literarydiscussions.myfreeforum.org

Sitaram · Site Admin Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 1079

http://sulekha.com/chpost.asp?forum=philosophy&show=0&ci

d=65426

Mandatory Drug Tests & Civil Liberty

Larry v. Lockney

Is mandatory drug testing in high schools a violation of

students' rights? Hear what teens, parents and teachers

have to say.

http://www.pbs.org/pov/pov2003/larryvlockney/

Is drug testing in public schools an invasion of privacy

or a useful tool for dealing with substance abuse?

'Larry v. Lockney' is about one particular clash in one

particular place over the nation's War on Drugs. But

it's also just another chapter in the age-old debate

over majority rule versus minority rights. It's a story

as American as apple pie..."

=============================================

Sitaram would like to make some comments about this

excellent documentary which aired on Public Television.

First and foremost, I see Larry Tannahill and his family

as not only a great heroes, but possibly the only real

Christians to appear in the documentary.

The crowds of people that I saw in the Lockney school

meetings impressed me as being just like the pharisaical

hypocrites, praying on the street corner, whom Jesus

condemned. Jesus clearly states in the Gospels that he

who prays conspicuously in public, with great show and

flourish, already has their reward as the wages of

spiritual vanity, while the genuine Christian prays

privately and secretly in the privacy of their home. The

Lockney school board delighted in standing before the

television cameras, bowing their heads and praying to

their Texan Protestant version of Jesus.

The people in the community of Lockney are glaring

examples of the failure of Christianity and the failure

of Jesus. If they were truly the exemplary Christians

and good Americans that they pompously believe

themselves to be, then they would have raised their

children to be the kind of people who do not need to

anesthetize themselves with drugs and alcohol in their

geometry class. I am not saying that I personally

believe that the people of Lockney could have or should

have been successful with such upbringing, but am simply

pointing out that Protestant Christians paint a picture

of their religion as something necessary and sufficient

to transform individuals' lives, which is obviously not

the case from this documentary film. If Christianity and

Jesus and "being saved" were all that Texas "Christians"

claim it to be, then the children and parents would

truly be saved from intoxication, saved from persecuting

one lone family, the Tannahills, saved from firing Larry

Tannahill from a job simply because he had the courage

to make a lone stand against mobocracy and majority

tyranny, and saved from the contemptible and cowardly

act of shooting the Tannahill family dog with a

paint-gun, hinting that more lethal violence would

follow. But no, their brand of "christianity" and

"born-again" and "being saved" doesn't work. It doesn't

do a damn bit of good. So they must resort to brute

force methods like random drug testing. They go though

the motion of securing parental consent, but when one

parent does not care to consent, then they take of their

goody two-shoes Christian masks and show their true

K.K.K. mentality. Oh, and by the way, I didn't see many

non-white faces in the faculty or student body (but I

guess that is not surprising).

No, the people of Lockney are not saved from anything.

Nor do the parents and children of families have the

courage or honesty to speak candidly with each other

about their problems. No, the only solution they can

find is to constantly tyrannize the students with random

drug tests and humiliate them by forcing them to urinate

in cups.

Larry Tannahill never asked the school to stop their

drug testing. He simply requested the right to excuse

his own children from a practice and a principle of

which he disapproved. Larry, no scholar or orator, but a

hard-working farmer, and a man of courageous integrity,

stated his objection simply and eloquently: "If I were

to give parental consent for my children to be tested in

this fashion, I would be telling them I do not trust

them." But the people of Lockney could not find enough

Christian charity (and Christian humility) in their

hearts to respect the wishes and beliefs of one sincere

family. One would think that IMPLICIT in the notion of

seeking parental consent for the testing is an

acknowledgment of the possibility that some parents MAY

CHOOSE NOT to consent, and that provisions would be made

to honor and respect the wishes of those who choose

dissent.

Larry's attorney, in his opening statements to the

school board, tried to put them all at ease by saying

that he was not "some Yankee from the East with a

ponytail, come to tell them how to live their lives".
Does my memory fail me, or is it not true that most of

the Baptist paintings of Jesus show him with a ponytail

(or at least hair long enough to be in a ponytail)? And

come to think of it, Jesus was from the East as well

(the middle-east, anyway). I could not help wondering

what is so wrong with someone from the East, or a man

with long hair (or a bald man, or a bald woman for that

matter). Larry's attorney assured the board that he was

one of them, from WESTERN Texas (gosh, I guess anything

slightly east is bad, even east Texas; perhaps lawyers

in east Texas have longer hair).

