The backlash begins?

[Steve]

Is this the opening volly (http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/5139953.html) of the coming backlash?

I think the comment by the woman at the end of the article defines the issue: no one thinks that everything should be abolished, so where are the lines drawn?

[tke711]

Oh...the backlash is going to happen, this is just the beginning. Our local, state and federal governments are riddled with serious problems. However, instead of dealing with the serious problems, they waste their time and energy making sure that no one is ever offended by anything.

The longer they concentrate on feel good legislation/rules instead of tackling the real important issues, the greater the backlash is going to be.

[Steve]

I agree. I have to point out, though, that those folks are in a lose-lose situation. Deferring such costs now only means it'll cost far more in the future when the need is urgent. Still, it's good to see people exercising their right to vote to express their political will; that - more than anything - is really what America is all about.

[ethics]

It is one of the many to come. When you push as hard as the radical seculars have been something is going to push back. Unfortunately, for the radical twerps they are in the minority.

May God help them.

[Sierra Mike]

Well, I'll certainly be standing on the sidelines and enjoying the show. I've had just about enough of a certain coterie of pinheads telling me what I can and can't do for my own good.

SM

[ethics]

This one will be joining you as well.

People just couldn't damn leave things alone the way they were in the last 30 years. See ya. Don't ask me for my support when the shit hits the fan because I warned you it will happen.

[mikepd]

It is one of the many to come. When you push as hard as the radical seculars have been something is going to push back. Unfortunately, for the radical twerps they are in the minority.

May God help them.
I am afraid God is going to be on the sidelines with this one. After all, I can just hear these people arguing about whose God, is there a God, why a God, and so forth. If there is a Deity, you believe in Karma and other such philosophical matters then these folks are going to be plain SOL.

[ravital]

I don't see anyone of us cheering over this, and that's a good thing, because it's the kids who need the new school that are being punished. I'm willing to bet the superintendent, in true PC fashion, is going to complain about voters unfit to vote, if he hasn't already, or some such admonition blaming voters, or activists, or the weather - anything at all, but never blame his own bozosity. Though as far as bozosity goes, the parents quoted in the story are no lightweights in that department either.

And for some non-Christians, sitting on the sidelines won't help, unfortunately. Backlashes are not known for finesse and careful distinctions, and many people will sadly get caught in the swing of the pendulum who have never done anything to deserve it.

Of course, as far as the PC orthodoxy is concerned, such laments are proof of cowardice, on the part of those of us who never saw a problem with nativity scenes and such in the first place. Presumably, we fear the cost of defending something so self-evidently and axiomatically right, so unquestionably noble, that it never even needs to be explained. But someone has yet to explain to me, the nobility of frustrating children and parents in the celebration of holidays that have so much more to do with tradition, than religion. Unlike such all-knowing do-gooders, I can't profess to know what thoughts the Founding Fathers entertained, but this couldn't possibly be it.

[Misu]

Although I'm glad that people are standing up for what they believe in, I have a few problems with the whole thing.

Firstly, religioun is a personal thing. How one chooses to celebrate a holiday, whether it be religious or otherwise, is also a personal thing. So I really had a problem with this:

About 100 people protested outside the auditorium where the play was performed Thursday night. The protesters staged their own live Nativity scene. Some carried signs reading, "No Christ. No Christmas. Know Christ. Know Christmas."

Although that may be true for THEM and THEIR beliefs, I really don't think it's going to help things by basically telling people that if they want Christmas, they have to accept Christ. Despite my personal religious beliefs, no one has the right to instruct me or anyone else on how I should believe and what I should believe in.

I also have a huge problem with the fact that in order to put the superintendent in his place, the voters opted against the funds to build a new school. It's more important for these people to "stick it" to the superintendent, who has a nice cushy job in a nice plush office somewhere, than to ensure that their children are comfortable in their learning environments. They'd rather have their children packed into already over-crowded and under-funded schools like sardines than find another, more creative way, to get to the superintendent. It's sickening to see people lose sight of what's really important due to their anger - in this case, the well-being of the children.

And lastly, I have a problem with the whole concept of "the backlash" - first we had to endure the political backlash. I guess it's only natural that now we're going to have to endure a religious backlash. I don't see the purpose of a backlash. I don't see this as some kind of civil war. Nothing positive will come out of creating even deeper divisions between us. It's such childish behavior; tit for tat. I realize that those who busy themselves with making us all Vanilla need to be stopped - and I agree. But I don't think that a "backlash" is the way to go about it. Assuming we're all intelligent, rational adults, can't we come up with a mutually acceptable solution? Or do we have to resort to the lowest common denominator?

I refuse to take part in any childish behavior, and to me, that is exactly what this whole backlashing crap is.

[Violet1966]

I think this sums it all up. You really have to read the whole article to understand why people are so po'd and are acting how they're acting.

Some parents were angry that Santa Claus, a Christmas tree and symbols of Hanukkah and Kwanzaa were left in the production. "If you're going to cut one symbol, then cut them all," said Shelly Marino, the parent of a third-grader at the elementary school.

This anti Christian movement is going too far. You know Christians have been persecuted severely before in time...back when it was either deny Christ or die. They have the right to celebrate their holiday too. Why deny them their rights...when other's rights aren't being denied??? The way this is going...reminds me of the stories of the beheadings when Christians were asked to deny Jesus or die. What is the name for this??? It's never even been given a proper name. The Jewish faith has the word anti-Semite...well what is called when someone is anti-Christian???

This is becoming a movement...and who knows...one day it might again take lives :(

[LissaKay]

That is how the End Days are described in the Book of Revelations ... after the Rapture, whoever is left either must deny Christ and Christianity or be put to death. Those who do deny wear the mark of the Beast. Revelations promises that those who die for Christ during these times gain immediate entrance to Heaven.

I did a brief study of Revelations one time ... it traumatized the hell out of me, but then I was only 13 or 14 at the time. But I see many parallels in what is happening today with what is prophesied in Revelations. Too many to ignore ...

[Violet1966]

Although that may be true for THEM and THEIR beliefs, I really don't think it's going to help things by basically telling people that if they want Christmas, they have to accept Christ. Despite my personal religious beliefs, no one has the right to instruct me or anyone else on how I should believe and what I should believe in.



I think they were merely expressing their pride in their religion Misu. They were saying their beliefs during protests...because their religion was all out dissrespected. It was singled out. I don't know why you interpret that as being accept Christ...when I take it as I have my own take on Christmas and to me it is Christ. I know Christ...I know Christmas. If this was written on a lesson in a workbook in the school...then I could honestly say that it's wrong.

[cdw]

Solidly Republican, the town of 13,000 sits in a county that went for President Bush over Sen. John Kerry by 77-22 percent and a state where moral values were by far the voters' top concern. Their side won.

So when the public-school principal banned fifth-graders from acting out a Nativity scene in a school pageant out of deference to the Constitution's prohibition against government-established religion - while allowing symbols of Hanukkah and Kwanzaa to remain - town folks were incensed.

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/special_packages/election2004/thomma/10433589.htm?1c

Ok, I'm a little confused. I have searched to find the reasoning behind the superintendents moves but can only find the above. I was under the impression that if there was more than one religious symbol on display or acted out, it was perfectly fine...it was a show of not supporting one religion over the other. So, why did this guy find it necessary to out the nativity scene? Isn't that doing exactly what he says he was trying to avoid?
Or do I have the court's intreptation wrong?
As for the parent's reaction, well, that, IMO, was over the top and really quite self-defeating. Again the adults are just mucking it up for the kids. Don't they vote in the superintendent or is he just appointed? By people that are voted in? Why not take your appropriate action at that time?

I wonder who/if anyone complained in advance to the superintendent...like, what motivated him? Did he just now find "religion" to follow the constitution as he has determined it means? A little town of 13k people causing such a ruckous!

[Violet1966]

I found the town school website. Looking to see if there's any mention of this situation or hints of why it might have happened. http://www.mustangps.org/

Wow now this is weird. They know their ethnic make-up and post it on the site. Weird. http://www.mustangps.org/staticpages/index.php/distprofile-char

Edit: I see now...it's for the community....not the schools exactly.

[jfcjrus]

Is this the opening volly (http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/5139953.html) of the coming backlash?
Yea, I think situations like this are going to define this country in the coming years.

Christians are sick and tired of being dumped upon by non-believers.
Atheists are sick and tired of religious folks forcing their beliefs upon them.
Muslims want to apply their own laws.
And who the hell knows what the Buddists might soon demand!

In THIS country (USA), we profess to be tolerant of ANYONE'S religious beliefs.
We say we believe that anyone can believe in and practice any religion they want. To each his own.
Our charter addresses this freedom.

So, if we all believe in religious freedom of the individual, can someone please tell me WHY we citizens seem to be at each others throats about this?
I can only think of one reason: Some religious folks are trying to force their beliefs upon other religious folks, and such demands are at odds with THE LAWS OF THIS freedom loving LAND.

But, I thought we were beyond all that 15th century nonsense, in this country!

I say to my fellow citizens;
Believe in whatever religion you want, YOU'RE in the land FREE.
And, so am I!
So, you mind your own business (as will I), and neither of us will attempt to use government (common) monies to forward our religious beliefs over one another.

Or else all we'll do is piss each other off, and, we'll never succeed in forcing each other our way, in this land of the free!

I think many folks have forgotten the individual FREEDOM this land is all about.

But, I could be wrong.
Regards,

[joseftu]

I thank God, quite literally, for the always-brilliant, ever-erudite, and completely accurate Frank Rich (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/19/arts/19rich.html?position=&adxnnl=1&oref=login&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1103405048-Omw+Pv24QJH46lYH/xZ5+Q).

Yet if you watch the news and listen to certain politicians, especially since Election Day, you'll hear an ever-growing drumbeat that Christianity is under siege in America. Like Mr. Gibson, the international movie star who portrayed himself as a powerless martyr to a shadowy anti- Christian conspiracy in the run-up to the release of "The Passion," his fellow travelers on the right detect a sinister plot — of secularists, "secular Jews" and "elites" — out to destroy the religion followed by more than four out of every five Americans.


In the latest and most bizarre twist on this theme, even Christmas is now said to be a target of the anti-Christian mob. "Are we going to abolish the word Christmas?" asked Newt Gingrich, warning that "it absolutely can happen here." Among those courageously leading the fight to save the holiday from its enemies is Bill O'Reilly, who has taken to calling the Anti-Defamation League "an extremist group" and put the threat this way: "Remember, more than 90 percent of American homes celebrate Christmas. But the small minority that is trying to impose its will on the majority is so vicious, so dishonest — and has to be dealt with."




