posted on August 7, 2001 05:56:13 AM new
Born in a tiny farm town in Midwest
also:
E Lansing Michigan
Ann Arbor Michigan
Chicago
Miami (unfortunately)
Twice--Washington DC burbs
I wonder sometimes if I will be able to live in a small town after living in cities most of my life.
I like the advantages of places like Wash DC, but the dirty air is getting to me, especially with allergies.
On the other hand, while visiting the Midwestern hometown this summer I couldn't find much organic food again. Had to drive an hour to a co-op. There were little sections at a couple regional stores, but usually empty or wrinkled! Guess I will grow my own when I move back.
"Not going to argue with you Donny. Have you considered moving? Seems you should live closer to Helen."
<end quote
Will you please refrain from using my name on Auction Watch. I prefer not to be included in your self righteous drivel.
In return, I will agree not to knock your nonsensical arguments for a loop.
posted on August 7, 2001 06:32:51 AM new
The "regionalism" debate by the OPs is somewhat intriguing.
Regionalism was well entrenched in this country since it was founded. Some examples- New England states almost sued for a separate peace with England in the war of 1812. The NW teritorries nearly went neutral in the Civil War and Ohio nearly elected a "copperhead" governor while Lincoln had him jailed.
Our "interests" varied widely in our country for nearly 2 centuries. These "interests" were formed more by geography and resources than true cultural or social differences.
These former divides have largely disappeared. The so called "religious/moral" interests are not defined by North, South, or other compass regions, it is defined by urban and rural elements.
The election map of the last presidental election shows this dramatically.
Is there a precedent in history for this divide ? Somewhat. The division between the labor movement and agricultural interests took place as the industrial era ushered in.
However, labor and agriculture were able to work through their differences and actually help each other. Agriculture interests aided many labor initiatives and were exempt from many labor laws, such as child labor laws, minimum wage laws etc.. Labor supported price supports and aid to farmers.
But many of the issues raised now have Constitutional implications - from gun ownership to prayer in the schools.
The Constitution must apply the same in all places. Gun ownership is thought of in a very different manner between an urban setting and a rural setting. The destructive power of a weapon in an urban setting is far greater than in a rural setting. In a rural area all the "nuts" are generally know, and if they are armed it is known also - and usually a family member or neighbor will disarm them. An urban setting does not allow an intimate knowledge of those around you. The use of a firearm in an urban setting is limited to 2 things- self protection, and assault/murder. The rural area offers more legitimate uses for a firearm.
So where will the compromise come from ? Time is certainly on the side of the urban faction. Rural areas are disappearing very fast and the same problems of urban areas are now being found in the rural areas e.g., drugs and violence. The internet and television will also help bridge the gap. A high tech economy will also favor the urban areas, if for no other reason than high speed net access.
The only way for the rural faction to avoid the changes is to become a member of the Amish sect, but then a group of their young people was arrested not too long ago for running a drug ring.
The other alternative is to vote, but even that has shown some problems lately. LOL.
posted on August 7, 2001 06:42:30 AM new
Missouri, Upstate New York, back to Missouri, Kansas, Alaska, California, back to Kansas, now Missouri again.
[ edited by loosecannon on Aug 17, 2001 07:32 AM ]
posted on August 7, 2001 08:04:47 AM new
I enjoyed reading your post REAMOND and I think you are right on target. The South and the Midwest cling to rural lifestyle and view it as "less tainted". Though you are correct that urban will prevail, many people are not happy about it and view it as the death of a trusted friend. Some areas still have a long way to go before it dies.
What perked my curiosity was this statement:
"The so called "religious/moral" interests are not defined by North, South, or other compass regions, it is defined by urban and rural elements."
I agree, and yet the HS movement which has very strong religious/moral ties (though there are many exceptions) does not reflect that. It's as much urban as it is rural and from California to NY- from the Great lakes to Texas.
posted on August 7, 2001 10:54:32 AM new
Reamond said:
"The Constitution must apply the same in all places."
