Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Wyz_sub10 · 10-08-2002, 05:32 AM

From this story:

<a href="http://www.biblicalrecorder.org/content/news/2002/10_4_2002/ne041002church.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.biblicalrecorder.org/content/news/2002/10_4_2002/ne041002church.shtml</a>

Quote from the church's legal team: "The school district doesn't want mere separation of church and state, but segregation of church and state."

Am I missing something here or is the story being creative with its definitions? I understand the disctintion between the two terms, but there is no conflict in practice.

beejay · 10-08-2002, 05:51 AM

"Separation" good.
"Segregation" bad.

I think they are trying to change the word used to get more sympathy.

Alonzo Fyfe · 10-08-2002, 06:16 AM

If I may, I would like to use this to explain briefly how political marketing works.

I have seen this phrase a couple of times, now.

Though, perhaps, this cliche grew and thrived on its own, it is also possible that some religious/political group dreamed up a set of sound-bytes. They then gave these sound-bytes to a marketer who wrote them into several questions. They then used the questions on a couple thousand phone calls. They discovered that aversion to a policy increased X% when the word "segregation" was used. And then they began using this sound-byte in public.

You can expect it to be trotted out more and more in debates, discussions, and letters to the editor as time goes by, until it becomes a cliche fixed solidly in American consciousness.

It is a very simple, easy, and relatively inexpesive procedure to direct the course of a largely uncontemplative public.

And it remains effective up to the point that somebody else decides to employ the same type of procedure against it.

dangin · 10-08-2002, 10:54 AM

Which is exactly why our side needs a simple, short, and effective discription of creationism. I think pseudoscience is too kind of a word and bullshit works for so many christain things.

Jack · 10-25-2002, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dangin:
Which is exactly why our side needs a simple, short, and effective discription of creationism. I think pseudoscience is too kind of a word and bullshit works for so many christain things.

How about "pseudoscientific claptrap"?

Jack

dangin · 10-25-2002, 11:07 AM

yes, but it needs to be specific, and capture the imagination of everyone who writes about this subject, so that it leaks out to the mainstream. It has to be creationism specific.

Buffman · 10-25-2002, 11:41 AM

Teaching "The Theory of Inerrant Cretinism" in the public school science classrooms is just fair play. (It's just another theory.) <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

dangin · 10-25-2002, 11:54 AM

That's what we should do. Start an Intelligent Design think tank, and hire ourselves out to do seminars on ID. Then get there, with the churchies who hired us all smiles, and proceed to do an ID version of any of the myriad creation myths.

I would do the one on the Navajo myth of the insects that flew up from the underworld, and impregnated a woman with corn pollen, and thus the world, and all it's species were created.

We'd have to take video cameras to record their faces.

joedad · 10-26-2002, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dangin:
yes, but it needs to be specific, and capture the imagination of everyone who writes about this subject, so that it leaks out to the mainstream. It has to be creationism specific.

Creation science is actually creation religion, so that's what I call it in conversation.

But you're right, a phrase that catches on with the public will be remembered.

Science is secular so it can actually be called secular science. If that phrase can be remembered, it can then be more easily distinguished from 'religious' science. WOW, there's a strange combination! Sounds medieval.

Of course someone comes along and incorporates a religious creation myth, which most people enjoy believing in, and calls it 'combined' science, and that somehow sounds even better.

Maybe calling creationism Religious Creation Myth is the best. It gets that word 'creation' surrounded by what it really is, religion and myth - RCM for short.

example: "So, you're in favor of teaching various religious creation myths in secular science classes?"

joe

Psycho Economist · 10-26-2002, 08:19 AM

Seperation of church and state:
"...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." VII.3

Segregation of church and state would imply that no religious person would be allowed to serve an office or public trust. The enscription on the capital of the Supreme Court would read "Atheists Only" instead of "Equal Justice Under Law"

That simple. They're trying to spin it.

The case in question refers to advertisment space a church bought at a public school district's stadium. The ad bore the message "Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God." That's as clear a violation of church-state seperation <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=59&t=000755" target="_blank">as i can dream up</a>.

But I do hope the school district refunded the curch its money.

[ October 26, 2002: Message edited by: Psycho Economist ]

10-08-2002, 05:32 AM	#1
Wyz_sub10 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: In the land of two boys and no sleep. Posts: 9,890	Separation versus segregation? From this story: <a href="http://www.biblicalrecorder.org/content/news/2002/10_4_2002/ne041002church.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.biblicalrecorder.org/content/news/2002/10_4_2002/ne041002church.shtml</a> Quote from the church's legal team: "The school district doesn't want mere separation of church and state, but segregation of church and state." Am I missing something here or is the story being creative with its definitions? I understand the disctintion between the two terms, but there is no conflict in practice.

10-26-2002, 08:19 AM	#10
Psycho Economist Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Peoria, IL Posts: 854	Seperation of church and state: "...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." VII.3 Segregation of church and state would imply that no religious person would be allowed to serve an office or public trust. The enscription on the capital of the Supreme Court would read "Atheists Only" instead of "Equal Justice Under Law" That simple. They're trying to spin it. The case in question refers to advertisment space a church bought at a public school district's stadium. The ad bore the message "Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God." That's as clear a violation of church-state seperation <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=59&t=000755" target="_blank">as i can dream up</a>. But I do hope the school district refunded the curch its money. [ October 26, 2002: Message edited by: Psycho Economist ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-08-2002, 05:51 AM	#2
beejay Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Richmond IN Posts: 375	"Separation" good. "Segregation" bad. I think they are trying to change the word used to get more sympathy.

10-08-2002, 06:16 AM	#3
Alonzo Fyfe Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: 920B Milo Circle Lafayette, CO Posts: 3,515	If I may, I would like to use this to explain briefly how political marketing works. I have seen this phrase a couple of times, now. Though, perhaps, this cliche grew and thrived on its own, it is also possible that some religious/political group dreamed up a set of sound-bytes. They then gave these sound-bytes to a marketer who wrote them into several questions. They then used the questions on a couple thousand phone calls. They discovered that aversion to a policy increased X% when the word "segregation" was used. And then they began using this sound-byte in public. You can expect it to be trotted out more and more in debates, discussions, and letters to the editor as time goes by, until it becomes a cliche fixed solidly in American consciousness. It is a very simple, easy, and relatively inexpesive procedure to direct the course of a largely uncontemplative public. And it remains effective up to the point that somebody else decides to employ the same type of procedure against it.

10-08-2002, 10:54 AM	#4
dangin Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: The Middle, Kansas Posts: 2,637	Which is exactly why our side needs a simple, short, and effective discription of creationism. I think pseudoscience is too kind of a word and bullshit works for so many christain things.

10-25-2002, 11:07 AM	#6
dangin Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: The Middle, Kansas Posts: 2,637	yes, but it needs to be specific, and capture the imagination of everyone who writes about this subject, so that it leaks out to the mainstream. It has to be creationism specific.

10-25-2002, 11:41 AM	#7
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	Teaching "The Theory of Inerrant Cretinism" in the public school science classrooms is just fair play. (It's just another theory.) <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

10-25-2002, 11:54 AM	#8
dangin Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: The Middle, Kansas Posts: 2,637	That's what we should do. Start an Intelligent Design think tank, and hire ourselves out to do seminars on ID. Then get there, with the churchies who hired us all smiles, and proceed to do an ID version of any of the myriad creation myths. I would do the one on the Navajo myth of the insects that flew up from the underworld, and impregnated a woman with corn pollen, and thus the world, and all it's species were created. We'd have to take video cameras to record their faces.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.