritual can be a big benefit to Government. I would rather lawmakers paid a little more attention to the 'spiritual' commandments of not killing or envying their neighbours possessions and a little less attention to the 'me me me' individualistic and materialistic culture.
Just one problem, spirituality is bullshit which inevitably leads to bloody conflict.

Materialism, on the other hand, is a great deterrent to modern warfare. Wouldn’t want to have to give up your shit and go fight in a hell-hole, now would you?

Wouldn’t want to have to give up your shit and go fight in a hell-hole, now would you?Just keep voting republican and we're likely to find out. :(

Just keep voting republican and we're likely to find out. :(
I don't...

It isn't the idea of free public assembly that bothers me - nay, i'm all for that.

It's the likelihood of being received as a terrorist under other circumstances ... say, reading aloud in the same place, same circumstances:
Michael Moore's Stupid White Men,
Craig Unger's House of Bush, House of Saud, or
Molly Ivins' Bushwhacked?
Just how does one go about this kind of congress, and what would really happen?
Those books are political; the Bible is not.

Now if a group of guys gathered to read the Koran, on the other hand... the police would be swarming.

Those books are political; the Bible is not.
Perhaps you'd care to explain that at length. There's myriad posters who are likely to disagree with you on that.
I would as well. The book is quite clearly a lexicon of political intrigue and malfeasance. As well, it is the fundies who are doing their damn-dest to make sure that biblical principle IS policy. How much more political does it have to be?

Now if a group of guys gathered to read the Koran, on the other hand... the police would be swarming.That's my suspicion as well, which is why it would be a good case of accuracy with Keruvalia's post. So far, i haven't found a LaVey reading.

I don't...
Good thing too.
It was more a wistful public mention than an accusation.

...

Straughn, you okay? You seem a little...off, today.

Anyway, this is bullshit. I say someone start a petition to get the Torah, and the Quron, and any other religious work you can think of read in Washington D.C. as well. Preferably on the West Lawn of the Capitol. And when they deny us, point this out and take them to court over it. I'll betcha we'll get any practice like this stopped real quick that way.

...

Straughn, you okay? You seem a little...off, today.
Multiple threads, multiple attention detractors. *shrug*
Should i be more vitriolic? I'm not quite sure what you mean. ;)

Anyway, this is bullshit. I say someone start a petition to get the Torah, and the Quron, and any other religious work you can think of read in Washington D.C. as well. Preferably on the West Lawn of the Capitol. And when they deny us, point this out and take them to court over it. I'll betcha we'll get any practice like this stopped real quick that way.Perhaps. I think there's a fine line i'm dancing here as to inciting a riotous instance or not. I was wondering how truly even-handed such an event was, in terms of what IS ACTUALLY allowed and what isn't, and if other posters had any personal experience with it.

Multiple threads, multiple attention detractors. *shrug*
Should i be more vitriolic? I'm not quite sure what you mean. ;)

Perhaps. I think there's a fine line i'm dancing here as to inciting a riotous instance or not. I was wondering how truly even-handed such an event was, in terms of what IS ACTUALLY allowed and what isn't, and if other posters had any personal experience with it.
You just seem...I dunno, off. I can't be more specific.

And I'd rather it not become a riot. That said, I can't stand this kind of hypocrasy. I'd much rather it either be open to ANY religion that wishes to do this, or not at all. My personal feelings are more towards not at all, but that's my athiest-who-hates-organized-religion tendencies coming out.

You just seem...I dunno, off. I can't be more specific.Well, my OP isn't as sarcastic as are my nature usually, and i *do* believe in the First Amendment, so the post itself is a notice of something that i think an awful lot of posters here might find somewhat incredulous. I'm trying not to be overbearing in supplementary respects, but there's obviously a repetition of key issues here.

And I'd rather it not become a riot. That said, I can't stand this kind of hypocrasy. I'd much rather it either be open to ANY religion that wishes to do this, or not at all. My personal feelings are more towards not at all, but that's my athiest-who-hates-organized-religion tendencies coming out.Seconded. Although i won't commit to atheism, i am VEHEMENTLY anti-religion in principle.

...I can't stand this kind of hypocrasy. I'd much rather it either be open to ANY religion that wishes to do this, or not at all. My personal feelings are more towards not at all, but that's my athiest-who-hates-organized-religion tendencies coming out.

What hypocrisy? If a bunch of Christians want to read the Bible on the Capitol grounds, what do you care? People read/say/sing stuff there all the time and nobody bats an eyelash.

The Capitol represents Government by the people, and the ones having their reading have as much right to be there as anyone else. If they were given special priviledges, you'd have a point. As it stand, they aren't and so why is everybody getting so uptight about it?