I believe that. Attempting to have it in practice runs straight into the Old/New South, "regional values," no "outside assistance" mindset.
Terri said:
"As an example, take the prayer in school issue. IF an ENTIRE community agrees that they want prayer in public school, if the issue is brought forward inviting opposition and is totally hinges on ONE objection, and NO ONE objects, why should big government hundreds of miles away determine what is best for that community and the individuals in it?"
On the surface, that sounds fine. What's the problem?
The problem is in being that one guy who might find something objectionable. Perhaps the prayer that the community wants in the public school is "idolotrous." The whole community (save one family), believes that the right way to worship is to do it gazing at a visual representation of Jesus, and that's how they want their children to start the day in school.
If you're Catholic, this isn't a problem. If you're a member of a religion that sees this as "idolotry," idolotry being sinful, it's a problem.
Now the whole community feels one way, and one family feels another way. That one family is distressed, they believe that forcing their child to participate in this school activity will force the child to commit a sin.
It's easy to say - That one family can voice its objection! But against the whole community? There are serious ramifications to being the only person to go against the whole community, especially in matters of religion, which people feel very strongly about.
I've seen it here in my own town. One guy objected to some Christian representation that was part of the city government. He was reviled, publically and privately. The newspapers began by describing him as a "secular humanist," but quickly took the gloves off and branded him an "atheist." He got death threats.
But more than that, his children suffered. They were only little when he began this objection, but all through their years of growing up, they were put through hell. This is a small city, everyone knew this guy, and knew who his kids were. We lived down the street from them. Their son and daughter, and my son and daughter, being the same age, became best friends. I took them all roller skating one day, at the town's only rink. The owner caught this guy's 10 year old daughter by herself and told her that she had better never come to the roller skating rink alone.
Was it worth it? Whether this guy, or his children, think it was, I can't say. If it was me, I wouldn't think it was worth it, I saw what happened to this guy and his family. I venture to think that most people wouldn't think it was worth it and, rather than object, would just keep quiet.
And that's the problem. That the one guy who might find something objectionable won't object, because he can see what will happen.
posted on August 7, 2001 12:15:45 PM new
Small Town Ohio
Small Town PA
Homestead Florida
Margate Florida
Miami Florida
Ft Lauderdale Florida
Pensacola Florida
Mountains of North Carolina (twice)
Small Town PA right now...on our way to Georgia.
posted on August 7, 2001 12:26:32 PM newjt:They can go to a different school by simply placing in a request.
And if in that community *all* of the schools have the same policy? I guess those families are expected to move out of town?
We are talking about a high school where an anon vote was taken in a ballot box of all the students. One vote by a student would have been easy.
On the surface, again, this sounds fine & dandy. But get real. If you think that the kids--and the community--aren't aware of who the "mavericks" are religionwise, you are fooling yourself. That one "anonymous" vote wouldn't be anonymous at all.
I see yout point but death threats over prayer I can not imagine.
------How can you not? Religion is one fo the most volatile areas of all. And it's not just a matter of Christianity vs. Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc. etc. etc. Heck, Christians themselves are splintered into sects that can be diametrically opposed to each other.
I believe theirs is done on a speaker system, daily devotion followed by a prayer. There is no required "participation" but just to be quiet.
Yes, just be quiet about your beliefs while we din ours into your ears through a loudspeaker. Just dandy. I wonder how many Christian kids/parents would keep quiet if Moslems called for prayer over the school P.A. system.
posted on August 7, 2001 12:31:46 PM new
"They can go to a different school by simply placing in a request."
The population of my city is about 30,000. There is one public high school. What should I request, that another public high school be built just for my child?
"We are talking about a high school where an anon vote was taken in a ballot box of all the students. One vote by a student would have been easy."
Let's say that the high school was comprised of the homogeneous community in your example, and one of my children. One anonymous objection was cast. Who do you think most people will think cast this objection? No matter if it was, or wasn't, my child who anonymously objected, all eyes will turn towards my child. It won't be pretty.
"I see yout point but death threats over prayer I can not imagine."
Regardless.
"I believe theirs is done on a speaker system, daily devotion followed by a prayer. There is no required "participation" but just to be quiet."
Go back again to my first example. Let's say that the morning devotional doesn't involve a pictoral representation of Jesus, but, as in your example, a prayer over the speaker system. It's "Hail Mary." Every morning.
posted on August 7, 2001 12:37:36 PM new
"I believe theirs is done on a speaker system, daily devotion followed by a prayer. There is no required "participation" but just to be quiet."
Jt, look at all the places all of us have lived. Don't you think that we hold a variety of religious beliefs, or none? How would you find one prayer or devotional that wouldn't offend someone?
posted on August 7, 2001 01:21:17 PM new
Saab, That's my point. We are NOT talking about your community or Donny's community. We are talking about ONE community, one school, in Pearl, MS where the entire community is in support of it. If you move there, then we have an issue.
What I care about is the right of communities and states to decide what is best for their OWN school(s), their own tax dollars, their own communities.
That's why it's a democracy rather than a dictatorship....or is it?
posted on August 7, 2001 01:46:44 PM new
jt, the town in Georgia where I lived had a population of about 20,000 when I lived there. It's probably double that now. But even then, my best friend,who was a member of the First Baptist Church, couldn't attend my church (Presbyterian). My Catholic friends couldn't attend the Episcopal Church. This happened because their parents wouldn't allow it. I don't know how that community could come up with a common prayer.
Somewhere along the line, probably by the time I was a sophomore in high school, I became fed up with religion and those forced prayers every morning had a lot to do with it. My father physically forced me into the car and to church every Sunday until he moved to DC during my senior year. After that, I've been into churches for weddings and funerals and that's about it. If someone like me moved to your town and had kids that thought the same way I did, what kind of reception could we expect?
I guess I don't see the necessity of religion in the public schools.( A child can always say a silent prayer. )And parents, church members, neighbors, or others can instill ethics(another sticky wicket)or set an example.
From the DOE web site curriculum structure.
Would the use of "Amazon Grace" for music be considered offensive? I honestly don't know. I just happened to see it there.
T
posted on August 7, 2001 03:31:16 PM new
Having school prayer because evryone in the community wants it is not only unconstitutional, it is provincial.
This "states rights" question was asked and answered decisivly over a century ago. Where were all these objections when these states wanted to join the Union ? It was no secret that the Constitution was to reign as the supreme law of the land.
It was no secret that the Constitution with its Bill of Rights was to guarantee rights that the majority could never take away. That includes a separation of church and state. These states rights arguments are made by those who disregard the Constitution when it protects rights they don't appreciate, or for people they don't appreciate, and has nothing to do with learned or reasoned jurisprudence.
A pure majoritarian democracy looks sweet when you're in the majority. But the wise people that put the Constitution together knew of the problem of minorities in a pure democracy and had the foresight to put basic rights out of the reach of the majority through a written constitution.
posted on August 7, 2001 04:29:47 PM new
I did not realize the extent of the problem until I read your link, bunnicula. Gee, this really emphasizes the fact that religion belongs in church.
posted on August 7, 2001 04:37:20 PM new
Ya want prayer in school? Put your kid in parochial school!
What makes you believe that you are so special? Why should YOUR community be special and be the only one who allows prayer in school?
We are NOT talking about your community or Donny's community. We are talking about ONE community, one school, in Pearl, MS where the entire community is in support of it. If you move there, then we have an issue.
Obviously you believe that your community is the center of the universe.
Well, what if Jim Bob, from California believes that his community is the center of the universe too and they were special and allowed prayer. Oh! But let's not forget MaryLou from North Dakota... her town was special too.
OOPS! You might have a big problem if anyone from Jim Bob's town or MaryLou's town moves to your town............ or vice versa... especially since they might have a different religion from you.
What's going to happen? Are you going to ignore their beliefs? Are you going to force your beliefs on them? Or even something MORE HORRIFYING.......... you move to THEIR town and they force THEIR beliefs on YOU.
Whatcha gonna do then?
Hmmm, maybe it's not only one community.
Like I said, Ya want prayer in school? Put your kid in parochial school!
posted on August 7, 2001 09:03:48 PM new
Interesting article. A admit that I was unaware of this event. I wonder if it may have surrounded the anniversay of their school shooting. Not sure but I know that it changed their school to see fellow students shot in the classroom. Prior to that incident, Pearl was not known for religious fervor in particular although prayer had never ceased. Ever since the shooting, I hear it's different. I guess this is evidence.
I notice that the shooting was not mentioned in the article at all (nor was the fact that their band marched for Bush).
Thanks for sharing it.
T
Odd, it did say this:
"That may be the case in times of great stress, if young people gather and begin to pray after a shooting, for instance."
But NO mention of their past school shooting? Why wouldn't they mention it?
[ edited by jt on Aug 7, 2001 09:09 PM ]
posted on August 7, 2001 09:46:01 PM new
The town has less than 20,000 people & *33* churches...I'd say they have enough religious fervor for anyone. Must have a church on every corner. Yet with all those churches, the kids are so deprived of prayer in their lives that they must have it in school? You have to wonder about a religion that is so weak that its followers must be surrounded by prayer constantlyor they are in danger of becoming corrupt, shiftless, and rudderless. Doesn't really fit the picture of an institution you'd want to make the guiding light in your life.
posted on August 7, 2001 10:15:27 PM new
I just read the article. Some excellent points made.
How does this apply to "where have you lived ?"
Well in one way, many of the moves have been for work/jobs.
Did you realize that the events described in the article DO make a difference when siting a plant or business ?
Do you know how hard it is to get highly educated and skilled brain power to move to areas like this even without the provincialism ?
Do you ever wonder why much prosperity by-passes there backwaters ?
Again, look at the election map from the presidential election. Even the Urban areas in Texas went Gore.
Major urban areas in the south have changed dramatically and can not be distinguished from major urban areas in the north. Atlanta is little different from Cleveland or Chicago.
Don't complain when an Intel or BMW plant locates in an area that is open to new ways of thinking and accepts and revels in different views.
And for those who may say that they don't want or need a company to locate in their area- you'll be the same ones to complain when your schools, health care system, and infra-structure are under funded and decaying, and wondering why your children have to leave the area to find gainful employment.
There was a mayor in a small town in Ohio that "put his foot down" when a Japanese auto plant wanted to locate in his community and the community largely supported him. His brother was in a Japanese POW camp in WW II and he fought in the Pacific.
The plant located elsewhere. The schools and the infrastructure of the community payed the price.
The children of that community move away and many work at the plant that could have been in that community.
You think a community's provincialism is no concern to "outsiders". I have a neighbor that works for an International high tech company. He was involved in a plant locating assignment. Not only do they look at demgraphics, taxes, and associated costs, but these cultural issues are prominent issues.
Two states were removed from the siting list due to cultural issues. One due to attempting to remove evolution from public school curriculum, another due to the influence of a particular religion in a particular state impacting the state in education and many other facets in social issues.
The company knew it was nearly impossible to recruit, transfer, or retain, diverse, highly educated employees in these areas.
posted on August 7, 2001 10:25:07 PM new
From that linked article:
"Since the event, she (the high school principal) said she also has learned that one teacher and perhaps two students at the school are Jewish, but none has complained,
'and I'm not even sure whether they were there.' "
Well, they haven't complained, so everything's fine! But it's not fine.
What if you were the only Jewish teacher at this school. Would you complain? You've got an investment in this place. Your house is there, maybe you've got a mortgage. Maybe your spouse is in business there. You're depending on your school paycheck to make your mortgage and car payments. Your spouse has business connections he or she depends on. Your neighbors are your friends. You like them. You want them to like you. What are you going to do?