If more than 90 percent of American households celebrate Christmas, you have to wonder why the guy is whining. The only evidence of what Pat Buchanan has called Christmas-season "hate crimes against Christianity" consists of a few ridiculous and isolated incidents, like the banishment of a religious float from a parade in Denver and of religious songs from a high school band concert in New Jersey. (In scale, this is nothing compared with the refusal of the world's largest retailer, Wal- Mart, to stock George Carlin's new best seller, "When Will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops?," whose cover depicts its author at the Last Supper.) Yet the hysteria is being pumped up daily by Fox News, newspapers like The New York Post and The Washington Times, and Web sites like savemerrychristmas.org. Mr. O'Reilly and Jerry Falwell have gone so far as to name Michael Bloomberg an anti-Christmas conspirator because the mayor referred to the Christmas tree as a "holiday tree" in the lighting ceremony at Rockefeller Center.




What is this about? How can those in this country's overwhelming religious majority maintain that they are victims in a fiery battle with forces of darkness? It is certainly not about actual victimization. Christmas is as pervasive as it has ever been in America, where it wasn't even declared a federal holiday until after the Civil War. What's really going on here is yet another example of a post-Election-Day winner-takes-all power grab by the "moral values" brigade. As Mr. Gibson shrewdly contrived his own crucifixion all the way to the bank, trumping up nonexistent threats to his movie to hype it, so the creation of imagined enemies and exaggerated threats to Christianity by "moral values" mongers of the right has its own secular purpose. The idea is to intimidate and marginalize anyone who objects to their efforts to impose the most conservative of Christian dogma on public policy. If you're against their views, you don't have a differing opinion — you're anti-Christian (even if you are a Christian).
Of course there's more, and just as right on. I highly recommend the whole column (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/19/arts/19rich.html?position=&adxnnl=1&oref=login&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1103405048-Omw+Pv24QJH46lYH/xZ5+Q).

[cdw]

I don't know who he's been speaking to but this is the first time I have ever heard reference to "the jews" when discussing these instances. I wonder what his motive would be to try and turn the discussion around to somehow the Jews being persecuted or blamed for some ill that doesn't exist.
I also disagree with him that this has anything to do with the recent election. The vanilla-izing (thanks Misu) of Christmas and religion (all kinds) has been going on for years. It has nothing to do with the movies, has nothing to do with TV which are both after the same thing....a large profit margin.

[joseftu]

I don't know who he's been speaking to Matt Staver of the Liberty Counsel (on Fox News):

MAT STAVER: This case, really, talks about the essence of Christmas. Christmas is still constitutional. What happened in this case, it appears, is that the mayor had absolute hostility toward the religious, specifically the Christian, viewpoint of the nativity scene. In this case, the mayor was persistent over several months. The city council cancelled meetings, walked out when this issue came up, in fact, the mayor--
BRIGITTE QUINN (anchor): Mat, why was he hostile?
STAVER: Well, the mayor is apparently Jewish. Unfortunately, this looks like the mayor's particular vendetta against the nativity scene.

William Donahue of the Catholic League (also, not coincidentally, on Fox News):

PAT BUCHANAN: Bill Donahue, what do you think about "The Passion of the Christ"? And as a practical matter, even if Hollywood hated the film, it seems to me as an artistic work of art, a smashing triumph, a film of great controversy and interest, it ought to at least be nominated for best picture. It pulled in more money than any other picture all year.

WILLIAM DONAHUE, PRESIDENT OF THE CATHOLIC LEAGUE: I spoke to Mel a couple of weeks ago about this. And I don't think it really matters a whole lot to him. It certainly doesn't matter to me. We‘ve already won.

Who really cares what Hollywood thinks? All these hacks come out there. Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It's not a secret, OK? And I'm not afraid to say it. That's why they hate this movie. It's about Jesus Christ, and it's about truth. It's about the messiah.
The one and only ethics, right here in this forum:
But Jews will whine about Christmas anyway.And Mr. Mel Gibson, of course.

Those are just a few examples, off the top of my head, from the past week or so. It's been a common refrain.

[cdw]

I know nothing of a controversy regarding Mayor Bloomberg. Didn't see it on Fox or any other station, newspaper blog or in here. I don't see what a movie which is a product of hollywood has anything to do with the discussion.
As you know there happen to be Jewish persons who are against having Christmas referred to. There happen to be a lot of other people who are not Jewish having difficulty with "Christmas". It's nothing new, is my point. Whether someone has pinned the tail on the donkey so to speak regarding Mayor Bloomberg's reason for doing whatever it is he did is correct or not, well, I guess only Mayor Bloomberg answer that?

also, not coincidentally, on Fox News
Not coincidentally? I guess you are trying to put forth the idea that Fox is a biased Christian station or something? Just as you misinterpreted the segment on O'Reilly's program regarding the call in he received from the Jewish man complaining about Christmas and telling him he could go to Israel to avoid it, (I'm sure you didn't hear the whole program), I believe you are projecting regarding Fox.
It's so funny... everyone is being persecuted! It's so damned tiring.
Either way, the thread is not about the movies or hollywood, nor about "The Jews". I disagree with the writers stance that the situation is new or that it has anything to do with the election, regardless of how politicians and movie makers would like to make it so. :)

[MorWired]

I disagree with the writers stance that the situation is new or that it has anything to do with the election, regardless of how politicians and movie makers would like to make it so. :)You are correct that how to celebrate the holidays, and which holidays, and how much to celeberate them, has been a long-time subject. However, through the process of this past election there has been an almost "militarizing" effect (for distinct lack of a better word, not to be taken literally) of fundamentalist Christian groups. These people feel emboldened and empowered because GWB is so vocal about his own evangelical Christianity, and there is a mindset that this election was a "moral victory" for the fundamentalist Christians, and that now their viewpoints and desired changes will be more prominent and given increased weight and consideration above all others.

I posted articles here around the time of the election, where leaders of various fundamental Christian organizations were quoted as saying that they consider GWB to be "their" president and that their special interests are being taken directly to him for special consideration. That's what's new about this, not the nativity scene "controversy."

[cdw]

Seems to me it's a lot of talk and that is just about it. I don't know...have big favors been done for the fundamentalists since the election? Perhaps the pointing out about the election and the favors the fundalmentalists will garner is sort of a pre-emptive move from the "other side"?
The people here on the board certainly are not fundalmentalists and they see something happening, that has been going on for some time. They are voicing their discomfort with it...so why are we bringing fundamentalists, GWB and the election into it?
Perhaps I'm missing something. Are we back to blaming Bush for the actions of others?

[joseftu]

Just as you misinterpreted the segment on O'Reilly's program regarding the call in he received from the Jewish man complaining about Christmas and telling him he could go to Israel to avoid it, (I'm sure you didn't hear the whole program), I believe you are projecting regarding Fox.Actually, I did hear the whole program (did you?). I didn't misinterpret at all. And the quote about the mayor I posted above was not referring to Bloomberg (although that wasn't quite clear in my post), but to the mayor of Bay Harbor Island Florida--the subject of one of the threads (about the nativity scene) right here at GA.

[ravital]

Those are just a few examples, off the top of my head, from the past week or so. It's been a common refrain. Blaming Jews for this has been a common refrain from the past week.. where, here in GA or in the media in general?

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
A teacher in a classroom in America was introducing his students to the concept of "theme" vs. "topic." He announced he was going to provide a theme, and every student woud pick a topic around the theme, and write an essay on their chosen topic. He then announced the theme: Elephant. Then, he asked the students to come up with topics dealing with the theme.

A girl, whose name for the purpose of this demonstration could be Smith or Jones, raised her hand and offered, "How about the elephant, as one of the oldest mammals on earth, the evolution of the elephant, and such?" The teacher replied, "Very good, that's the idea, good topic. Anyone else?"

A boy, whose name for the purpose of this story could be Garcia, Mariano, O'Neil, whatever, raised his hand and said, "The elephant as a victim of its own tusks, the ivory trade, poaching, extinction..." The teacher replied, "Excellent, that's the idea, go ahead and write about that. Anyone else?"

A boy whose name for this story could be (pick a Jewish name) raised his hand and said, "The elephant and the Jewish question."
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

And that, dear friend, is what Frank Rich has done, as well as the other sources you quote.

A little critical reasoning, Joe: If I provide evidence that Stalin, Mussolini and Hitler have all said at some point in their lives, that 2+2=4, and I say I agree with that, does that make me Stalin, Mussolini or Hitler?

Similarly, if "the Mayor is Jewish," does it absolutely have to preclude any possiblity that he acted on some anti-Christian emotional impulse? Why? Because according to PC orthodoxy, Jews never, never have an axe to grind, and are always driven by pure and innocent motives?

I am immensely flattered, that you thought so highly of Frank Rich's argument of imaginary oppression as to quote it and shower him with accolades, as I presented exactly the same argument nearly a week before his column was printed. (http://www.globalaffairs.org/forum/showpost.php?p=274927&postcount=77) That doesn't make his obfuscation any less obvious or less transparent. This has absolutely zero to do with Gibson's "Passion" (and it should be no secret that the Jewish establishment in Roman-occupied Palestine had qualms about a carpenter from Nazareth exposing their hypocricies and challenging their power), or clowns like Buchanan and O'Reilly (who don't even deserve the honor bestowed on them by folks like Rich fearing them and demonizing them so much), or the election results (which have as much to do with so-called "moral values" as the elephant has to do with "the Jewish question"). Smokescreen after smokescreen - something the NY Times Op-Ed page has excelled at for years. Either Frank Rich doesn't have the erudition to argue constitutionality effectively to prove his point, or he's versed enough in constitutional argument to concede that he can't prove his point on constitutional grounds alone, so he turns to the old reliable standby canard - Antisemitism. Shame on him.

My confidence in Jewish values is strong enough to not crumble anytime some idiot launches false accusations. I address valid criticism when I see it, concede the faults and failures when properly demonstrated, and ignore the shills. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions about his inability to do the same.

At any rate, thank you for once again reminding me why I canceled a longstanding 7-day/week subscription to that rag.

I'm not going to say that no one is "after the Jews again." On very rare occasions, they might even be correct on the facts. But this is about absolutely nothing but the "elephant and the Jewish question."

[joseftu]

Blaming Jews for this has been a common refrain from the past week.. where, here in GA or in the media in general?In the media in general. And for longer than the past week. I just chose examples from the past week because that was easiest.

Here at GA, I've seen very little sign of it. Or I wouldn't be here at all.

[cdw]

Actually, I did hear the whole program (did you?). I didn't misinterpret at all. And the quote about the mayor I posted above was not referring to Bloomberg (although that wasn't quite clear in my post), but to the mayor of Bay Harbor Island Florida--the subject of one of the threads (about the nativity scene) right here at GA.