One newscaster summed up the problem with the people of

Lockney in one simple observation: "They treated the

school board meeting like a highschool athletic pep

rally. They were right, and the only ones right. They

were the majority and majority rules. Might makes

Right."

"Yeah Jesus! Rah Rah Rah!" Perhaps all of Christianity

could be summed up as a pep-rally for a Jesus, a false

Jesus, while along the real Jesus would find them all to

be a contemptible abomination.

I suppose the people of Lockney will feel quite

indignant over my categorical condemnation of them. I

supposed they would even consider shooting MY dog with a

paint-gun (or a shotgun) but for the fact that my dog

died years ago and I shall never have another.

Texas has the greatest number of small Christian radio

stations preaching 24/7 and the nation's record for

executions on death row. What is the answer, preach

harder, or execute more frequently? I don't pretend to

know the answer to that one. I simply know failure when

I see it.

(end of Sitaram's comments)

========================

Many Americans, maybe even most, have come to believe

that our form of democracy can be summarized in just two

words: "majority rules." If you've got the votes, you

win.

However, it's never been that simple. The original

framers of the Constitution were concerned about the

likelihood that majorities would overwhelm the

inalienable rights of sizable minorities or even

stubborn individuals who disagreed. And so, for

instance, they designed a system that makes it possible

for a presidential candidate to win more votes

nationwide than any other but still lose to the

runner-up because of the influence of small states in

the Electoral College.

They also wrote a Bill of Rights that was amended to the

Constitution to specifically protect the rights of

political minorities against the onslaught of any

majority, no matter how well meaning.

Because, despite the righteousness of the cause or the

decency of the people, majorities can sometimes infringe

upon what others believe to be their constitutionally

guaranteed rights. Then it's up to the courts to referee

the competing claims of whose liberty is better

protected by the law of the land.

Can the federal government force you to incriminate

yourself or others in the name of national security? Can

a state law force you to register your handgun? Can a

public school randomly drug test students it does not

suspect of using drugs? The answers the courts give are,

in turn, dependent on the times, the political context,

and yes, even the will of a majority — ultimately at

least five out of the nine presidentially-appointed

Justices of the Supreme Court.

"Larry v. Lockney" is about one particular clash in one

particular place over the nation's War on Drugs. But

it's also just another chapter in the age-old debate

over majority rule versus minority rights. It's a story

as American as apple pie. The additional clash between

issues of public safety versus individual freedom makes

the film that much more timely in a post 9/11 world.

http://www.pbs.org/pov/pov2003/larryvlockney/about.html

===============================

http://sulekha.com/chpost.asp?forum=philosophy&show=0&ci

d=65938

Sitaram: Take a look at this critique of C.S. Lewis, I

find my thinking to be more in line with Lewis than some

of his critics

Sitaram:

http://withchrist.org/MJS/lewis.htm

Acceleration: LOL, I read his "Mere Christianity" and

picked an argument with him approximately twice every

page!

Sitaram: Yes, but he measures up better than his critics

Sitaram: this URL, from the same site, criticizes

someone for things that I also agree with

Sitaram:

http://withchrist.org/MJS/chambers.htm

Sitaram: e.g. Lewis wrote: God will not give us good

habits, He will not give us character, He will not make

us walk aright. We have to do all that ourselves; we

have to work out the salvation God has worked in.

Acceleration: I think that concept is pretty basic to

all peoples, despite official doctrines.

Sitaram: God does not give us overcoming life; He gives

us life as we overcome. When the inspiration of God

comes, and He says, "Arise from the dead," we have to

get up; God does not lift us up.

Acceleration: It's maieutic.

http://www.onelook.com/?w=maieutic

Etymology: Greek maieutikos of midwifery

Date: 1655

relating to or resembling the Socratic method of

eliciting new ideas from another

Acceleration: The paradox of midwifery. A la Socrates.

Sitaram: the word "ascetic" comes from the Greek word

"askesis" meaning what an athlete does...

Acceleration: As in shave off all body hair and spread

oil on himself?

Sitaram: Lutherans and the like were rather lazy,

expecting God and grace to do it all (like a

vaccination)

Sitaram: actually, Greek orthodox theology uses that

very imagery

Sitaram: and Paul's imagery of "the race, the victor...

Sitaram: the oil at Greek baptism, is likened to the

athlete

Sitaram: oiling for the wrestling contest

Sitaram: Jacob wrestling all night with the angel

http://members.tripod.com/tcpiii/running.htm

(excerpts):

My favorite analogy, however, compares the Christian

life to running a race. This analogy is not common

throughout the Bible, but Paul loves it, as he uses the

running and racing image at least nine times in his

epistles. In addition, the author of Hebrews uses the

analogy once.

