I have seen the future.

Why would they restart with Alpha after Wilma? Why not name the next one Xavier, then Yolanda, then Zachariah, then restart with Alpha? It's because the forecast only called for 21 storms? Why are they at 'w' if there's only 21 named storms so far? It's not like there aren't names for all letters of the alphabet. Very silly.

From:

Because they don't use the weird names. Q, U, X, Y, and Z are not used.

And they never had a problem with this before, because the worst hurricane season *ever* had 21.

From:

stormfeather.livejournal.com

Man, that sucks about the Devil Went Down to Georgia thing. I think that's taking the whole separation thing a bit far. I'm sure that "opponents" would say "if it was a song mentioning Christ you'd complain even faster!" but... well, no. I mean, I don't see people throwing a fit when high schools decide to put on, say, Jesus Christ Superstar or Godspell as a school musical.

Meh.

From:

Well ... that's a silly reason; I don't consider "Quinn", "Uri", "Xavier(e)", "Yolanda" (which is only female, unlike the previous three), or "Zach(ariah)" (which is only male) are "weird" ... not nearly as weird as "Macaroni" (yes, I saw somebody on a gameshow years ago who was supposedly named that) ... or "John" (I mean, really, naming somebody after a toilet, how rude). *wink*
Apparently, they need to rethink their plan, given the wonder that is global warming ... 'cause it's going to be really lame if a "named" storm gets named after a letter of the Greek alphabet.

From:

You don't need just one name. You need 6, and alternates if any of those are retired.

From:

Well, alright, but I still think it's a silly reason. Why not use "weird" names? I mean, really, Supertyphoon Longwang ... now, that almost defines dark comedy.

From:

waterspyder.livejournal.com

I think we are limited by our use of traditional north american names... go african or arabic and you got tons

From:

Exactly my (not directly stated) point, but you got it. I don't really think those are "weird", at least not in any non-culturally-biased way.

From:

Uh, a local high school had their schedule of the plays "Godspell" and "Bang, Bang, You're Dead" cancelled due to separation issues with the former and zero-tolerance violence policies with the latter.

"Bang, Bang" is back on the schedule due to the work of a school board member, who also tried to get "Godspell" back, but that remains dead due to the separation issue.

From:

They've got a point when it comes to religious material. I don't know "Godspell", but I can certainly understand the objections.

I can even understand where the guy is coming from on his objection to "The Devil Went Down to Georgia" - I think he'd be on stronger ground if he were objecting to Impaled Nazarene or Deicide being paid for by the school, or if, say, his children were actually associated in any way with that school, but I can see where he's coming from.

Now, if only we could get enough psychotherapy to the right people....

From:

I've really never bought the extension of separation when it comes to student-chosen artistic works.

But I don't know that the students chose "Godspell," so I don't even know if that applies here.

I think it's equally wrong to "force" a child to pray (which, if that's really an issue, means your child is in the wrong school and your family is probably in the wrong town) as it is to tell a group of students who, in whatever fashion, decided to put on a play/perform a musical piece/etc that they cannot do so.

From:

stormfeather.livejournal.com

That's more where I'm coming from here. If the students chose and want to put on Godspell, more power to 'em I suppose, and likewise if some students decide they want to start a "prayer group" to meet right before school, out of the rest of the way of everyone else, and not evangelize to try to force others to join, hey, go for it.

I'm definitely more on the side of "keep church and state separated," but I think *both* sides have gone overboard, at least in some cases.

With "The Devil Went Down to Georgia" it just seems especially silly though. It's not trying to "teach" about the devil, or Christianity, or to force a certain worldview upon people. It's just... telling a story. A made-up story, and a fun one. One that just happens to involve a figure that happens to be found in a few religions, and not in the most traditional sense. Geez.

(I mean c'mon. The devil getting into a fiddlin' match is *way* more folklore than religion.)

From:

As long as the school is providing the props, the location, credit for the work, and the like, they can't choose religious programming. Students are welcome to perform religious works outside the school, but the school cannot support a religious message as long as the school is being funded by the government.

Compare the extreme examples: You'd understand the objections if the piece was "The Collected Works Of Jack Chick, You Filthy Heathens" being put on by the school and paid for by the school, right? Or if it were "Why God Is Dead And Everyone Who Doesn't Believe In My Magic Trouser-Snake Will Be Consumed By It Come Ragnarok"?

The question is, where does it stop being religious/antireligious? And how do you deal with religions that consider *all* nonreligious art to be antireligious?

From:

if some students decide they want to start a "prayer group" to meet right before school, out of the rest of the way of everyone else, and not evangelize to try to force others to join, hey, go for it.

I wouldn't call that "likewise" to a school production of a religious musical.

One is student-driven, takes no school resources, provides no school credit, and is allowed but not supported.

The other is teacher-driven, using school resources, for class credit, and is supported and encouraged by the school itself.

From:

stormfeather.livejournal.com

In this case, the "likewise" was that I also wouldn't get up in arms about it. Not in that the two are directly comparable.

From:

What about most high school drama clubs, which end up being funded by the students and their families?

I'm completely with you on school dollars, but once you go outside the boundaries of that, there always seems to be one solitary atheist with the stick up the ass making sure nobody has any Jesus-fun anywhere near where a government might possibly be doing a thing.

Slippery-slope is a fallacy either way it's applied.

From:

As long as the school is providing the place to perform, they're condoning and subsidising the content.

And
#1: it's not always "an atheist with a stick up his ass". Just ask any English teacher about Jehovah's Witlesses and "The Crucible", for just one example.
#2: And no, there's not supposed to be any Jesus-fun anywhere near government. That's the ENTIRE PURPOSE of the amendments involved: Government funds no religion. Government supports no religion in any way above any other. Government does not prevent you from doing whatever you want in pursuit of your religion, as long as you obey all the (scrupulously nonreligious) laws.

From: