Author Topic: National Recognizance (Read 8008 times)

GlotDude · « **on:** April 05, 2010, 05:54:24 PM »

So, dudes. Bear with me, I'm going to take a trip to get to the point, but it'll get there.

Many of you may know about that thing the public schools do. Blocking certain websites from being accessed and such, that is.

As far as I know, man, they use different services to achieve this effect.

However, one service used in some Florida schools, Websense. They use it. The schools, that is. Yeah, it appears that Websense applies the same censorship to everyone using the product.

If you try to access a site from a computer being filtered with Websense, you'll get this page. It has the Websense logo, the URL of the blocked page, and why it was blocked, right?

One of the filters is "Minor Religions, the Occult, and Folktales".

Now, this is interesting, because dudeism.org is blocked under this protocol, right?

Because the government uses this program to block sites through the schools, and so the government is blocking religious concepts from evolving. Right?

That in itself is pretty bad.

But but but!

... because Dudeism isn't a folktale, and it's not occult given that it fails to meet any of these criterion:

1. Of, relating to, or dealing with supernatural influences, agencies, or phenomena.
2. Beyond the realm of human comprehension; inscrutable.
3. Available only to the initiate; secret: occult lore. See Synonyms at mysterious.
4. Hidden from view; concealed.
5.
a. Medicine Detectable only by microscopic examination or chemical analysis, as a minute blood sample.
b. Not accompanied by readily detectable signs or symptoms: occult carcinoma.

...given that Dudeism is a philosophical worldview based on the preachings of the one, the awesome, The Dude, who isn't supernatural, isn't *quite* beyond the realm of human comprehension, is available to all, isn't hidden, and isn't at all medicine related, that means it falls into the category of "Minor Religion".

As far as I've looked, see, there's no legal definition of "Minor Religion", except that it's a small religion.

A recent Dudespaper article suggested that Dudeists apply as being Dudeist on their census forms so as to establish Dudeism's position as a nationally recognized religion.

Basically, for Dudeism to be blocked on government computers, Dudeism would have to be designated as a "Minor Religion", and to be recognized as a Minor Religion, it would have to first be recognized as a "Religion".

Therefore, by blocking and infringing upon the rights of minor religions such as Dudeism, the state has inherently recognized the establishment of those religions.

Theoretically, any site that was blocked should have nationally recognized status in the United States.

Including Dudeism.

Anyone think this is grounds to lobby for Dudeist recognition?

not_exactly_a_lightweight · « **Reply #1 on:** April 05, 2010, 07:13:55 PM »

What's your fucking point?

GlotDude · « **Reply #2 on:** April 05, 2010, 07:42:07 PM »

Quote from: not_exactly_a_lightweight on April 05, 2010, 07:13:55 PM

What's your fucking point?

Woah, man.

I'm just saying if we're lobbying for national recognizance, this could be a way to get it.

RevWade · « **Reply #3 on:** April 05, 2010, 08:22:40 PM »

simply put, they either have to recognize us as a religion with all the same rights as any other religion, or they have to unblock us from that particular web blocker. Fabulous stuff, man.

GlotDude · « **Reply #4 on:** April 05, 2010, 09:13:16 PM »

Quote from: RevWade on April 05, 2010, 08:22:40 PM

simply put, they either have to recognize us as a religion with all the same rights as any other religion, or they have to unblock us from that particular web blocker. Fabulous stuff, man.

That's what I'm sayin'.

What would be the way of going about and handling this situation?

meekon5 · « **Reply #5 on:** April 06, 2010, 04:05:26 AM »

Unfortunately I (and this is just my opinion man) do believe that your legal reasoning is flawed.

Websense is an independent organisation, it is not bound by legislation, nor is it a legislative body. Just because local government (which is a legislative body) uses their services does not follow that this is recognition by a legislative body.

You can lobby on the grounds of infringement of human rights, I have written on this point before.

The USA has different Human rights legislation (the same wording as the European act)

Basically this is an infringement of our (Dudeists) right to practice our religion as we see fit.

The lobby should be against Websense not against national or local government.

Please do check with a qualified lawyer as to the particulars in your circumstances.

But I reiterate just because the government use a company does not imply the companies policy is indicative of legislation.

Lao Dude · « **Reply #6 on:** May 16, 2011, 09:49:38 AM »

Also, they could probably block the site on grounds of profanity and drug lingo...in short..if you plug one hole in the dike (aside from making the dike very happy), it'll just spring another leak...

That's the way it is when fighting the square community.

Outer Element · « **Reply #7 on:** May 16, 2011, 11:30:00 AM »

My first thought when you posted this info was, wtf--schools are preventing minors from getting info about folk tales and minor religions? I can see where quite a lot of parents wouldn't want their children being informed about religions other than their own, but folktales? What's the deal with that?

Personally, I see the point in shielding young kids from profanity and drug cultures. But I think it's a serious educational flaw to block folk tales and any kind of religion--including voodooism and others associated with the occult--from children. All religions that recognize miracles (i.e., supernatural occurrences) are occult.