I remember at that time searching the Bible for

references to running, and especially recall

encountering 1 Timothy 6:12, which I underlined in my

Good News New Testament:

Run your best in the race of faith, and win eternal life

for yourself.

Recall that we have reached the third verse of 2 Timothy

chapter 2. Paul has been exhorting Timothy to fan his

gift into flame, to suffer hardship together with Paul.

He has mentioned those who have fallen away, who were

unwilling to suffer hardship for the gospel; he has

mentioned his own endurance through suffering; and he

has mentioned the good example of Onesiphorus, who

evidently died in the service of the gospel. Let us

begin reading in verse one of chapter two:

1 You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in

Christ Jesus. 2 And the things you have heard me say in

the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men

who will also be qualified to teach others. 3 Endure

hardship with us like a good soldier of Christ Jesus. 4

No one serving as a soldier gets involved in civilian

affairs-- he wants to please his commanding officer. 5

Similarly, if anyone competes as an athlete, he does not

receive the victor's crown unless he competes according

to the rules. 6 The hardworking farmer should be the

first to receive a share of the crops. 7 Reflect on what

I am saying, for the Lord will give you insight into all

this.

8 Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended

from David. This is my gospel, 9 for which I am

suffering even to the point of being chained like a

criminal. But God's word is not chained. 10 Therefore I

endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they

too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus,

with eternal glory. 11 Here is a trustworthy saying: If

we died with him, we will also live with him; 12 if we

endure, we will also reign with him. If we disown him,

he will disow us. If we arefaithless, he remains

faithful, for he canot disown himself.

Paul tells Timothy, "Endure hardship with me." He

reminds him that he is like a soldier, who doesn't worry

about his personal comfort but is set on pleasing his

commanding officer. He says we are to be like

hardworking farmers, who must suffer through

backbreaking work, day in and day out, whether they feel

like it or not, if they are to reap a harvest. In

chapter 3 he tells Timothy to expect persecution also.

He makes no promises that the Christian life will be

easy -- rather, he explicitly promises that the

Christian life will be tough. The promise, instead of

the absence of difficulties, is that through all these

difficulties, God himself will provide the energy to

overcome, and we will grow more Christlike in the

process. That's the goal: Becoming like him!

So endure hardship! Be willing to put up with pain,

knowing what it produces!
We read part of Hebrews 12:1 earlier; let's keep

reading:

let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us,

fixing our eyes on Jesus

(end of excerpts)

Acceleration: Right.

Acceleration: I've heard ministers preach against

salvation by works, but only by grace. However, human

instinct seems inevitably drawn to the idea of salvation

by works.

Sitaram: The above URL, which criticizes C.S. Lewis,

comments: The taproot of all Arminian error is that sin

is not really understood for what it is. The Arminian

estimation of sin is kept low enough for one to get

"victory" over it by self-effort.

Envy, jealousy, strife--these things arise not

necessarily from the disposition of sin within, but from

the makeup of your body which was used for this kind of

thing in days gone by

Sitaram: these statements are criticized by this site

Acceleration: I think, in essence, God is within us, and

therefore essentially, we "save" ourselves.

Acceleration: You believe in vicarious substitutionary

atonement?

Acceleration: Do you believe in vicarious

substitutionary atonement?

Sitaram: no, precisely the point,... I find myself

agreeing more with C. S. Lewis than his critics (who

embrace s.a. - substitutionary atonement)

Sitaram: and with the Arminians

Sitaram: Lutherans and the like were rather lazy,

expecting God and grace to do it all (like a

vaccination)

Acceleration: Okay...I can put on my pro-s-a hat.

Sitaram: there, I liked something about that one

Acceleration: If I were to defend S-A, I might start by

asking what JC symbolizes.

Sitaram: I realize all the theology and rhetoric...

Acceleration: If JC symbolizes sin, for example, then

"crucifying" it would certainly be a necessary and

sufficient step for salvation.

Sitaram: oh.. by the way... it all goes back to the tar

which God commanded Noah to put on the ark , to COVER

(protect) it

Acceleration: The ark cover. Hmmm...

Acceleration: Not the one with gold cherubim on it, was

it?

Sitaram: No... the ship full of animals

Acceleration: Oh, THAT ark.

Sitaram: There are two words translated atonement in the

Old Testament. ("Kip-poor'" and "kaw-far'") The first

comes from the second and the meaning is to cover. It is

the word that is used in Genesis 6:14, "Make thee an ark

of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and

shalt pitch it within and without with pitch." Noah was

to use pitch, or kawphar to cover the ark.