Yes, I did. As well as the follow up programs on his radio show where he quite clearly explained what was said, in reference to what, and what he meant. It was quite enlightening and I will have to say that yes, you are trying to interprete it into some other meaning than was there. Of course, you may know better what he meant than he does. But in listening to the original show and the follow up shows I found nothing insulting nor anti-semetic about his remarks.

As to your other point, just as we are all able to assume a particular motivation for something someone has said, doesn't mean the person making the assumption is correct. Perhaps the person is prejudiced? I don't know.
I just know the majority of the discussion, that I have heard and participated in, has nothing to do with the Jews. I think most of of us, especially here and the circles I associate with, understand that even Jews are individuals...have different opinions and ways of looking at things. Imagine that!

I disagree with the gentleman you linked to and feel is stating something meaningful. I guess that means we disagree.

[ravital]

Here at GA, I've seen very little sign of it. Or I wouldn't be here at all. Nor would I. It would be a pure waste of time.

I hate to go OT and beat (what at least I consider to be) a dead horse, but... Here's something about Frank Rich that I honestly didn't know, but it explains so much. And I'll tell you in all fairness, that I am quoting a very small part of the full article, (http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/index.cfm/action/tikkun/issue/tik9905/article/990521.html) which I recommend everyone read - though it's not directly related to this particular topic:


I get some incredible mail that cracks up my teenage sons; the letters begin "Dear Jew." I keep a file of anti-Semitic mail and show it to my kids for their amusement. I've thought a lot about where my motivation comes from because I've certainly not been a victim of anti-Semitism.
Tell me this guy doesn't need therapy...

[MorWired]

Are we back to blaming Bush for the actions of others?What "blaming"? My only reference to GWB was factual, there was no "blame" involved.

[cdw]

Excellent pass at answering the questions! Wonder how far off track we can get this thread, lol.

[MorWired]

Excellent pass at answering the questions! Wonder how far off track we can get this thread, lol.Perhaps this time it's me who's "missing something." You asked if my post was "another attempt to blame Bush," and, since my post didn't blame him for anything, I asked "what blame"? Without any clarification, you state the thread is going off track; if true, it isn't through my efforts.

[joseftu]

Nor would I. It would be a pure waste of time.

I hate to go OT and beat (what at least I consider to be) a dead horse, but... Here's something about Frank Rich that I honestly didn't know, but it explains so much. And I'll tell you in all fairness, that I am quoting a very small part of the full article, (http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/index.cfm/action/tikkun/issue/tik9905/article/990521.html) which I recommend everyone read - though it's not directly related to this particular topic:

Tell me this guy doesn't need therapy...Thanks! I had missed that interview, and it makes me admire Rich even more than before. He comes across as a very thoughtful, interesting, and perceptive analyst, as was already evident from his columns.

[Coot]

I hate to go OT and beat (what at least I consider to be) a dead horse, but... Here's something about Frank Rich that I honestly didn't know, but it explains so much. And I'll tell you in all fairness, that I am quoting a very small part of the full article, (http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/index.cfm/action/tikkun/issue/tik9905/article/990521.html) which I recommend everyone read - though it's not directly related to this particular topic:

Tell me this guy doesn't need therapy...

I can't tell you he doesn't need therapy, but I can say that therapy might not go far enough. Based on that interview, Frank Rich belongs right at the top of his own list of bloviators...grab some facts, stir in some shit for body and we have a highbrow muckraker who apparently hasn't strayed far from his journalistic roots.

[ravital]

These people feel emboldened and empowered because GWB is so vocal about his own evangelical Christianity, and there is a mindset that this election was a "moral victory" for the fundamentalist Christians, and that now their viewpoints and desired changes will be more prominent and given increased weight and consideration above all others.
Not as OT as anyone might think, in fact.

Because here we have it all. The real reason for all these shananigans: "These people feel emboldened."

First, in what whas is GWB "vocal" about Christianity? In the few press conferences and other appearances he makes, how much and how often does he talk about his religion? Why can Joe Lieberman quote directly from the Old Testament at a campaign stop, call "the Lord's name in vain" 11 times in 3 minutes and get a free pass from the press, but no one can foget (or forgive, it seems) that GWB once said Christ was an influence on him (one of many) two years before he was President?

The answer is simple, and it's in Frank Rich's column that Joe quoted from: Exaggerate the threat, make it look like an assault, magnify it into an oppression, and voilá! You've made an argument that you don't need to prove or explain.

These people feel "emboldened?" I'm sure they do. The "threat" of GWB draggin all of us into Church kicking and screaming has been turned into a mantra by pseudo-liberals (visit Joe's blog today if you want to find out what that is). So the religious right's response is - "Hey, you think this president is promoting Christianity? Well then, now that this pony has won a second term, we're gonna ride him to the finish line, precisely because he discombobulates you so."

I mean, the nerve of "these people," to engage in political activism, to vote, even! How dare they?

It's not the School Superintendent acting stupidly on his emotional bias. It's the President talking about God every morning and evening in all newspapers and on national TV. It's not that there's a flaw in our argument, it's "their" inferior intellect unable to grasp it. It's never us, "it's them."

And nothing new under the sun.

[ravital]

I can't tell you he doesn't need therapy, but I can say that therapy might not go far enough. Based on that interview, Frank Rich belongs right at the top of his own list of bloviators...grab some facts, stir in some shit for body and we have a highbrow muckraker who apparently hasn't strayed far from his journalistic roots.
Not to mention, perhaps a better question would be, how much therapy his kids would need after this steady diet of cognitive dissonance.

[MorWired]

You are correct that how to celebrate the holidays, and which holidays, and how much to celeberate them, has been a long-time subject. However, through the process of this past election there has been an almost "militarizing" effect (for distinct lack of a better word, not to be taken literally) of fundamentalist Christian groups. These people feel emboldened and empowered because GWB is so vocal about his own evangelical Christianity, and there is a mindset that this election was a "moral victory" for the fundamentalist Christians, and that now their viewpoints and desired changes will be more prominent and given increased weight and consideration above all others.

I posted articles here around the time of the election, where leaders of various fundamental Christian organizations were quoted as saying that they consider GWB to be "their" president and that their special interests are being taken directly to him for special consideration. That's what's new about this, not the nativity scene "controversy."
.Not as OT as anyone might think, in fact.

Because here we have it all. The real reason for all these shananigans: "These people feel emboldened."

....

These people feel "emboldened?"

....

I mean, the nerve of "these people," to engage in political activism, to vote, even! How dare they?

....

It's not that there's a flaw in our argument, it's "their" inferior intellect unable to grasp it. It's never us, "it's them."

And nothing new under the sun.Very nice touch taking my perfectly innocuous turn of phrase out of context (just how many times would you like me to redundandtly refer to "these people" as "fundamentalist Christian groups" within the space of two sentences?) and twist it into your own warped meaning that I never intended and would NEVER use as such.

"Nothing new under the sun," indeed.

[ravital]

.Very nice touch taking my perfectly innocuous turn of phrase out of context (just how many times would you like me to redundandtly refer to "these people" as "fundamentalist Christian groups" within the space of two sentences?) and twist it into your own warped meaning that I never intended and would NEVER use as such.

What you call a warped meaning and "taking out of context" was not a derogatory reference to you.

It is a fact (and one that you have denied consistently), that Christians of all stripes are identified with fundamentalism and the "religious right" - whatever that means this week - and derided as such, in the media, among circles of opposing viewpoints. I was deriding their own double standard, according to which, the blessings of a vote should belong only to them, while "these people" are unfit to vote, unfit to engage in activism. That was what I meant.

Predictably, you seized on it as an excuse to avoid answering the question, "in what ways is GWB vocal about his religion?"

Damn, I'd be Bill Gates if I had a penny for every time I've seen you do that.


"Nothing new under the sun," indeed.
You have a problem with my posts. Nobody cares. Not even me. Give it a rest.

[Suchaknight]

Does anyone else think the apparent inconsistencies in this scenario are odd? I.e., why ban a Nativity scene, but allow a Christmas play, and the singing of Silent Night?

[MorWired]

What you call a warped meaning and "taking out of context" was not a derogatory reference to you.

It is a fact (and one that you have denied consistently), that Christians of all stripes are identified with fundamentalism and the "religious right" - whatever that means this week - and derided as such, in the media, among circles of opposing viewpoints. I was deriding their own double standard, according to which, the blessings of a vote should belong only to them, while "these people" are unfit to vote, unfit to engage in activism. That was what I meant.Ok, so, when you quoted my words repeatedly and changed how I meant them it wasn't about me at all. Gotcha.
.Predictably, you seized on it as an excuse to avoid answering the question, "in what ways is GWB vocal about his religion?"It struck me as rather rhetorical, but whatever. Without spending a whole lot of time on this, how does a Constitutional Amendment furthering those beliefs grab ya? I think that's a pretty vocal representation, but maybe that's just me.
.You have a problem with my posts. Nobody cares. Not even me. Give it a rest.Funny, it might be worth noting that I, as a matter of policy, NEVER reply to your posts except to defend myself, therefore, by definition, I NEVER start this. Check the mirror before posting accusations.

[Arc]

...Wonder how far off track we can get this thread, lol.

Good point! Yes, what was the topic again? A backlash to alleged Christian bashing and demeaning? Or is it about Frank Rich? Maybe it is George Bush’s supposed religious views? Maybe it is about individual members? Call me crazy but I would pick the first choice. Doesn’t matter much now.

Who is Frank Rich?

He is a full-time professional writer, bigot, stealth victim and master of the double standard for the New York Times. He is a lighting rod for controversy. The man's dearest wish is to die in his own arms.

Rich’s posted position stripped down to the heart is that those claiming Christian bashing and persecution also claim that Christians make up 90 percent of the population. (Well actually he is quoting O’Reilly whom Rich and the Times literally despise and hate. So take the 90 percent “quote” with a grain of salt.) Rich asks rhetorically how is it possible that the 90 percent could be terrorized by the 10 percent? (He should be asking the courts, bureaucrats, academia, ACLU and the MSM—led by his personal guardian teat, the NYT!) Obviously, according to Rich’s inferred logic it can’t be true. Those who claim it is, including Christians, are delusional. Just a bunch of whiners or all feeble-minded. (Hmm, Frank, is there a theme here?)

Mr. Rich is an extremely intelligent and well-educated man, (by academic standards anyway), who writes his opinion on just about everything in American culture, (he is an expert on everything you see! Just ask him or his fans and the rest of those who worship at the alter of the Times.)