What hypocrisy? If a bunch of Christians want to read the Bible on the Capitol grounds, what do you care? People read/say/sing stuff there all the time and nobody bats an eyelash.

The Capitol represents Government by the people, and the ones having their reading have as much right to be there as anyone else. If they were given special priviledges, you'd have a point. As it stand, they aren't and so why is everybody getting so uptight about it?
...because being on the West Lawn of the Capitol building is normally illegal unless you're given permission to hold a demonstration of some sort or another?

Because it was granted without even a hint of thought?

Because if people for another religion tried to do that, they would be denied?

Because if Muslims tried to do that, you'd see police on their ass before you could say the word "Discriminatory"?

And then there's the whole idea of preaching any religion. But then, that's just a personal beef of mine.

...because being on the West Lawn of the Capitol building is normally illegal unless you're given permission to hold a demonstration of some sort or another?

So, assuming they got this permission, what's the problem?

Because it was granted without even a hint of thought?

Support this assertion. I'm interested in hearing your unique perspective as a Capitol grounds insider, which you must be to have gained this kind of information.

Because if people for another religion tried to do that, they would be denied?

Support this assertion, if you can.

Because if Muslims tried to do that, you'd see police on their ass before you could say the word "Discriminatory"?

That's crap and you know it. Term of the day: Red Herring.

And then there's the whole idea of preaching any religion. But then, that's just a personal beef of mine.

And this, my friends and neighbors, is the real objection. The rest of that fluff above is the mask to keep the real reason hidden, this person just has an axe to grind against religion and this is the outlet. It doesn't matter that this is at the Capitol. It could be anywhere and the arguments would be the same. You don't like religion? Fine. hate it all you want to, but there are those who DO value it so get out of the way, quit whining, and remember that the Bill of Rights protects them as much as it protects you.

And you ought to be damn grateful for it.

...

Someone back me up here, please, so I don't look like more of a fool than I already do. ~_~

Better than not saying or doing anything, as is quite the problem in a place which is supposed to have strong democratic underpinnings.
It's a further extension of peculiarity that i, as much as i try to stay abreast of things, am only finding this out this year (#17??!?!)

It isn't the idea of free public assembly that bothers me - nay, i'm all for that.
It's the likelihood of being received as a terrorist under other circumstances ... say, reading aloud in the same place, same circumstances:
Michael Moore's Stupid White Men,
Craig Unger's House of Bush, House of Saud, or
Molly Ivins' Bushwhacked?
Just how does one go about this kind of congress, and what would really happen?
Yes, because something that's been happening for 17 years has sooooo much to do with gw. Now you could possibly argue that it's ghw's fault, but I didn't see Clinton doing anything about it. And molly ivins needs to quit smoking crack. Not to mention the fraud that is MM. As for Unger, I don't actually know anything about the guy execpt he obviously wrote a book.

OK even the religious morons have the right to speak but how the fuck did they get on the West Lawn of the Capital?


The capitol building is part of The Mall. You can walk all you want on the west lawn, it's a public area. The probably had to shell out some money to get a permit to set up any structures, but pretty much anyone could do that.

...because being on the West Lawn of the Capitol building is normally illegal unless you're given permission to hold a demonstration of some sort or another?

No it's not, I've walked on it several times when my family went to The Mall. Open space.

Yes, because something that's been happening for 17 years has sooooo much to do with gw. Now you could possibly argue that it's ghw's fault, but I didn't see Clinton doing anything about it. And molly ivins needs to quit smoking crack. Not to mention the fraud that is MM. As for Unger, I don't actually know anything about the guy execpt he obviously wrote a book.
Where did i say it was gw, again? Refresh me. Be clear.
Ivins doesn't smoke crack, or if she does, her judgment still comes across much clearer than the average right-wing apologist. No joke. Besides, she does homework, and she knows the people. More than many of the right-wing apologists here can muster.
And i'm challenging you to show "how much a fraud" Michael Moore is. What've you got?
It's obvious you don't know anything about Unger. If you did you'd have either anted or shut up about him. But i'll give you a clue, it should've been the second. It reinforces a point i've made earlier. Further, it seems to indicate what kind of sources you get your "information" from.

...

Someone back me up here, please, so I don't look like more of a fool than I already do. ~_~
I was out at dinner and some excessive driving.

So, assuming they got this permission, what's the problem?One of MY questions was how, and whatever conditions needed to be met to do this.


Support this assertion, if you can.
That may or may not be the case. That's why i've ASKED if there were occasions anyone HERE experienced in said vein. I could probably start talking about political events that went similiarly, but i'm more interested in new information.

That's crap and you know it. Term of the day: Red Herring.
And how do you know it's not crap? Show some evidence or let Kyronea state it without assault. As is, no one has yet shown one way or another but many have similar anecdotes as to what kind of reception there would be. On this particular thread, i would say Keruvalia has a right for us to listen to what he says.