Acceleration: Protect from rain?

Sitaram: From rain, or whatever, when God tells you, you

don't ask why,

Sitaram: who knows, point is, word derives from that

passage

Sitaram: Indeed, is not Noah covering the ark with pitch

and being saved, a picture of the Old Testament saint

that sacrificed an animal, and the animal becoming a

covering for the sin, to protect the saint?

Sitaram: The New Testament term is one which we studied

under propitiation. The term is translated reconciling

or reconciliation in the New Testament usually, and

atonement only once in the New Testament.

Atonement is the paying of a price to bring man and God

back together. The question of whom the atonement was

for, is often raised.

http://sulekha.com/chpost.asp?forum=philosophy&show=0&ci

d=65821

Sitaram: BUT... Verse 16 For thou desirest not

sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in

burnt offering (holocaust)

Sitaram: Verse 17 The sacrifices of God are a broken

spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt

not despise

Acceleration: I think the reason is simple. Blood is the

life. Blood of a substitute satisfies God's thirst to

kill something, thus protecting the person doing the

sacrificing.

Sitaram: AND, Jesus tells people to TAKE UP THEIR OWN

CROSS,.... (indicating that it is not simply about his

own crucifixion)

Sitaram: Mark 8: 34 And when he had called the people

unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them,

Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and

take up his cross, and follow me.

Sitaram: Why would Jesus say "Take up your cross", if it

was to be HIS personal crucifixion which would provide

substitutionary atonement for all mankind

Sitaram: Mark 12:32-34

Sitaram: The scribe said to Jesus, 'You are right,

teacher, you have truly said that He (God) is one, and

there is no other (God) but Him; and to love Him with

all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with

all the strength, and to love one's neighbor as oneself,

is much more than burnt offerings and sacrifices.'

Sitaram: more than burnt offerings and sacrifices.'

Sitaram: And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he

(Jesus) said to him, 'You are not far from the kingdom

of God.'" (Mark 12:32-34).

Sitaram: How can Jesus tell this man that he is not far

from the Kingdom, if the Crucifixion has not yet taken

place (if the substitutionary atonement of the

Crucifixion is the sine qua non for salvation).

Sitaram: Jesus (who is not yet crucified) tells the

woman to "go and sin no more." How is this possible for

her to do, if the substitutionary atonement of the

Crucifixion is essential for her salvation, the

Crucifixion has not yet taken place?

Acceleration: The answer, I think, is spiritual

self-mortification, rather than external actual

sacrifice.

Acceleration: Jesus is an Everyman, or Second Adam,

symbol. In effect, we are all him.

Sitaram: How long was the woman to stop sinning? Both

Jesus' imperative and the construction agree that she

was to stop then . . . from now on. The Calvinist will

claim that it is impossible to stop sinning from now on

while in the body, which is, of course, a continuation

of first century Gnosticism. But Jesus knew very well

that it is utterly impossible to simultaneously bring

together both sin and righteousness in the same life.

Acceleration: I think the point is rather forgiveness.

Sitaram: yes... but when you get into substitutionary

retribution... God comes out of it looking warped

Sitaram: Wherever it is taught that God punished His Son

on the cross there have always been some who indulge in

the rhetorical statement that "Christ on Calvary was the

greatest sinner in the universe" -- language which I

have heard within thirty years. Within that time I have

heard an English Wesleyan doctor of divinity in public

prayer represent the Father as "hurling the hottest

thunderbolts of His wrath down upon the head of His

devoted Son in punishment for the sins of mankind."

Sitaram: also... for me... my recent post on "Larry vs

Lockney" dramatically demonstrates the utter failure of

Christianity to transform lives (which it claims to do),

in the very Protestant town of Lockney TX

Acceleration: I think it's simple if JC is viewed as a

personification of Creation itself, in toto.
Acceleration: Also, it helps to suspend the law of the

excluded middle.

Sitaram:

http://sulekha.com/chpost.asp?forum=philosophy&show=0&ci

d=65426

Sitaram: Mandatory Drug Tests & Civil Liberty

Sitaram: I wrote: First and foremost, I see Larry

Tannahill and his family as not only a great heroes, but

possibly the only real Christians to appear in the

documentary.

Sitaram: The people in the community of Lockney are

glaring examples of the failure of Christianity and the

failure of Jesus.

Sitaram: I am not saying that I personally believe that

the people of Lockney could have or should have been

successful with such upbringing, but am simply pointing

out that Protestant Christians paint a picture of their

religion as something necessary and sufficient to

transform individuals' lives, which is obviously not the

case from this documentary film.