Rich is the darling of the far left, socialists, MSM, academia, and also many well-read liberal bigots who are anti-Christian. (The well-read right wing Christian bigots look elsewhere for their inspiration.) He is to culture what Klugman of the Times is to politics. (No, that is not a compliment.)

People like Rich on the left and the Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson types on the right are certainly capable of saying something true and right on, and sometimes do. An argument or “message” must stand on its merit and not on the credibility of the messenger. But whether they are right or wrong the motives of the aforementioned often leave much to be desired. Our topic man of the hour, Rich, usually has motives that are unbearable.

At this point one might rhetorically ask why was Frank Rich’s standard predictable boilerplate opinion and agenda brought into this thread or topic. What does his opinions in his article have to do with what happen in Oklahoma? I am sure the folks in Mustang would be tickled pink to have Rich come on down and explain it to them. Well, 90 percent of them anyway.

“Good Holiday Spirit” to all.

[ravital]

Good point! Yes, what was the topic again? A backlash to alleged Christian bashing and demeaning? Or is it about Frank Rich?
Well, you did in fact, give excellent reasons why Frank Rich is a primary example of part of the problem. Therefore the backlash, if that's what we're seeing first signs of, is not completely unjustified.

Which doesn't make anyone any happier, I'm sure.

[Violet1966]

Very well put OD. In my interest to find out what this Frank Rich is all about, I found a few things interesting about him. First and foremost...he's a hypocrite and he seems to be anti-Christian as all hell. A few things have been tossed into the mix here. One was government..the next was Frank Rich. Well where does Frank Rich stand on issues that show respect to other cultures or religions? He wants people to believe he's all about rights...like when he critized Rudolph Guilliani for denying funds for the Brooklyn Museum's exhibit which was showing a piece depicting The Holy Mother, Mary, in shit. One of the most sacred figures in Christianity...the mother of our Lord Jesus...painted in shit. He went to bat to defend that right to have that shit take place...but he whines and bitches and moans over Mel Gibson showing his artistic freedom in a film???? Hypocrite. :shake:

So if we're going to talk that this Frank Rich is somehow proving a point that there really is no Christian bashing going on....let's not. It's an insult. He could care less what anyone did to Christianity as long as it didn't threaten him in any way. A better man would have had respect for his fellow man.

Few links to tell the story of this hypocrisy. http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/003259.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1091412/posts
http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=2388
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/georgewill/gw20010222.shtml
And we take what Mel Gibson says so literally? Sure there were atrocities against people throughout time.

http://img94.exs.cx/img94/9995/jesus4wn.gif

Unconstitutional to allow our government to deny funding to those who try and degrade something very sacred to a large part of this country? And btw...this museum thing happened before Bush was in office. He had nothing to do with it.

[ravital]

The following is all ON topic:


Ok, so, when you quoted my words repeatedly and changed how I meant them it wasn't about me at all. Gotcha.


I don't know about "repeatedly" - I have a limited intellect and deal with one post at a time. Specifically, this time, you have put forward the claim that the religious right feels emboldened, supposedly because of the president's frequent pronouncements on his own faith.

This is relevant to the discussion of this backlash. You may or may not have meant it as such (I suspect you did), but the fact is, that most people who support your view get extremely annoyed and animated when the religious right feels, as you say, "emboldened." What you call emboldened, is in fact, people exercising their right to political activism in America. People who support your view can't stand it. Can't stand that they have the gall to avail themselves of the same means. Against my better actual experience, I don't necessarily attribute that sentiment to you, but it is perfectly legitimate in a debate, to respond to that sentiment as such.




It struck me as rather rhetorical, but whatever. Without spending a whole lot of time on this, how does a Constitutional Amendment furthering those beliefs grab ya? I think that's a pretty vocal representation, but maybe that's just me.
When I heard of the proposed Constitutional Amendment, I slapped my visceral computer, and it responded that this never stood a snowball's chance in hell. It was put forward mere weeks before the election, clearly as a ploy, a bone tossed to his religious-conservative base, for votes. No doubt, people who support your view eagerly magnified it all out of proportion, and no doubt they'll continue to bring it up again and again. And in doing so, they will again invent an imaginary oppression, in the hope that the perception of oppression will confer an illusion of credibility to their position. That, too, is part of the Culture Wars, of which the backlash discussed here is a small, but significant part.

However, let's not lose sight of the fact that since the proposal failed, it's difficult to argue how even the dumbest doorknob in the West Wing, having access to much more sophisticated political prediction tools than my simple visceral computer, could have imagined this pretense of a proposal to amend the Constitution ever was for real.

So again, since you said GWB was "vocal" about his religion, the question is, how frequently or forcefully does he bring it up? One political act a few weeks before the election, with next-to-zero chances of success, is nil. It sounds to me like hype, sensationalist exaggeration, again, strictly for the purpose of inventing some imaginary oppression, from which to draw an illusion of credibility. Just so people who support your view can point at something and say "see, we toldya so." And it is legitimate in a debate to expose such a pretense for what it is.

That's not referring to you, but to people who support your position.

That's not referring to you, but to people who support your position.

That's not referring to you, but to people who support your position.

Is that clear enough?

The following, is a personal note: You react negatively when I say "good morning" because I'm the one who says it. That is not my problem, and I don't intend to tiptoe around your posts, for fear of your interpretation or perception of what may "appear" offensive to you. I responded with arguments to what you offered. And when I feel the situation calls for it, I do and will continue to respond with sarcasm, directed at arguments you present, not because YOU present them, but because they are representative of a fairly large segment, of which I obviously don't think much. It's my right, and it's not about you all the time. I'm interested in responding to arguments, not to accusations, and if you have to read an offense into every response, that's your problem - put me on ignore, respond to me by PM, email your congressman, stick pins in your ravital doll, whatever, but please stop the public harassment. Not that it bothers me, but it obviously bothers others, and has no place here.

[MorWired]

When I heard of the proposed Constitutional Amendment, I slapped my visceral computer, and it responded that this never stood a snowball's chance in hell. It was put forward mere weeks before the election, clearly as a ploy, a bone tossed to his religious-conservative base, for votes. No doubt, people who support your view eagerly magnified it all out of proportion, and no doubt they'll continue to bring it up again and again. And in doing so, they will again invent an imaginary oppression, in the hope that the perception of oppression will confer an illusion of credibility to their position. That, too, is part of the Culture Wars, of which the backlash discussed here is a small, but significant part.

However, let's not lose sight of the fact that since the proposal failed, it's difficult to argue how even the dumbest doorknob in the West Wing, having access to much more sophisticated political prediction tools than my simple visceral computer, could have imagined this pretense of a proposal to amend the Constitution ever was for real.So you find nothing wrong with a manipulative and cynical waste of Congressional time and resources to pursue a Constitutional Amendment solely to garner votes? Hmmm...

And, incidentally, according to the Christian Broadcasting Network, and Karl Rove (apparently, per your specifications he's dumber than your average "West Wing doorknob"), the fight for this Amendment is not over.
.http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/news/041108b.asp

President Bush Plans to Fulfill Conservative Agenda

By Paul Strand
Washington Sr. Correspondent
November 8, 2004

CBN.com – WASHINGTON - Despite calls from Democrats and liberals to moderate his positions, President Bush is planning to move ahead with his conservative agenda. And that agenda includes a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage.

In fact, it looks like he is not going to shy away from any items on the conservative wish list. For instance, he is considering serious tax reform, including a complete review of the tax code.

In addition, he is likely to push again for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would ban gay marriage.

Karl Rove, the architect of Bush's re-election, told Fox News Sunday, "Marriage ought to be and should be, the union of a man and a woman, and we cannot allow activist judges to overturn that. We cannot allow activist local elected officials to thumb their nose at 5,000 years of human history and determine that marriage is something else. And the people have a right to be involved. And since this was forced upon the political process by activist judges, we need to do everything we can to keep it from being decided by activist judges." Either this was a cynical waste or it's a sincere effort to alter the Constitution to forward a specific religious agenda -- either way, not a good thing for this country.
. That's not referring to you, but to people who support your position.

That's not referring to you, but to people who support your position.

That's not referring to you, but to people who support your position.

Is that clear enough?


The following, is a personal note: You react negatively when I say "good morning" because I'm the one who says it. That is not my problem, and I don't intend to tiptoe around your posts, for fear of your interpretation or perception of what may "appear" offensive to you. I responded with arguments to what you offered. And when I feel the situation calls for it, I do and will continue to respond with sarcasm, directed at arguments you present, not because YOU present them, but because they are representative of a fairly large segment, of which I obviously don't think much. It's my right, and it's not about you all the time. I'm interested in responding to arguments, not to accusations, and if you have to read an offense into every response, that's your problem - put me on ignore, respond to me by PM, email your congressman, stick pins in your ravital doll, whatever, but please stop the public harassment. Not that it bothers me, but it obviously bothers others, and has no place here.As I stated (and as can be easily verified), I ONLY respond to your posts to defend myself against your attacks -- so one might ask just exactly who is harrassing whom.

[ShinyTop]

radical twerps

coterie of pinheads

radical seculars

I note that the above descriptions are all worded so that no one individual or poster on this forum can take exception that they themselves have been attacked. And yet I, and I suspect others that I cannot speak for, have many beliefs in common with those derided with the above comments.

Considering the other recent thread in this forum about religion I know that the thinking posters on this forum do not believe that I, Morwired, or Joe believe that it is right to include some religious symbols and remove the Nativity Scene. Speaking for myself, none of the religious symbols should have been allowed.

Intentional repeat of paragraph since the same idea espoused by the same people was ignored in the previous thread:

Considering the other recent thread in this forum about religion I know that the thinking posters on this forum do not believe that I, Morwired, or Joe believe that it is right to include some religious symbols and remove the Nativity Scene. Speaking for myself, none of the religious symbols should have been allowed.

I did note that some posters were trying to inject a note of reason in this thread. In particular this by jfcjrus:
I say to my fellow citizens;
Believe in whatever religion you want, YOU'RE in the land FREE.
And, so am I!
So, you mind your own business (as will I), and neither of us will attempt to use government (common) monies to forward our religious beliefs over one another.


I subscribe whole heartedly to the sentiments expressed by jfcjrus and I think those sentiments have been consistently expressed by me, although never quite as succinctly.

It is a fact (and one that you have denied consistently), that Christians of all stripes are identified with fundamentalism and the "religious right" - whatever that means this week - and derided as such, in the media, among circles of opposing viewpoints. I was deriding their own double standard, according to which, the blessings of a vote should belong only to them, while "these people" are unfit to vote, unfit to engage in activism. That was what I meant.

Secularists are not permitted to identify all religious people with the broad brush expressed above but fully half the posts in this thread have identified all secularists as being of the same ilk, of the same opinion, and of supporting the decision that started this thread. And I know you have read differently from every member of this forum who claims to be a secularists. So are these posts merely rants against secularists or are they theoretically countering what we stand for and have proposed. Frankly the positions attacked bear little, and often no, resemblance to any position taken by a member of this forum. Am I denying such people exist? Hell no. But if we start to attack religious positions with nothing but the positions of the religious fundies we would be as way off base as these attacks are.

On every other subject I see in this forum many come forth to decry painting the opposition in the worse possible light rather than having reasoned discussion.

And then we have this:
When I heard of the proposed Constitutional Amendment, I slapped my visceral computer, and it responded that this never stood a snowball's chance in hell. It was put forward mere weeks before the election, clearly as a ploy, a bone tossed to his religious-conservative base, for votes. No doubt, people who support your view eagerly magnified it all out of proportion, and no doubt they'll continue to bring it up again and again.

I only hope all remember that line when you are later attacking a stupidly bad position by a secularist who is only making a political statement. I guess we all need to just ignore things said by the other side since we can excuse them with it was just a political ploy. Damn, I am so sorry I missed that, it was so obvious and none of us should have assumed the sentiments expressed actually represented the view of the man who made them. Their expression should have been ignored as hyperbole and do not mean he is for the thought presented. No, not at all.



I am extremely disheartened by the majority of people on this forum equating leaving religious expression out of schools is any attempt to deny them the celebration of Christmas or any other of their beliefs. That is hysteria, pure and simple. Those who really believe taking the few hours of religious matter out of schools keeps them from practicing their religion are the ones using hysterical argument, are the people who are trying to scare the population. And that will go back and forth for quite a while.

I have never said the country will disintegrate or die if it is not changed. I have said it is wrong and contrary to the standards expressed in our founding documents. I have expressed what harm it can do and the only arguments presented in opposition have gone to extremes to paint what I and others have said as totally different.

Well, you know what. the continuing use of sarcasm, broad brush labeling, and out and out misrepresentation of the arguments made by forum members , which is what I thought was discussion, has gotten so bad that I surrender. I give up trying to actually talk on this forum about this subject. Too many otherwise thoughtful people go ape and will not engage in the discussion with thoughts actually presented by the opposition. I will just have to consider the religious threads as invitations to rant and to engage in hyperbole.

[Sierra Mike]

You're not a pinhead, Shiny, but if my choice of phrase was offensive to you, I apologize. I didn't mean anyone here...nor could it reasonably be inferred that I had. :)

SM

[joseftu]

He wants people to believe he's all about rights...like when he critized Rudolph Guilliani for denying funds for the Brooklyn Museum's exhibit which was showing a piece depicting The Holy Mother, Mary, in shit. One of the most sacred figures in Christianity...the mother of our Lord Jesus...painted in shit. He went to bat to defend that right to have that shit take place.I hate to take this even more off-topic, but this example really is relevant. I saw that art work, and you're completely mischaracterizing it--it was not disrespectful, or "painted in shit" in the slightest. Frank Rich's defense was absolutely right and correct, and I honor him for it.

But in any case, like it or not, feel offended by it or not, Chris Ofili's piece (like any work of art) has to be seen in context (and seen!), and not condemned simply because it makes use of symbols.

And (like any piece of art) the appropriate response if you don't like it, or if it offends you, is to criticize it, protest, let people know how you feel....but not to withdraw funding from the museum, trying to prevent everybody from seeing all the art that museum has to offer. That's an act for which Giuliani should never be forgiven.

And that's where it's relevant to this thread. Withdrawing funds from a museum because you don't like one piece of art in it is the same as withdrawing funds from a school district because you don't like the holiday display. It deserves no respect or support whatsoever. Even to call such an act a "backlash" is to imply that it's somehow justified, or understandable. But it's not. It's wrong. And it should be called that.

The people in this school district who voted this way, like Giuliani, want to impose their own opinions on the children of their own school district. And like a petulant child, like Giuliani, they're saying "NO. I don't like it. Nobody can have any if I don't like it. I'll ruin it for everyone!" They are blaming, and hurting, the innocent, on the "altar" of their own prejudices and righteous (although unjustified) anger.

In this country, we don't burn books, we don't shut museums, we don't withdraw support from education, just because we don't agree with them. At least we shouldn't. But that danger is real, it's approaching, and it's not the fault of those of us who oppose it. It's the fault of the malicious, ignorant, few who want to do it.

[joseftu]

Considering the other recent thread in this forum about religion I know that the thinking posters on this forum do not believe that I, Morwired, or Joe believe that it is right to include some religious symbols and remove the Nativity Scene. Speaking for myself, none of the religious symbols should have been allowed.

Intentional repeat of paragraph since the same idea espoused by the same people was ignored in the previous thread:

Considering the other recent thread in this forum about religion I know that the thinking posters on this forum do not believe that I, Morwired, or Joe believe that it is right to include some religious symbols and remove the Nativity Scene. Speaking for myself, none of the religious symbols should have been allowed.It was worth repeating that paragraph twice, and I certainly approve of your speaking for me, there.

I didn't mean anyone here...nor could it reasonably be inferred that I had. :)Good to know that we're not pinheads...just unreasonable! ;)

[Doctor Dan]

Considering the other recent thread in this forum about religion I know that the thinking posters on this forum do not believe that I, Morwired, or Joe believe that it is right to include some religious symbols and remove the Nativity Scene. Speaking for myself, none of the religious symbols should have been allowed.

I agree with you completely, in fact, I believe that public schools should be completely "religion neutral." If Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. is an integral component of your family's life, that's fine: celebrate it in your home and send your kids to religious school on the weekends.

Needless to say, considering our world standing (or lack thereof) in science and mathematics skills, we should spend less time on school Christmas pageants and more time on core education.

- Dan

[MorWired]

I agree with you completely, in fact, I believe that public schools should be completely "religion neutral." If Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. is an integral component of your family's life, that's fine: celebrate it in your home and send your kids to religious school on the weekends.Precisely. Or send your kids to a religious school in the first place.
.Needless to say, considering our world standing (or lack thereof) in science and mathematics skills, we should spend less time on school Christmas pageants and more time on core education.

- DanTrue that. Unfortunately, once you get done arguing about Christmas pageants then we get to start arguing about what REALLY constitues "science," and other endless distractions from the actual business of education abound.

[ravital]

So you find nothing wrong with a manipulative and cynical waste of Congressional time and resources to pursue a Constitutional Amendment solely to garner votes? Hmmm...
Cyical, manipulative, wasteful, yes, wrong on many levels, please don't interpret or misinterpret for me (Hmmmm?????) and no different than what has been done by any past president in the last 30 years or more.




And, incidentally, according to the Christian Broadcasting Network, and Karl Rove (apparently, per your specifications he's dumber than your average "West Wing doorknob"), the fight for this Amendment is not over.
Once again, you named him, I did not. Once again, I'll be responsible for what I say, not for anyone's interpretations. He's a politician, what do you expect him to do? Every time a gun control measure fails, Chuck Shumer says "it's not over." SO WHAT?

But according to people who support your view, it's the height of aniticonstitutional despotic pronouncements, when a conservative politician exercises his right to use the same rhetorical devices that everyone else uses, and the planet must come to a complete stop. As usual, one rule for them, one rule for everyone else.

[ravital]

I hate to take this even more off-topic, but this example really is relevant. I saw that art work, and you're completely mischaracterizing it--it was not disrespectful, or "painted in shit" in the slightest. Frank Rich's defense was absolutely right and correct, and I honor him for it.

But in any case, like it or not, feel offended by it or not, Chris Ofili's piece (like any work of art) has to be seen in context (and seen!), and not condemned simply because it makes use of symbols. Very true, very accurate. Just like the "pissed Christ" photograph that appeared first in a publication funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities and the National Endowment for the Arts. Context is everything in this case.

And if you don't mind, I believe it was MorWired who offered the very relevant argument, that the mere fact that something can be interpreted by a lerge group of people as offensive, should be enough to consider it proper to remove it from publicly-funded displays or forums.

So without saying whether I agree or disagree, I ask you this honest question: Why the double standard? Why is it reprehensible to deny public funding to a museum, displaying something you yourself admit is out of context, which according to MorWired's test will indeed offend many people, yet perfectly fine and good to remove a nativity scene from a school celebration, that may offend just a few? Because the offended in the former case are Christians, and the offended in the latter are non-Christians?

Thank you so much for proving my point. Q.E.D.

[ravital]

I note that the above descriptions are all worded so that no one individual or poster on this forum can take exception that they themselves have been attacked. And yet I, and I suspect others that I cannot speak for, have many beliefs in common with those derided with the above comments.
You imply that there is either a conspiracy of sorts, or a hypocritical effort, to paint specific members here with a wide brush applied to other sources "out there." Speaking for myself only, nothing could be further from the truth.

I happen to share your principles in many respects, but I'm not a carbon-copy of you. No one is. This is not a "red room" or a "blue room." There will always be legitimate differences between debaters. No rule of either this forum or debate anywhere, forbids anyone from honestly and openly expressing an opinion of the trends and ideas touted by the media. Anyone who can't stand the heat needs to stay off the op-ed pages, because the same right that SM has to refer to them as pinheads is the right Frank Rich wraps himself in to refer to others in his own colorful metaphores.

So I would be immensely grateful to you, if you didn't engage in what you decry - if you didn't use the same wide brushes on those of us who disagree with you, and attribute to us motives we don't have. You and others are respected members here, I and others have a political/ideological disagreement with you, that's all there is to it. I am as forceful and sarcastic about the Frank Riches of the world as I have seen you express yourself on other similarly prominent figures.

And I would like to repeat to you, because I believe you missed it the first time, that there is a universe of differences between your motives and the motives of those we criticize here. You are driven by your well-based understanding of Constitutional principles, on which reasonable people may disagree. They are driven by pettiness, and you do them too much honor when you elevate them to your level.

I refuse, for example, to allow the ACLU or the ADL to hijack my principles. Similarly, you might want to consider whether your principles, which again, I share, are not being hijacked by petty minds who throw themselves on the Constitution - when it suits them, when it's politically expedient and serves their purposes, who will discard you and your support like a used Kleenex when they don't need you anymore.

As to the rest: I am very sorry if my lack of hysteria over an obvious political ploy (such as the marriage Constitutional amendment) makes me unfit for rational discussion with you or anyone. I am sorry that I don't get animated, when everything in creation tells me the threat is so minimal as to be laughable. I am very sorry that I don't pour my wrath on an idiot like Bill O'Rilley, for telling someone to move to Israel if he doesn't want to see Christmas trees. I'm very sorry that it makes me some sort of religious zealot, that I refuse to elevate him to the level of a meaningful factor in polemics, when I don't consider him worthy of my attention.

I pick my battles a little more judiciously, and reserve the heavy artillery to occasions and issues where they will make a difference. If using a cannon to kill a mosquito is the mark of civic responsibility and awareness, I have failed miserably, and you are justified in using the widest brush possible, and lumping me with religious zealots trying to advance their own tyranny.

And when you, Joe and MorWired deny yourselves the use of legal tender with the letters "G, O, D" on it, it might actually mean something.

[ShinyTop]

And when you, Joe and MorWired deny yourselves the use of legal tender with the letters "G, O, D" on it, it might actually mean something.


What a load of crap. So by your example carried to its logical extreme those that object to taxes should quit paying, those objecting to sales tax should not buy anything and those objecting to property taxes should forfeit all their property for their arguments to mean something.

With reference to hyperbole may I submit the following:

Of course, as far as the PC orthodoxy is concerned, such laments are proof of cowardice, on the part of those of us who never saw a problem with nativity scenes and such in the first place. Presumably, we fear the cost of defending something so self-evidently and axiomatically right, so unquestionably noble, that it never even needs to be explained. But someone has yet to explain to me, the nobility of frustrating children and parents in the celebration of holidays that have so much more to do with tradition, than religion. Unlike such all-knowing do-gooders, I can't profess to know what thoughts the Founding Fathers entertained, but this couldn't possibly be it.

I strongly suspect the founding fathers would not have approved of anybody telling any religion just to suck it up and quit complaining. I strongly suspect that none of them would have felt not having nativity scenes at public schools restricted their ability to worship their god in their choice of religion.


Your hyperbole, the above is only one example, belies your position that you state here:

I pick my battles a little more judiciously, and reserve the heavy artillery to occasions and issues where they will make a difference. If using a cannon to kill a mosquito is the mark of civic responsibility and awareness, I have failed miserably, and you are justified in using the widest brush possible, and lumping me with religious zealots trying to advance their own tyranny.

Yes, Rav, you and I often think alike on many issues. This issue is at the very heart of our country's freedoms. I think that freedom of speech and freedom of religion are the cornerstones of democracy. But freedoms extend to those you disagree with and the majority is not allowed to define the freedom of the minority and vice versa. Unfortunately the view of the secularists is viewed, and I think hysterically, as anti-Christian or even anti-religion. Facts are that secularism is very much necessary to protect all religions.

[ethics]

Great post, Rav. Hit it right on the bullseye. Great to see you have patience for this bullshit. I long lost interest debating with Haywires of this world.

[MorWired]

Cyical, manipulative, wasteful, yes, wrong on many levels, please don't interpret or misinterpret for me (Hmmmm?????) and no different than what has been done by any past president in the last 30 years or more.Please do list all the other Constitutional Amendments that were proposed without merit only in the cynical attempt to manipulate voters. I'll even make it easier for you, and I won't limit you to 30 years.

[joseftu]

And if you don't mind, I believe it was MorWired who offered the very relevant argument, that the mere fact that something can be interpreted by a lerge group of people as offensive, should be enough to consider it proper to remove it from publicly-funded displays or forums.First, I didn't say this, and I don't think MorWired did, either. But MorWired can certainly speak for herself. I, personally, have never argued that the mere fact that something can be offensive means it should not be publicly displayed. I would never argue such a foolish thing, because I don't believe it. Being offended (or offensive) has never, ever, in my opinion, been an adequate grounds for censorship or removal of anything. Quite the opposite.

Second, I have never argued (and would never argue) that if a school displays a nativity scene, the school's funding should be cut. That's a ridiculous move, which helps no one. It doesn't make the school more secular, or more religious, either. Closing schools is the ultimate result of denying them funding--or at best, the result will be diminishing their ability to educate children. Closing (or defunding) schools or museums helps no one, and hurts everyone. I've never proposed it, and don't support it. It's reprehensible.

Again and again...this is about the Constitution, and about our rights as Americans, to have a government which is neutral in the area of religion...which is secular. It's not about "being offended."

[MorWired]

....
Context is everything in this case.

And if you don't mind, I believe it was MorWired who offered the very relevant argument, that the mere fact that something can be interpreted by a lerge group of people as offensive, should be enough to consider it proper to remove it from publicly-funded displays or forums.

.... which according to MorWired's test Links? Quotes? CONTEXT?

[joseftu]

Great post, Rav. Hit it right on the bullseye. Great to see you have patience for this bullshit. I long lost interest debating with Haywires of this world.Wow. Now Shiny, MorWired, and I are "the Haywires of the world," just because we disagree with ethics!

Hell, I've disagreed with Shiny, plenty. Often with quite a bit of force and violence. But I don't think of him as the "Haywire of the world." And I certainly have never leveled such a term at him--or MorWired, with whom I usually do agree.

Talk about your broad brush!

If I remember the Haywire of this forum, he was a hateful, bigoted, troll, unwilling to engage in civil discourse ever, under any circumstances. I think that's a very different thing from what's been going on in this thread.

[ravital]

I strongly suspect the founding fathers would not have approved of anybody telling any religion just to suck it up and quit complaining.
Like Christians are being told?


This issue is at the very heart of our country's freedoms. I think that freedom of speech and freedom of religion are the cornerstones of democracy. But freedoms extend to those you disagree with and the majority is not allowed to define the freedom of the minority and vice versa. Unfortunately the view of the secularists is viewed, and I think hysterically, as anti-Christian or even anti-religion. Facts are that secularism is very much necessary to protect all religions. I agree completely. So please explain something that I obviously don't understand:

How does a nativity scene "define" my freedoms or "restrict my ability to worship" in another manner? Please note, the quotes here are not for sarcasm, but to draw your attention to your own statements.

I'm a Jewish 4th grader or 6th grader at P.S. whatever. There is going to be a play tonight, I have been told I'm free to participate or not, no one gets brownie points for participating, no reprisals for not joining in. There will be a nativity scene at the end of the celebration.

Where is the oppression? What in this arrangement prevents me from celebrating my own holiday as I and my parents see fit? Where is Torquemada?

There are only two items you could point to, as far as I can see (if there are others, please point them out to me), that could pass for a legitimate objection:

1. My parents pay taxes to fund that school, and they should not have to see their money being used in this manner.

But you see, as it is today, adults who have no children, one child, two children, foot the bill for parents who have six children. We all pay for roads we don't drive on, water projects we never use, public libraries at the other end of town we never bother with because we're happy with the one on the next block. How is this different?

2. The other children may deride me and ridicule me, and that may leave a horrible emotional scar on me for life - gee, really, you think? They've been calling me fatso and four-eyes on public property for years, and no one has ever given a flying fig at a rolling donut!

We're not talking about dragging kids to Communion against their wishes. We're not talking about teaching Creation. We're not talking about forced indoctrination. We're talking about innocent celebrations. And we know that all groups, all religions, all stripes have every right to set up their own celebrations along the same lines, on the same terms.

I'm really trying to understand this.

[ShinyTop]

Great post, Rav. Hit it right on the bullseye. Great to see you have patience for this bullshit. I long lost interest debating with Haywires of this world.


I really, really, hope you did not mean this the way Joe interpreted, that those of us who argue the secularist position are akin to Haywire.

Regardless I would ask one question of all on this board, and I do not think it should change anybody's position.

Which side would you suspect Haywire would be on?
rofl rofl rofl rofl

[Sierra Mike]

Whichever side gays are not? :haha:

SM

[ravital]

I really, really, hope you did not mean this the way Joe interpreted, that those of us who argue the secularist position are akin to Haywire.
I suspect (though I don't know), that ethics was referring to the reply to Joe on Frank Rich, not to my reply to you.

Good will to all.

[Biker]

This has been a long time brewing, and there are going to be some who are going to get their panties all twisted up really tight. Tough cookies.

This religion thing has gone too far. Some of you know I am not an extremely religious. Hell, I'll be one of the first to state the only reason for "organized" religion is to control the masses. However, you won't see me bashing anyone for their beliefs.

Let's take a look at the First Amendment..

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress shall make no law. Key word here. LAW. Congress shall make no LAW respecting an establishment of religion. Those that take this further and say any appearance of religion is wrong are barking up the wrong bloody tree. I see comments bashing GWB because he said he's a religious individual. "OH! That's WRONG!" Bullshit. There is absolutely nothing wrong with an individual declaring what his beliefs are. And you can bet your ass he's going to base his decisions on his core belief system. Don't like it? TOUGH! Move to another country if it upsets you that much. You'll quickly find that ALL individuals make decisions on their beliefs.

Since Congress shall pass no law dealing with the establishment of a religion, we now have folks that are willing to trample the rights of anyone who dares even speak of religion in the classroom, government building or any other public place where there seems to be an appearance of "government ownership". You would restrict the very freedom the 1st Amendment guarantees.

And to those that state it's all or nothing, nope. Wrong tree again. If someone immigrates to THIS country, I expect them to adapt to the way things are done here. We should not have to adapt to THEIRS! This crapola of being multi-cultural, multi-lingual, multi-this, multi-that has got to come to a screeching halt right now, lest we loose our own sense of who we are. Move to this country, and expect to see our religious symbols and customs. I expect nothing less when I live in someone elses country, and you don't see me bitching and moaning about how wrong their system is. It's their system. Just as this is ours. Don't like it? Go back to where you came from.

And before I start hearing the cries of "It's worse there, than here.", exactly. If it's so frigging bad where immigrants came from, why should I as a host country change the way I do things? You chose to come here. I didn't invite you. You ASKED! Therefore you recognize that things will be different, and we aren't going to change things to make you more comfortable as far as our customs are concerned.

I am sick and bloody tired of hearing people who scream at the top of their lungs, invoking the Constitution to protect one's right to do this or that, yet they trample the very rights of those the Constitution is supposed to protect. THAT is what's wrong. And yes, there's a backlash coming. It's going to be severe, and it's going to be ugly. Because people like me are sick and fucking tired of watching our rights get trampled by those who say they're preserving them.

And before anyone states the courts have already interpreted, there's another key word. Interpret. Someone has tried to guess what someone was thinking. Why? Just read the sentence and take it at face value. No LAW shall be passed. Has a law been attempted to make Judeochristianity the defacto religion of the US? No. So why the fuss? Is it perhaps that some are so anti-religion that they'll do anything to prevent themselves from seeing any reference to it?

[ethics]

Wow. Now Shiny, MorWired, and I are "the Haywires of the world," just because we disagree with ethics!


Just you.

First, I didn't say this, and I don't think MorWired did, either. But MorWired can certainly speak for herself. I, personally, have never argued that the mere fact that something can be offensive means it should not be publicly displayed. I would never argue such a foolish thing, because I don't believe it. Being offended (or offensive) has never, ever, in my opinion, been an adequate grounds for censorship or removal of anything. Quite the opposite.



From your blog (http://www.mountebank.org/blog/index.php?p=221) (bold part is Joe's not mine):

I was wishing that I could, just for one night, around this time of year, make every Christian put on a pair of these (Hannuka glasses of some sort, ethics) and walk down the streets of their hometown. For just one night, I’d like them to be overwhelmed by multitudes, omnipresent, inescapable, of sparkling, beautiful, mystical reminders of a religion and culture which is not theirs, in their own country. It’s an experience that I don’t think they understand at all. And it’s an experience that non-Christians in America have every single Christmas season.

Never? Did you think this was ok? Do you still think it's ok? I see some people from the forum replied to you and your reply was more or less, kiss-my-ass-but-Im-gonna-be-funny-man.

Face it, Joe, you are anti-Christian. If the posts are not indicative of that here, then your blog blatantly explains your views, your jealousy of Christians and your pure and vile hatred stemming from your anger. I don't doubt that if Judaism was a major religion here and a Christian wrote something like that it would be blatant anti-Semitism.

You are a taint on this forum, and I for one do not welcome you here as much as I didn't welcome Haywire. The only difference between the two of you is that you try to hide your bigotry in sophisms and semantics, Haywire was not too swift with words.

I am really really tired of everyone ignoring the elephant in the living room. None here would even think about NOT replying to an anti-Semite, or a homophobe, but to a Jew who is anti-Christian? He even has some people supporting him!!

Proves Ravital's point on the offending of Christians is ok, but God forbid you put a Jew on the podium and point the finger at his hatred.

And Joe? Don't bother reporting this to the mods I didn't attack you with idiotic names. I called a spade a spade and if THAT is against the forum rules then it is a place I no longer want to be part of.

[ShinyTop]

The Supreme Court has determined that peer pressure in the matter of religion is a valid concern. You may disagree. Fact is that the ideal schools where all the plays and rehearsals and religious songs are not sung during music classes does not exist. Children are children. We have teachers of every ilk pushing agendas, religious and political. We have children who are not mature enough to not engage in peer pressure and we have children who have not built the wisdom and maturity to not suffer at its hands. We have parents who should not have to answer why the school and playmates are saying the parent is wrong.

And we have people who see nothing is wrong with any of this as long as the majority can see their play. Why does the play have to be at school and not at the church?

And I do not believe for a minute that our parents would accept plays and sing a longs that espoused the beliefs of Islam or Wiccan. Please quit insulting the intelligence of the forum members with such thoughts. But if you want to suspend reality for a brief moment you can explain to me how much time you would be willing to take from academic pursuits to allow the religious plays from all religions represented in this country.

[joseftu]

Don't like it? TOUGH! Move to another country if it upsets you that much. Nope. This is my country, as much as it is anyone else's, and what my country promises is a secular government, secular laws, secular public institutions. That's what it's founded on, that's what makes it great, and that's the way it has to stay. People who want secularism don't have to move somewhere else, because this is the secular country.
Move to this country, and expect to see our religious symbols and customs. Just which "our" are you talking about? Whose country is it? I was under the impression that it belonged to all of us, Jews, Muslims, Christians, Baha'i, Atheist, whatever.
Because people like me are sick and fucking tired of watching our rights get trampled by those who say they're preserving them.Just whose panties are twisted? I'm hearing a lot of yelling, crying and whining. ;)

[joseftu]

Just you.




From your blog (http://www.mountebank.org/blog/index.php?p=221) (bold part is Joe's not mine):

I was wishing that I could, just for one night, around this time of year, make every Christian put on a pair of these (Hannuka glasses of some sort, ethics) and walk down the streets of their hometown. For just one night, I’d like them to be overwhelmed by multitudes, omnipresent, inescapable, of sparkling, beautiful, mystical reminders of a religion and culture which is not theirs, in their own country. It’s an experience that I don’t think they understand at all. And it’s an experience that non-Christians in America have every single Christmas season.

Never? Did you think this was ok? Do you still think it's ok? I see some people from the forum replied to you and your reply was more or less, kiss-my-ass-but-Im-gonna-be-funny-man. I'll stand by that quote. Quite gladly. I said that I'd like Christians to know what it's like to be a Jew in this country, because too many of them don't know. That's not anti-Christian in any way.

You are a taint on this forum, and I for one do not welcome you here as much as I didn't welcome Haywire. The only difference between the two of you is that you try to hide your bigotry in sophisms and semantics, Haywire was not too swift with words.

I am really really tired of everyone ignoring the elephant in the living room. None here would even think about NOT replying to an anti-Semite, or a homophobe, but to a Jew who is anti-Christian? He even has some people supporting him!!

Proves Ravital's point on the offending of Christians is ok, but God forbid you put a Jew on the podium and point the finger at his hatred.

And Joe? Don't bother reporting this to the mods I didn't attack you with idiotic names. I called a spade a spade and if THAT is against the forum rules then it is a place I no longer want to be part of.You've been making it clear for a while, and now you've come out and said it.

Mods? Or better yet, members? Is this OK here?

[Biker]

Nothing in the constitution states that we're secular. What our founding forefathers took great pains to ensure is that the government could not establish a central religion, much like England did.

There are no promises that our government has to be secular as well. What IS promised is the freedom to express your religion. And nothing, absolutely NOTHING in the Constitution states where that expression can be made.

[ethics]

I'll stand by that quote. Quite gladly. I said that I'd like Christians to know what it's like to be a Jew in this country, because too many of them don't know. That's not anti-Christian in any way.


You wouldn't see it if you were in a boat trying to hit water.

[Arc]

Great post, Rav. Hit it right on the bullseye. Great to see you have patience for this bullshit. I long lost interest debating with Haywires of this world.

Yes I remember the departed well.

It is impossible to reason with those driven by anger, hate, and an agenda. It does no good to argue against bigotry or racism with a bigot or racist however they express it, especially when they perpetually and actively hide their motives behind some shell or front. Usually one of righteous indignation or false propriety!

It is impossible to deal in good faith with those who do not. Well, on second thought it isn't impossible but it is very difficult. Certainly the challenge exceeds my abilities.

It is difficult to come to an agreement with someone who claims they are willing to meet you halfway if when they say it they perceive themselves as standing on the dividing line.

It is difficult to avoid people of bad faith if they follow you everywhere, even to places they otherwise don't normally go, so that they can improperly disrupt and implement their vendetta.

It is difficult to deal with someone who: Uses the disguise of victim hood to make others their victims; preaches righteous indignation as a smoke screen for their true motives; defends or quotes in defense the very people who practice the disgusting behavior you are complaining about; no matter what you say or how you say it will overtly and grossly twist your every word and meaning; almost never will directly respond on point but just makes a soapbox speech or rant.

It is difficult to deal with those who know that a side effect of otherwise very necessary and constructive rules is that they can say and do what they want and never be held accountable for their actions or motives as long as they don't break the formal rules.

There is an old saying that goes something like this: "If one person calls you a jackass, ignore him. If two people call you a jackass ignore them. If three people call you a jackass, buy a saddle.

There are lots of people in the world missing their saddles at one time or another. It are the ones like the departed who are proud of it and that you have to look out for in the long run. Many of them move on. Some are always around. The latter need to be motivated in a different direction for the good of all.

[MorWired]

You wouldn't see it if you were in a boat trying to hit water.If a blind person said "I'd like for sighted people to wear a blindfold for a day to see what it's like," is that "anti-seeing"? Or a person using a wheelchair said "I'd like for people to use a chair for a day to see what it's like," is that "anti-ablebodied"?

No to both, and no to Joe's quoted comments being "anti-Christian." Wanting someone to have the benefit of your experience so they could gain a greater understanding of your life isn't "against" the other person.

[ethics]

No to both, and no to Joe's quoted comments being "anti-Christian." Wanting someone to have the benefit of your experience so they could gain a greater understanding of your life isn't "against" the other person.


It's how it was stated, both here in the forum in his multitudes of posts and then the blog, not just the blog, not just the concept.

But of course, you knew that.

[Doctor Dan]

From your blog (http://www.mountebank.org/blog/index.php?p=221) (bold part is Joe's not mine):

I was wishing that I could, just for one night, around this time of year, make every Christian put on a pair of these (Hannuka glasses of some sort, ethics) and walk down the streets of their hometown. For just one night, I’d like them to be overwhelmed by multitudes, omnipresent, inescapable, of sparkling, beautiful, mystical reminders of a religion and culture which is not theirs, in their own country. It’s an experience that I don’t think they understand at all. And it’s an experience that non-Christians in America have every single Christmas season.

How exactly is that "anti-Christian?" The majority can never fully appreciate this sort of thing until they find themselves in a situation where they're a distinct minority.

I tend to doubt Christian parents would be overly thrilled to have their children kneeling and praying to Mecca as a portrayal of Eid at the end of a public school play, or prancing around in a homage to the Wiccan celebration of Yule (winter solstice).

- Dan

[ethics]

I tend to doubt Christian parents would be overly thrilled to have their children kneeling and praying to Mecca as a portrayal of Eid at the end of a public school play, or prancing around in a homage to the Wiccan celebration of Yule (winter solstice).

- Dan

Are the Christians forcing the Jews to kneel and pray with them? It's friggin Christmas lights at their own homes.

Let me add once again, that this is not a separation of Church and State issue. That has been a front for this individual but his hatred goes beyond that.

I do and care about separation of religion from our schools but I want either ALL or NOTHING. Either ALL religious, including the Menorrah, or none. If we choose none, I want us to be thorough. Am I wrong here?

[Biker]

I do and care about separation of religion from our schools but I want either ALL or NOTHING. Either ALL religious, including the Menorrah, or none. If we choose none, I want us to be thorough. Am I wrong here?

Maybe.. Did you know that public schools originally were NOT secular?

[ethics]

Maybe.. Did you know that public schools originally were NOT secular?

That I knew but they are secular now and I am all willing to some form of compromise.

I just don't want this sick hypocrisy of banning Nativity stuff and all of the Christian trinkets and allow Menorrah, or Kwanza stuff remain. And before someone tells me that Kwanza is secular, I would say that it is on par with the religious festivities.

We can then move on getting rid of individualistic properties from the kids and check back with me in 15 years to ask me if this was a good idea.

But that decision notwithstanding, I'd say it needs to be one way or another.

