In a comment on Randy (Solitaire’s) post, “Freethought” decrying the interference of religion into secular matters, Looserobes said:

I must admit to very ambivalent feelings about this sort of thing. Like you (Randy), I am an unbeliever, but I also abhor the tyranny of the few, pounding everyone over the head with their "rights." The ACLU obnoxiously participates in this. Why should the one kid in the graduation class who is atheist dictate to all the others about their little prayer?

Teal says: On the other hand, why should that one kid be forced to observe rites he does not believe in? May he or she be excused? Usually not. Why not? There’s the rub. Don’t ignore the slavish conformity of those in authority toward organized religion. Give those kids a pass. Actually prayer in schools, unless it is a parochial school, has no place. No place.

Loose: The same phenomenon takes place with disabilities. Great expenses are generated to make everything in life accessible to the disabled, who rarely have occasion to use them. Parents who force schools to mainstream their learning-disabled children based on their "rights" end up screwing all the other kids who then must suffer the degradation of their learning experience. We live in an age when "rights" have become a bludgeon, often wielded by your ACLU, against the vast majority. Even if I'm often not a part of that majority, it still ticks me off that the few think that they can dictate to the many. When our Founders initially created our rights as found in our Constitution, they were rights we all possessed to protect us from THE GOV'T. In recent decades, rights have been transformed by lawyers into a device to compel what are perceived as entitlements.

Teal: Still, it is only enlightened and humane to provide in whatever intelligent way we can, assistance to those who need it. The alternative is to limit them even more and exacerbate a condition they cannot help. Buildings with ramps and other ease of access facilities do not offend me. People who use wheeled devices of any kind (mothers with strollers, etc., people with shopping carts) also benefit.

However, in New York (and elsewhere?) busses now have facilities for wheelchair riders and getting them on and off can take 15 minutes while the driver goes through an elaborate mechanical ritual that involves displacing passengers if they are sitting in the affected area. This is not well thought out. I think a better solution would be to have a city-sponsored bus service that operates to homes at certain times of the day.

As for mainstreaming children in schools, how does this put “normal” children at a disadvantage? Loose refers to the degradation of the learning experience of “normal” kids.
Instead, I believe it adds a dimension, even if it is an uncomfortable one. Isn’t the presence of these children a golden opportunity for “normal” children to develop a sense of tolerance and compassion (if properly guided)? Should “normal” children be cocooned until they enter adulthood? Should they think of the disabled as not worthy of association? Should they have their sense of “normal” entitlement be encouraged and sustained because, lucky them, they aren’t damaged? And let’s hope some accident doesn’t put them into the “wrong” population where they can truly appreciate the experience.

If I were involved in the curriculum of schools with such children in attendance, I would enlist the aid of "normal" children in helping them cope. There is a salutary benefit in this kind of tutoring that, I think, would work to the advantage of both populations.

What does offend me is what has happened to the language. Politically correct euphemisms ignore the reality of the condition being sugar-coated. If it isn’t acknowledged, it will not likely be dealt with. So let’s stop with the b.s. and call things what they are. Furthermore, a massive public education effort will still not stop slurs heaped on those unfortunate enough to be affected. We’d best teach our “challenged” individuals ways to grow strong mentally and emotionally and learn to ignore the ignorant.

On language: My pet peeve is the Pledge of Allegiance. In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer.

Can the Knights of Columbus spell hubris? Now the public at large is treating this phrase as if it is ingrained in official philosophy, rather than the narrow wish list of a religious organization that chose to impose its belief system into secular institutions.

Where does the Pledge stand in terms of government ritual? If it is indeed part of official government rhetoric, than I do think it was wrong of the courts to rule it as perfectly okay for it to have this wording. I find this wording extremely offensive and, yes, unconstitutional if “separation of church and state” is to have any meaning at all.

As for the ACLU, it does good, but sometimes gets so touchy-feely I want to vomit. I'd rather have it exist, however, than not. You can always call it to task when it goes beyond the reasonable. You can't, however, redress something that is wrong without help.

Them’s me thoughts, Oh Loose.

xx, Teal