Acceleration: I have found that Christianity is a great

transforming religion, similar to Alcoholics Anonymous.

Sitaram: If Christianity and Jesus and "being saved"

were all that Texas "Christians" claim it to be, then

the children and parents would truly be saved from

intoxication, saved from persecuting one lone family,

the Tannahills, saved from firing Larry Tannahill from a

job simply because he had the courage to make a lone

stand against mobocracy and majority tyranny, and saved

from the contemptible and cowardly act of shooting the

Tannahill family dog with a paint-gun, hinting that more

lethal violence would follow.

Sitaram: But no, their brand of "christianity" and

"born-again" and "being saved" doesn't work. It doesn't

do a damn bit of good. So they must resort to brute

force methods like random drug testing. They go though

the motion of securing parental consent, but when one

parent does not care to consent, then they take of their

goody two-shoes Christian masks and show their true

K.K.K. mentality

Acceleration: Um...

Acceleration: Christianity is relatively independent of

politics, behavior, etc.

Acceleration: I mean, heck, Nazi Germany was a CHRISTIAN

country, you know.

Sitaram: I know,... but the falsehood of those

Protestant preachers' claims is transparently obvious...

Acceleration: Let us agree.

Sitaram: Christianity is not what they claim it to

be,... and they are not what they claim to be

Acceleration: I can agree to that.

Sitaram: yes, Christianity can transform. I am sure it

transformed Gandhi (the sermon on the mount, the

Beatitudes, was his favorite) but, the point is, it did

not transform him into "a christian"...

Acceleration: Okay...

Acceleration: Do you mean that some people are

Christians without realizing that they are?

Sitaram: and I rather imagine it gave Gandhi the

strength and will to do on his OWN,.... not
through some spirit-filled grace-filled mumbo jumbo

Sitaram: which harkens back to my comment that

Protestants looked upon grace like a vaccination, the

didn't really want Jesus, and what Jesus taught, because

truly taking up ones own personal cross (which is

clearly works), is distasteful for the lazy and cowardly

Sitaram: what they wanted was not a Jesus, but a

Pasteur, to vaccinate and innoculate them against sin,

or at least against its painful consequences

Acceleration: The problem...I think I see it...is

translation of the literal into the meanings behind the

metaphors.

Acceleration: Pastor Pasteur?

Sitaram: the constant use of the word "pastor" makes me

thing of cow PASTURES and stepping in big cow flops of

manure

Acceleration: I believe that both sides of what your

representing are equally 'true' in a sense.

Acceleration: Reminds me of a joke...

Acceleration: It's a common thing in seminary to teach

students that when they give sermons they should always

have 3 points.

Sitaram: like I really need one of those weepy

theatrical radio jerks to tell me how to live my life or

understand scriptures or be a better person

Acceleration: The reason is, that if they have only 2

points, it will resemble horns, and in the middle is the

bull.

Sitaram: you asked earlier if I am hooked on posts of

dialogues, but this is turning into a nice one with some

important points...

Acceleration: Ah.

Sitaram: and thoughts flow during a dialogue, there is

inspiration, which I would not find if I were writing by

myself in an expository fashion

Sitaram: in need stimulation to get inspiration

Acceleration: Exactly. I concur.
Acceleration: It often works that way.
Acceleration: In Yeshiva, I think it's called the

chavrusa method.

Sitaram: wherever 2 or 3 are gathered

Sitaram: Christ's words

Sitaram: old Jewish saying, wherever there are 2 rabbis,

there are 3 opinions

Sitaram: aha...

Acceleration: I thing "the Word" is something that

floats transcendent, especially during dialogues.

Sitaram: yes, agreed

Sitaram: modern theologians like kung and Barth make a

lot more sense to me (and Lewis) yet they are branded as

heretics

Acceleration: Yeah. Or Bultmann. Fascinating guy.

Sitaram: hmmm... I must look into that one

Acceleration: Demythologizing.

Bultmann, Rudolf Karl

1884–1976, German existentialist theologian, educated at

the universities of Tübingen, Berlin, and Marburg. He

taught at the universities of Breslau and Giessen and

from 1921 to 1950 was professor at the Univ. of Marburg.

Strongly influenced by the existentialist philosophy of

Martin Heidegger, Bultmann is best known for his work on

the New Testament, which he reduced—with the exception

of the Passion—to basic elements of myth, which then

have application to contemporary concerns. His approach

is termed "demythologization." His classic work is

Theology of the New Testament (tr. 1951).

Get your own free IRC Chat room