FreeBSD logo design competition

Rob D. robdem at
Sun Feb 13 19:29:36 PST 2005

In-Reply-To: <20050210201125.56158.qmail at>

(... redirecting thread to FreeBSD chat...)

On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 12:11:24PM -0800, stheg olloydson wrote:
 > it was said:
 > >    As a non-Christian, all I have to say to David is "right on."
 > Sounds like you're another person who, for reasons that you know better
 > than I, you seem to have taken my remarks as a personal attack.

I am responding to your invocation to a political cliche -- that is,
that we are facing a very real crisis, an erosion of the "separation of
Church and State."  We are not.
     Indeed, pace the claim that the phrase doesn't
exist in the Constitution, the ban against "establishment" in the
First Amendment and "religious tests" in the body of the document is
sufficient to offer real legal protection against discrimination for both
religious and non-religious minorities/majorities.
     With regards to potential legal assaults against religious freedom,
which includes, for example, officially-sanctioned school prayer in
public schools or forced indoctrination to religious dogma, you and I
have no disagreement.
     It is true that this has happened in a few isolated localities,
like the school district that recently insisted an anti-evolution
"disclaimer" be placed on science texts.  Such incidents are troubling
as a matter of principle.
     The idea, however, that the American public school system, dominated
as it is by liberal teachers' unions and interest groups, will suddenly
start spouting off about "Intelligent Design" is simply nonsense.  Public
schools in this country are more likely to teach the children that we
will all burn to a crisp in 30 years because of Global Warming/American
Capitalism than turn into a den of (traditionalist) religious zealots.

 > >I also like Beastie, and would be greatly annoyed if FreeBSD got
 > >rid of it.  Political correctness sucks -- whatever side of the
 > >political spectrum it comes from.
 > Agreed to a point, the point being WHY beastie is replaced or, in
 > newspeak, "supplemented". If beastie were being "supplemented" as a
 > routine matter of business as logos sometimes are, I wouldn't be
 > annoyed, only disappointed. However, as you point out, beastie is being
 > replaced in a capitulation to what you mischaracterize as "political
 > correctness". This is a case of theological correctness; politics
 > doesn't enter into the discussion.

    Fair enough, though you've probably noted other posters being no
more careful on this point than I.

 > What I said is that those who complained about beastie belong to a
 > brand of religious ideology belonging to an irrational minority and as
 > such they and their complaints should be ignored.
 > >     However, so-called "free thinkers" who bravely equate George Bush
 > >to Iranian mullahs and believe people who have a problem with ripping
 > >the heads off of nine-month fetuses are no different than the freaking
 > >Taliban are the same idiots who buy into Michael Moore's conspiracy
 > >theories, idolize the mass murderer Che Guevara, and think the CIA
 > >"assassinated" reggae singers because America was about to chill out
 > >too much.
 > I don't believe I mentioned anything about Bush, Iran, fetuses, Michael
 > Moore, Che Guevara, or the CIA. Please keep to the discussion at hand
 > if you're not irrational.

      And the people sending e-mails complaining about Beastie being
"demonic" presumably didn't "mention" wanting to "eliminate the barrier
between state and church to make the United States into a theocratic
country."  What's your point? 

 > >    And, oh yes, I am also a Maryland Republican living in painfully
 > >liberal Montgomery County, where our great progressive government
 > >leaders, unlike the Talibanesque John Ashcroft, have banned smoking in
 > >bars, not to mention a flurry of others pieces of legislation that
 > >regulate people's private lives.
 > Sounds like you are unhappy with your local government. I would
 > register and vote them out of office if I were you. That's how a
 > representative democracy works.

     Thanks for the civics lesson :;

   [mangled quotation reformatted]

 > >     And let's not forget, Stheg, that leftist European governments are
 > >not known for their great libertarian restraint.  The anti-terrorism 
 > >of many European nations think France, maybe Holland soon enough) make
 > >the Patriot Act look like something out of Mayberry.
 > Now I'm really puzzled. Are you saying that you are moving to Europe to


 > get away from "painfully liberal Montgomery County"? I don't think
 > you'll like it there after the novelty wears off. Compared to most of
 > America, it's cold and expensive.

     Reread what I wrote, slower this time.  I never said I wanted
to move to Europe.  Maybe visit (if honked-off Euro-leftists would just
chill out and stop accosting anyone with an American accent with rants about
that War-Monger-in-Chief.)
 > Perhaps you, like Mr. Johnson, are assuming from my name that I am not
 > American and are making a "Europeans are worse than Americans"
 > argument. Once again, your words do more to prove than disprove my
 > "xenophobia" remark.

    To quote, well, you: "Please keep to the discussion at hand."
I don't recall "xenophobia" having anything to do with this debate.
You were the one who raised the issue.  Some Americans are xenophobic,
some Europeans too.  If you like "rational" debates, why even raise
the issue?

 > >    Know thyselves, hypocrites.  Fundies aren't the only ones that
 > need >to mind their own business.
 > Based on this statement, I infer you are calling people against
 > religious oppression hypocrites, an interesting but contextually

    Uh, no.  I am suggesting immature, adolescent rebels, who conflate
(maybe sometimes annoying, but otherwise harmless) politicians'
invocations of The Deity to Iranian-style mullocracy put down the
Ayn Rand novels and grow up.

 > irrelevant remark. Unless you mean to imply that I personally am a
 > hypocrite. If that is the case, adduce the statements I have made to
 > make your case.

     The statement was not personal, but a general observation.  I have
noticed that many people who talk about privacy with regards to Religious
Right types don't seem to be too concerned about privacy violations
coming from the Religious & Irreligious Left (making public school
kids take surveys quizing them on their parents' and friends' parents
posession of handguns, etc.)  The hypocrisy is, indeed, galling.

     A final point, debates with references to "Church-State" issues ought
to center only on the interplay between governments and, well, churches
(i.e. theological matters).  Unfortunately, all too often many people
expressing concerns on this front conflate political and moral disputes
(abortion, embryonic stem cell research, for example) to matters of
Church and State.  These are distinct matters.
     The fact that many churches do care about such issues doesn't change
that fact.  Many churches passionately oppose the death penalty and
yet I don't hear anguished concerns about the eroding wall between
church and state when priests or ministers denounce it.

 > You go on to say "Fundies" -and others- need to mind their own
 > business. The problem here is the "Fundies" (your word, not mine)
 > aren't minding their own business; they're minding ours! 
 > Also at issue is the way the decision to "supplement" beastie was made.
 > Apparently, "the FreeBSD Project" thinks sneaking around and handing
 > out a _fait accompli_ is the proper way to be "professional" in this
 > community. As a member of this community, I AM minding my own business
 > by taking "them" to task for a rather base betrayal of trust.
 > Stheg

     Fair enough.  Now, barring libel, slander, or yelling Microsoft!
in a crowded theater, I will cede to you the final word, if you like,
but this thread has gone on long enough.


More information about the freebsd-chat mailing list