And this, my friends and neighbors, is the real objection. The rest of that fluff above is the mask to keep the real reason hidden, this person just has an axe to grind against religion and this is the outlet.

Where did Kyronea say otherwise? You're the one seeming disingenuous here. At least they had the decency to state that's how they felt about it.

And how do you know it's not crap? Show some evidence or let Kyronea state it without assault. As is, no one has yet shown one way or another but many have similar anecdotes as to what kind of reception there would be. On this particular thread, i would say Keruvalia has a right for us to listen to what he says.


The burden of proof isn't on me. It's on the person making the original assertion. Otherwise, peopel could just throw out any nonsensical statement and hope nobody catches it. If you're going to make a point, like Muslims wouldn't be able to read the Koran on the Capitol lawn, you had better be able to back it up. Free Speech rights gurantee that such a group COULD do that, and to say otherwise requires support. Don't shift the burden of proof as a way of disgusing an unsubstantiated claim.


Where did Kyronea say otherwise? You're the one seeming disingenuous here. At least they had the decency to state that's how they felt about it.

I agree, Kyronea deserved credit for being honest about the dislike for religion. However, that does not justify a list of unsubstantiated assertions as a way of trying to build a case against people reading the Bible in public. The fact is, Kyronea is perfectly entitled to his or her opinion, but that's all it is, an opinion. There's no wrongdoing in reading the Bible aloud, and it's wrong to try and demonize these people just because you don't like them.

The burden of proof isn't on me. It's on the person making the original assertion. Otherwise, peopel could just throw out any nonsensical statement and hope nobody catches it. If you're going to make a point, like Muslims wouldn't be able to read the Koran on the Capitol lawn, you had better be able to back it up. Free Speech rights gurantee that such a group COULD do that, and to say otherwise requires support. Don't shift the burden of proof as a way of disgusing an unsubstantiated claim.
Actually, so far, there's a broader sentiment that it would be the case Kyronea presented, as i should use this particular thread as my basis for said judgment. Further, i implored evidence and/or anecdote to substantiate either case. So far, you're complaining in the same manner of not giving an anedote or experience, but whether something is or isn't supposed to be a right *and* the "right" thing to do.


I agree, Kyronea deserved credit for being honest about the dislike for religion. However, that does not justify a list of unsubstantiated assertions as a way of trying to build a case against people reading the Bible in public. The fact is, Kyronea is perfectly entitled to his or her opinion, but that's all it is, an opinion. There's no wrongdoing in reading the Bible aloud, and it's wrong to try and demonize these people just because you don't like them.I'm pretty sure that wasn't the only problem. Kyronea already, as well as m'self, have clarified that ANY religious texts read aloud in that forum invites criticism, not just a manner of being "the Bible".
Further, if Ravenshrike is to believed (which is hit and miss), there's an example of it not being state favouritism.

Actually, so far, there's a broader sentiment that it would be the case Kyronea presented, as i should use this particular thread as my basis for said judgment. Further, i implored evidence and/or anecdote to substantiate either case. So far, you're complaining in the same manner of not giving an anedote or experience, but whether something is or isn't supposed to be a right *and* the "right" thing to do.


I'm pretty sure that wasn't the only problem. Kyronea already, as well as m'self, have clarified that ANY religious texts read aloud in that forum invites criticism, not just a manner of being "the Bible".
Further, if Ravenshrike is to believed (which is hit and miss), there's an example of it not being state favouritism.

Are you suggesting that while Free Speech might protect a group from reading a religious text in public land, that it would be morally wrong to do so?

Are you suggesting that while Free Speech might protect a group from reading a religious text in public land, that it would be morally wrong to do so?
No. You did read my first few posts on this topic right?

If you mean "right or wrong" specifically from the last post, i took off your post here:
There's no wrongdoing in reading the Bible aloud, and it's wrong to try and demonize these people just because you don't like them.
Again, the argument has already been made about the right and wrong of having the viewpoint of one specific religion espoused in this particular place - and so far i haven't seen any issues of fairness as far as religion goes, just christians. That's why i asked for anecdotes or personal experience.
Further, given the politically-charged arena that the fundamentalists are playing with these days (Sam Brownback, Jeb Bush, Harriet Miers, John Ashcroft, James Dobson, Kenneth Tomlinson, James Kennedy, anyone?), there should be a lot more public notice of people's encroachment who have made explicit mark of administrative influence and policy-making.

Sure spirituality's great... until the 'spirit' moves someone to infringe upon your liberties to conform to their religion...


thats not spirituality, that's religion

thats not spirituality, that's religion
All in the same quote. :eek:
I would stand, as i have before, that the sovereignty of spirit far outranks the cesspool of religion.