[MorWired]

Are the Christians forcing the Jews to kneel and pray with them? It's friggin Christmas lights at their own homes. We're talking about school plays and school displays of varying holiday symbols -- and having Jewish or Muslim or atheist children gather around a nativity scene proclaiming the birth of god come to earth is a hell of a lot like "forcing Jews to kneel and pray," don't you think?

[ravital]

The Supreme Court has determined that peer pressure in the matter of religion is a valid concern. You may disagree.

The Supreme Court determined that a slave running away from his owners in a slave state to a free state was still his owner's property, and yes, I do disagree with THAT. The supreme court, as I tried to explain to you, is not GOD, it's fallible human beings, and we do have the right to express our disagreement with them.

In addition, I'm sure that when the supreme court ruled that way, it provided much more specific context about the specific peer pressure.

What the Constitution says, is that this country DOES NOT grant religions freedom, because a right that a government "grants" is a right that a government can limit or revoke altogether. This country RECOGNIZES that human beings have that freedom, and this country will protect it, by preventing government from denying that freedom.

You can deride my perception of reality all you want, you still haven't answerd how allowing a school play is a form of government-sponsored religious coersion or persecution. That was my question, and that remains unanswered.

[ethics]

See my post above yours.

[ravital]

Please do list all the other Constitutional Amendments that were proposed without merit only in the cynical attempt to manipulate voters. I'll even make it easier for you, and I won't limit you to 30 years.
I believe it was sometime in only the last 20 years, that an amendment to the Constitution was proposed to ban "flag desecration." It was in a number of papers at the time, around 1988-89.

As you are so fond of saying, "any other half-baked notions you'd like to have researched for you?"

[Doctor Dan]

I do and care about separation of religion from our schools but I want either ALL or NOTHING. Either ALL religious, including the Menorrah, or none. If we choose none, I want us to be thorough. Am I wrong here?

None is fine with me. There's ample opportunities to celebrate whatever holidays one wants outside of a public school setting.

Quite frankly, I also find non-Jewish kids parroting songs about Hanukkah rather offensive, since they have no religious or cultural understanding of what they're singing about.

- Dan

[ShinyTop]

You can deride my perception of reality all you want, you still haven't answerd how allowing a school play is a form of government-sponsored religious coersion or persecution. That was my question, and that remains unanswered.


Sorry, Rav, I am not a child who will respond to defend a position I did not take. Coercion and persecution are your terms, not mine. Without those terms I have answered numerous times.

[Biker]

The Supreme Court determined that a slave running away from his owners in a slave state to a free state was still his owner's property, and yes, I do disagree with THAT. The supreme court, as I tried to explain to you, is not GOD, it's fallible human beings, and we do have the right to express our disagreement with them.

Bingo. And this is where I have a serious problem with courts making decisions based on peer pressure rather than the point of the law.

[ravital]

Links? Quotes? CONTEXT?
If I've misquoted you, by all means, correct me. Provide the quote yourself, and the link. Don't make me waste half my weekend looking for what YOU said so I can quote it to YOU. You know what you said.

But as far as context? That's really easy:

In the context of anything that may be perceived by Christians as offensive = okay.

In the context of anything that may be perceived by non-Christians as offensive = Not okay.

[Sierra Mike]

Rav, do you consider yourself to be a "secular Jew?" (I believe you still identify yourself as Jewish?)

SM

[ShinyTop]

Bingo. And this is where I have a serious problem with courts making decisions based on peer pressure rather than the point of the law.


I will not disagree that the SC is capable of mistakes. I will say we are a nation of laws and should follow the rulings of the court until such time as a later or more enlightened (take your choice) court rules differently. And Biker, I believe they cited peer pressure and did not make a ruling based solely on peer pressure. The idea that choice to 3rd graders means one can do what one wants is not credible, IMO.

[ravital]

Rav, do you consider yourself to be a "secular Jew?" (I believe you still identify yourself as Jewish?)

SM
I wanted to say immediately "yes, absolutely." But it looks like "secular" means so many different things to so many people.

I'm not observant. I don't follow the customs or laws or rules of Judaism. I am of Jewish woman born (and that's all it takes to be Jewish), nothing can change that, not even conversion to another faith, and I will always be proud of being Jewish. Some of my holidays are very meaningful to me, others are not. The tenets of Judaism, the elementary principles, are important to me.

Assuming I could have known before I was born what I know today, and that I could have had a choice, yes, I would have chosen to be Jewish. And I'd still be as non-observant as I am now. I recognize the value of secularism. I have no use for militant secularism, or militant anything.

I hope that answers it :)

[Arc]

What our founding forefathers took great pains to ensure is that the government could not establish a central religion, much like England did.


If you are going to argue the facts you are little more than a voice in the wilderness on this one--unfortunately.

On many occassions I have pointed out in posts that even non-biased, non-agenda secular or agnostic and atheist Constituional scholars overwhelmingly agree that the original intent of the separation clause of the First Amendment was MAINLY to protect the church from the state. But as I recall only one time has any of the usual suspects responded, which is to be expected.

And of course it means nothing that the very first sentence or right in the Bill of Rights specifically and directly addresses this issue.

[ethics]

Quite frankly, I also find non-Jewish kids parroting songs about Hanukkah rather offensive, since they have no religious or cultural understanding of what they're singing about.

- Dan

Agreed but I would go even further. JEWS who make funny songs for Hannukah should be shot.

Example: Adam Sandler on SNL and that pathetic excuse of a Hannukah song that all radio stations play on Hannuka. If you have not heard it I have the lyrics:

This is a song, that uh, theres alot of Xmas songs out there, but not too many about Hanukkah, so I wrote a song for all those nice little Jewish kids who dont get to hear any Hanukkah songs--here we go...

[A] Put on your [E] yalmulka, [D] here comes [E] Hanukkah
Its [A] so much [E] fun-akkah to [D] celebrate [E]Hanukkah,

[A]Hanukkah [E]is the [D] Festival of [E] Lights,
[A] Instead of one day of [E] presents, we have [Bm] eight [D] crazy [E] nights.

[A] When you feel like the only [E] kid in town with[D]out a Xmas [E]tree,
[A] Heres a list of [E] people who are Jewish, [D] just like you and [E] me:

[A] David Lee [E] Roth [D] lights the me[E]norrah,
[A] So do James [E] Caan, Kirk Douglas, and the [D] late Dinah [E]Shore-ah

[A] Guess who eats to[E]gether at the [D] Karnickey [E] Deli,
[A] Bowzer from [E] Sha-na-na, and [D] Arthur Fonzer[E]relli.

[A] Paul Newmans half [E] Jewish; [D] Goldie Hawns half [E] too,
[A] Put them to[E]gether--what a [D] fine lookin [E] Jew! [Esus] [E]

[D] You dont need Deck the Halls or Jingle Bell Rock
[E] Cause you can spin the dreidl with Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock--both Jewish! [Esus]

[A] Put on your [E] yalmulka, its [D] time for [E] Hanukkah,
The [A] owner of the Seattle Super[E]sonic-ahs [D] celebrates [E] Hanukkah.

[A] O.J. [E] Simpson--[D] not a [E] Jew!
But [A] guess who [E]is...Hall of [D] Famer--Rod [E]Carew--(he converted!) [Bm]

[A] We got Ann [E] Landers and her [D] sister Dear Ab[E]by,
[A] Harrison Fords a [E] quarter Jewish--[D] not too [E] shabby!

[A] Some people [E] think that [D] Ebeneezer [E] Scrooge is,
Well, hes [A] not, but [E] guess who is: [D] All three [E] stooges. [Esus] [E]

[D] So many Jews are in show biz--
[E] Tom Cruise isn¹t, [tacit] but I heard his agent is. [Esus]

[A] Tell your friend Ver[E]onica, its [D] time you celebrate [E] Hanukkah
I [A] hope I get a har[E]monica, on this [D] lovely, lovely [E] Hanukkah.

So [A] drink your gin-and-[E]tonic-ah, and [D]smoke your mara[E]juanic-ah,
If you [A] really, really [E]wanna-kah, Have a [D] happy, happy, [E] happy, happy [A] Hanukkah.

---

Don't know why it rubs me the wrong way but it does...

[Arc]

Wow. Now Shiny, MorWired, and I are "the Haywires of the world," just because we disagree with ethics!


Gosh I didn't see your name or the others in ethics post that you quote. Guilty conscience? Oh well if the shoe fits wear it. If not get over it or move on. (That applies to all of us!)

At this point in the thread you have been unsually quiet, especially for someone whose views and attitude are so relevant to this thread as publically demonstrated by you many posts. You are a "victim" of your own eloquence.

[joseftu]

Read ethics' next post. He meant me. He says so, openly and clearly.

He thinks I'm a "taint on the forum," "just as unwelcome as Haywire," and the equivalent of an anti-Semite or homophobe. He thinks I hate Christians and Christianity.

Shall I respond to that by saying "no I'm not?" OK.

I'm not a taint, I'm perfectly welcome, and I don't hate Christians or Christianity.

Do you think he believes me?

I don't think so.

Is this the kind of place where members are allowed to tell other members that they're a "taint on the forum" and "unwelcome"? If it's not such a place, ethics doesn't want to be here, he says.

If you miss my participation in the thread, Old Dog, I'm sorry. I did write a post agreeing with you on the historical roots of the separation of church and state. It was instituted to protect religion (all religions), and that's its most important purpose. That's one reason I support it so strongly. The founders wrote at great length about the reasons why they did not want this to be an officially Christian country, why the Constitution itself, and the early amendments, were so clearly secular and neutral.

But I deleted that post in an effort not to further inflame the conversation.

It seems that some people here are unwilling to read what I say, and have only decided that I spew hatred. That's puzzling to me, but I wanted to give the thread a cooling period.

[Doctor Dan]

JEWS who make funny songs for Hannukah should be shot.
Would they be shot on-sight in the street, or rounded up from their homes at 3 AM and then shot?

Example: Adam Sandler on SNL and that pathetic excuse of a Hannukah song that all radio stations play on Hannuka..

Actually I find Adam Sandler's "Hanukkah Song" mildly amusing, not to mention that there is an underlying point to it.

- Dan

[MorWired]

I believe it was sometime in only the last 20 years, that an amendment to the Constitution was proposed to ban "flag desecration." It was in a number of papers at the time, around 1988-89.Oh, ok, so this cynical tactic is common for those presidents named Bush. Gotcha.

[Sierra Mike]

Thanks, was just curious, really!

SM

[MorWired]

If I've misquoted you, by all means, correct me. Provide the quote yourself, and the link. Don't make me waste half my weekend looking for what YOU said so I can quote it to YOU. You k