As far as national and legal recognition of Dudeism, I agree with meekon that its strongest defense is under freedom of religion. He makes sense as far as the web blocking service's lack of relationship to government policy, but I'm no lawyer and don't know the ins and outs of that.

Great idea to put Dudeism on census forms. Numbers in govt reports lend especial credence.

hannahdude · « **Reply #8 on:** May 16, 2011, 02:30:40 PM »

where's the creedance, man???

Outer Element · « **Reply #9 on:** May 16, 2011, 07:52:46 PM »

Quote from: hannahdude on May 16, 2011, 02:30:40 PM

where's the creedance, man???

Looking out our back doors, I guess.

Lao Dude · « **Reply #10 on:** May 17, 2011, 06:56:28 AM »

Our running through the jungle...on the Midnight Special as they roll on the river.

meekon5 · « **Reply #11 on:** May 17, 2011, 07:11:15 AM »

Quote from: Outer Element on May 16, 2011, 11:30:00 AM

--Personally, I see the point in shielding young kids from profanity and drug cultures. But I think it's a serious educational flaw to block folk tales and any kind of religion--including voodooism and others associated with the occult--from children. All religions that recognize miracles (i.e., supernatural occurrences) are occult. --

Sorry I have a number of problems with this paragraph.

I doubt shielding children has any effect on their accepting or not accepting certain practices. in fact I would prefer my godson to be informed of the alternatives and make an educated decision rather than hiding the facts away from him because they may offend certain parties. In fact shielding them causes more shock when they enter the real world and can have exactly the opposite effect from the intended.

Information is protection against ignorance.

Don't shield your children educate them.

Occult is a particularily imotive term to use. Please refer to this definition from ReligiousTolerance.org (a fine bunch of people).

Occult originally meant "Hidden" or "Secret" and if you look into it there are a number of "Christian Occult" sciences.

I object to the negative inference you place on the word.

Voodoo (or VouDoun) is actually a synthesis of native African anamistic religion with christianity through attempts by the "White man" to "civilize" the Africans.

Voodoo is not the religion in films (eg Live And Let Die) that is actually closer to British witchcraft than real Voodoo.

Finally why stop at what you define as "occult" why not any religion you don't see as wholesome or correct, oh wait a minute that's exactly what they are doing.

Do remember the Scientologists wear suites when knocking on your door.

Nothing personal but I am a Dudeist, Pagan, and Occultist.

Outer Element · « **Reply #12 on:** May 17, 2011, 10:05:16 AM »

Quote from: meekon5 on May 17, 2011, 07:11:15 AM

Quote from: Outer Element on May 16, 2011, 11:30:00 AM
--Personally, I see the point in shielding young kids from profanity and drug cultures. But I think it's a serious educational flaw to block folk tales and any kind of religion--including voodooism and others associated with the occult--from children. All religions that recognize miracles (i.e., supernatural occurrences) are occult. --

Sorry I have a number of problems with this paragraph.

I doubt shielding children has any effect on their accepting or not accepting certain practices. in fact I would prefer my godson to be informed of the alternatives and make an educated decision rather than hiding the facts away from him because they may offend certain parties. In fact shielding them causes more shock when they enter the real world and can have exactly the opposite effect from the intended.

Information is protection against ignorance.

Don't shield your children educate them.

Occult is a particularily imotive term to use. Please refer to this definition from ReligiousTolerance.org (a fine bunch of people).

Occult originally meant "Hidden" or "Secret" and if you look into it there are a number of "Christian Occult" sciences.

I object to the negative inference you place on the word.

Voodoo (or VouDoun) is actually a synthesis of native African anamistic religion with christianity through attempts by the "White man" to "civilize" the Africans.

Voodoo is not the religion in films (eg Live And Let Die) that is actually closer to British witchcraft than real Voodoo.

Finally why stop at what you define as "occult" why not any religion you don't see as wholesome or correct, oh wait a minute that's exactly what they are doing.

Do remember the Scientologists wear suites when knocking on your door.

Nothing personal but I am a Dudeist, Pagan, and Occultist.

Whoa, man. Reread my post. I did not in any way imply that "occult" was a negative descriptor. On the contrary, I think it's a positive. Also, it seems like you think I was saying that children should be shielded from learning about occult religions, when I was clearly saying the exact opposite. Wtf?

I have a criticism that Christianity and other mainstream religions that believe in miracles and/or the divine power of prayer are not considered occult. I don't agree with using "occult" to describe minority religions when the term is not applied to conventional ones. I think doing so reflects classism, and while I recognize the conventional use of the word "occult" that religioustolerance.org offers, I personally do not wish to reinforce the use of the word to disparage less accepted religions that use magic or other "supernatural" means to access the divine by calling them "occult" and not using this descriptor in reference to mainstream religions that also recognize divine intervention.

Like you, I'm Dudeist and Pagan, and Occultist in practice and belief. If you disagree with me on the point of shielding children from profanity and drug cultures, then go for it. Make your points. But chill about the religion thing, ok? Dude, we're on the same team, as far as I can see.

What is "imotive"? Do you mean "emotive"?

Rev. Ed C · « **Reply #13 on:** May 17, 2011, 11:36:36 AM »

Information is a powerful tool. Sadly, for most people who know me, I do not believe there is such a thing as too much information, and so my sentences tend to be packed with what some people might call filler

The question of information here is one of understanding. Yes, children should never be simply shielded from "danger" but informed on the ways of avoiding it, and why they should. A "nanny" state would seek to have parents wrap their children in cotton wool throw them into a sensory deprivation tank until they're old enough to vote (only without the life-skills/knowledge/sociopolitical awareness that is required to function as a full human being.

Knowledge, if understood, leads to enlightenment. Only by truly understanding can one achieve enlightenment, and become a Buddha. To actively keep someone in the dark is to stunt their development as a person. You may not have enlightenment in sight as you toddle along the path of life, but it's always better to be walking in sunny part of the road where you can see what's coming at you than to be walking over the dingy, shaded side where you're always stumbling.

I recently did a Dudespaper article on The Truth, and this is a point I didn't get around to covering, now I think about it, in specific terms. But,essentially, this whole thing on understanding the truth of the world is right in there

Education is not the sole responsibility of schools, its primarily down to the parents. Parents should always equip their children for life from the get-go. If you try your best to hide something from a child, hey will eventually find it and be ill-prepared to deal with it. Would you rather be the prime good influence on your children, or would you rather they learn about things from all the many bad influences lurking?

Case in point, how many parents tell children not to accept sweets and lifts from strangers? How many tell them why? I mean, I wouldn't advocate being totally frank with a small child, mind, but it helps to know the consequences of breaking a rule when understanding why the rule exists, IMHO. Just laying down rules without an explanation isn't always helpful. The "Because I said so" attitude is just begging for rebellion right there. And there are some things that a bunch of little revolutionaries should not be striving to achieve...

I guess the main point of the article was about censorship over the internet... right... right... lost my, thingy of wotsit there...

Well, the validity of Dudeism as something worthy of a school education is... I'd say, questionable. Especially in the US, where you have (supposedly) have separation of church and state.

And, to be honest, I object to the description of Dudeism as being down to the teachings of one fictitious character. We're not following The Dude, here, man, we're all trying to be Dudes or revel in our acquired Dudeliness. To place the emphasis on "The Dude" smacks of the strange thing where people place "The Buddha" as the only figure of worth a reverence, despite the fact that The Dude, much like The Buddha, are actually one on of many Dudes/Buddhas/Duddhas and I think it's a bit unfair to pigeonhole Dudeism in that way. There's a lot more in the Dudeism pot (if you'll pardon the pun) than Lebowskiist quotes

meekon5 · « **Reply #14 on:** May 18, 2011, 03:47:53 AM »

Quote from: Outer Element on May 17, 2011, 10:05:16 AM

Whoa, man. Reread my post. I did not in any way imply that "occult" was a negative descriptor. On the contrary, I think it's a positive. Also, it seems like you think I was saying that children should be shielded from learning about occult religions, when I was clearly saying the exact opposite. Wtf?

If that was the intention then I apologise. It's just the line:

Quote from: Outer Element on May 16, 2011, 11:30:00 AM

Personally, I see the point in shielding young kids from profanity and drug cultures.

Reads to me that you agree with shielding children "I see the point in shielding young kids". If you meant the opposite then this is another of those times when the sarcasm font should have been used.

Sorry for misinterpreting that.

Quote from: Outer Element on May 17, 2011, 10:05:16 AM

I have a criticism that Christianity and other mainstream religions that believe in miracles and/or the divine power of prayer are not considered occult. I don't agree with using "occult" to describe minority religions when the term is not applied to conventional ones. I think doing so reflects classism, and while I recognize the conventional use of the word "occult" that religioustolerance.org offers, I personally do not wish to reinforce the use of the word to disparage less accepted religions that use magic or other "supernatural" means to access the divine by calling them "occult" and not using this descriptor in reference to mainstream religions that also recognize divine intervention.

Like you, I'm Dudeist and Pagan, and Occultist in practice and belief. If you disagree with me on the point of shielding children from profanity and drug cultures, then go for it. Make your points. But chill about the religion thing, ok? Dude, we're on the same team, as far as I can see.

Again this didn't seem to me to come across in how you where saying this in the original post.

Again I apologise for this.

But finally, this is a line crossed:

Quote from: Outer Element on May 17, 2011, 10:05:16 AM

What is "imotive"? Do you mean "emotive"?

We are an international community.

Many members use English as their second language so this sort of arsy shite will not stand.

I personally am dyslexic.

I was eighteen before I could differentiate between phonetically similar words.

In England this is actually an offense under the Disabled discrimination act.

And I find it personally very un-dude and offensive.

If thats the level of your discussion skills please just don't bother.

Author Topic: National Recognizance (Read 8008 times)

Recent Posts

Most Viewed

Most Commented

Big Blather Box

New Shit

Store

Recently Posted

Calendar

Facebook Comments