Removing the barriers between church and state.

I don't know of much in American Politics that isn't partisan. Certainly, anything that is official Government has the certified seal of partisanship. If is to the Administrations liking, they release it - if not, it is secret material. And if you cross Bush, you're fired!

Welcome to A2K trespassers will!

Upsetting the boss is not likely to be a career-enhancing move in any enterprise. And being fired is preferable to being fired upon.



timber

TW, you wrote "I'm inclined to think . . .," with regard to your statement about hiring practices. However, you provided an example of someone being fired for not meeting a criterion, and said that this was a corollary to the question of "faith" in hiring. Are you now admitting that your statements are internally inconsistent and contradictory? That would be refreshing honesty in such fora. Despite your low opinion of my reading and comprehension skills, i've understood you very well from the first.

tresspasser...cordial welcome to Politics

You said: Your point is valid, to a point. On the one hand, lots of folks would grant such a source high credibility. Another set of folks turn to the Heritage Foundation for authoritative analyses and statistics, and it's possible I might even personally like some of this last set. Discernment of bias is itself tricky, as we are each doing the assessing and we have our own biases - no news there.

It's quite acceptable for one of us to link to such a source and quite acceptable for another to point to possiblity/probability of bias, as you have done. Of course, it's an ad hominem to discount content merely on the basis of source. Frequently, our introduction to an issue will occur via some favored media source which another might think biased (eg the New York Times, unceasing fount of pinko screeds).

Thus, perhaps, you might find us some data contradicting the TFNEF data.

(ps...primary sources, yes! Of course, often our discussions will hinge on values questions, or on such matters as proper inference - and then it is just slogging to get our thinking clear as opposed to resolution through statistical data, but that's all too obvious to even mention, so forget I said it)

Setanta - I do not have a low opinion of your skills, I simply know what I wrote, and recognized that your response ignored specific points I had made. Given a choice between assuming that you were being intentionally obtuse or that you had erred in your reading, I went with the latter. This wasn't an insult, it was an inference based on the facts. I wrote X, you appeared to be unaware I had written X, I concluded you somehow missed X.

Now, as to this...


I see nothing inconsistent or contradictory in what I wrote. The person was denied the job based on gender, because the job required a woman. Faith-based organizations may likewise deny jobs based on faith. If you don't see the relationship, there's really nothing I can do to change that.

You seem intent on focusing on trivialities while ignoring the key elements of what I wrote. This you are welcome to do, but I believe I've been reasonable and attempted to clarify things for you in good faith. I will leave it at that.

The key element of what you wrote, TW, was a condescending and didactic tone, reminiscent of high school debating tactics. In that school of forensic style, one comes out with a forceful statement which apparently contradicts what one's opposite number has said/written. Later, one writes/says something much less forceful ("I would be inclined . . .") which in fact agrees with the statements of one's opposite. The internal text can be construed at convenience as agreement, while in the mind of those listening/reading, the opposite seems to have been contradicted and shown to be of a lesser understanding than the speaker/writer. And that is precisely how i've read your replies to me.

Initially i spoke to the issue of discriminatory practices in hiring based upon religious conviction when concerned with a federally funded program-saying that i thought you had missed that as the point that i and others were making here. Your specific reply was that you had not missed that point, rather that you did not think it valid. (Quote: "Setanta - No, I didn't miss that point, I don't think it's valid.") You responded that you knew of no such practice, and suspected that i did not either. Why would you suspect so, unless, while knowing nothing of me, you assume that i'm just making this up as i go along. The tone is condescending, which tone is unnecessary.

When i replied to this, referring you the article cited at the beginning of this thread, i assumed that you had either not read that article, or had forgotten the paragraph which i then excerpted. Otherwise, why would you "suspect" that i knew of no such condition? Your response with the piteous story of your acquaintance with the sex change who had lost a job based on a specified condition of employment-further reinforces the apparent intent on your part to contradict what i and others had written. Then, later in that post, you write: "I'm inclined to believe that any position wherein the person would be doing work funded by government monies shouldn't require the person be of the faith of the organization." If that were the case, why had you already stated that you did not think that point is valid. Can it be that you want to sit astride the fence, ready and able to take either position? Is it also not a possibility that you simply wish to project an image of a superior understanding, while, in fact stating exactly the point which had already been made, but which you had characterized as not valid. That is the internal inconsistency, the contradiction. You claim that the point is not valid-but you subsequently make the same point yourself. I haven't failed to understand what you've read, nor have i missed the tone you've taken with me, and the low-rent forensic tactic applied. You have not demonstrated that you have a better grip on the issue here than the other people posting, and you've both said that the point about hiring practices of religious organizations receiving federal monies is not a valid one, and, to quote you once again: ". . . any position wherein the person would be doing work funded by government monies shouldn't require the person be of the faith of the organization." Well, TW, which way would you have it?

Fair enough. My primary intent was to educate others as to the nature of the source, and point out why the results should be questioned. There are tons of sources that support my point of view on any number of issues that I would not waste my time citing here. Some are perfectly valid sources, but since I have a reasonable expectation that liberally biased people would not reject the sources as too conservative, I choose not to waste my time or yours.

Also, if you are going to offer a source such as TFNEF, it makes sense to qualify the source up front, rather than attempting--as this person did--to offer the findings as independent, unbiased fact. Had he written, "Here's what one liberal group found in looking at X," it might have been the starting point for something meaningful. Offered as it was, I thought it needed to be challenged.

Setanta - I do not accept your off-handed assessment of either my actions or intentions. I wrote clearly and only you seem to have issues with comprehending what I wrote.

We are done. Move on.

Guys- It would be very lovely if we all could lighten up. Supposedly we are discussing issues here, not criticizing each others' discussion style. We DO have some Forums where we play games on A2K, but "Hump the Hostess" is not one of them. Nuf said!

I absolutely concur. This merely clouds the issue -- we've all presented our case that addresses concerns about church and state as stated in the Constitution. A good offense is a good defense until it becomes literally offensive. I think Phoenix has observed that this is inching closer to the line, so time to reholster the weapons. Of course, I only have a pea shooter -- not a deadly weapon, only meant to sting.

LW, Except that you sting like a killer bee! c.i.

c.i.- Hey, your wit can oftimes be rapier like too!

I try to withdraw the stinger and provide some cortizone and a bandaid. At least sometimes.

"Hump the hostess" (?)...... Oh excuse me, she caught me off guard with that one...

LW, I thought the bee died after they lost their "stinger?"

Phoenix, You're right, ofcoarse! I get cut too many times when I swing my sword. c.i.

TW, don't give me orders, what an absurdity. You contradicted yourself, plainly--you belittled my ability to read and comprehend what you wrote when i pointed that out. I'm happy to move on, because it is now apparant to me that it is pointless to discuss such things as this with you. You've contradicted yourself, and tried to make out that you had made initially a point you had already described as not valid. You're absolutely right, TW, time to move on, and ignore you for the future.

TW and Setanta

Guns parked in closet now, please.

Phoenix
Thanks, I was beginning to feel that I was back on abuzz.

Well, c.i., I could say I'm not a bee but as wasp. Except that I am definitely not a WASP.

Okay, LW, I'll bite; what are you? An American Indian, Asian, black, with a sprinkling of European? c.i.