You're the only Jewish pupil there, or perhaps one of two. 600 or so of your schoolmates, out of 640, go off on a spontaneous religious fervor. The regular class schedule breaks down, as 600+ people, students and teachers, take to weeping in the hallways and testifying into the microphone, for 4 hours, stopping only because the busses come. What are you going to do? If this makes you uncomfortable, are you going to go against 600 of your classmates, and most of your teachers, who are in a religious frenzy and voice your objection?
If it was me, I wouldn't. I'd be scared to. Wouldn't nearly anyone in that position be scared to?
I think diversity should be protected, and needs to be protected. I was an Irish Catholic kid, going to a Greek Orthodox school. Later, I was in NYC public school. Some of my friends were Catholic, some Protestant, some Greek Orthodox, some Jewish, some, I don't know what they were. We never got in each others' faces. If our group of friends went to the library on Fridays after school, we'd all leave early enough so that the Jewish kids would get home before sunset. This was important for our friends, so it was important to us. They didn't demand that we leave with them, and we didn't demand that they stay. We all just respected and accepted each other, without thinking about it.
We were all different, and it wasn't a big deal. When only a few people are different, it becomes a big deal.
When you take a situation like Pearl Ms., and use it to argue the proposition that, under the aegis of protecting diversity, people have a right to be different and therefore this school district, if no member voices an objection, should be able to impose a prayer of one particular faith on the whole school, you're taking the idea of protecting diversity and turning it on its head. This is not protecting diversity, its imposing homogeny.
posted on August 7, 2001 10:35:35 PM new
Not only that- but the very reason protestants left the old world is for the same thing that is happening in Pearl MS - govt supported religion.
posted on August 7, 2001 11:11:45 PM new
Pearl IS in a urban area. It is considered metro Jackson. The number of churches differs little from any other MS town. I can think of 19 within 5 miles of me and my town has less than 300 families.
As for Jewish or Catholic, they pray to the same God as Chrstians. Why would they complain? I pray for and am prayed for by a Jewish friend. NO big deal. The previous Christian church that I went to (Methodist) had Jewish people who attended regularly. The lines are not lines that divide.
T
posted on August 7, 2001 11:19:20 PM new
Another question. There was an article not too long ago in the state paper about a child in public school who is a Seventh Day Adventist. She was a star in track and field. However, all sporting events are held on Friday night and Saturday as not to interfere with school. Her holy day is Saturday which begins at sunset on Friday.
So she dropped out of sports losing hope for a college scholarship. The DOE athletic directors said that they could not hold events on Sunday to appease this one child, as unfortunate as it was, because 99.9% of the kids in the entire conference attend church on Sunday and no one would show up.
What do other states/cities do? (I asked several people this and got no direct answer.) What would be the "correct" thing to do?
T
[ edited by jt on Aug 7, 2001 11:21 PM ]
posted on August 7, 2001 11:34:26 PM new
Terri, what you have to try to understand is what it might be like to be that one Jewish kid.
"As for Jewish or Catholic, they pray to the same God as Chrstians. Why would they complain?"
They might complain (or want to complain) because of this (from the linked article):
"Posters have gone up in the school corridors: "Stand up for God today. He stood up for you" and 'Sign here if you love Jesus.'"
Well, Jewish kids might not have that same love for Jesus.
If I were that one Jewish kid, all this rampaging Christianity might make me nervous. But before I said anything, this might cross my mind - "If I say anything, how long will it take before I turn from 'that kid who stopped us from praying to Jesus in school,' to 'One of those people who killed Jesus!' "
I don't have anything against religion. I don't have anything against Baptists. My own daughter is a Baptist. I was born a Cathlolic, grew up to be an agnostic (or atheist, I'm not sure), married a non-churchgoing Methodist. My best friend in Georgia was a Baptist. She invited my daughter to attend church with her and, after several years of going, my daughter decided she wanted to be baptised. I went to the First Baptist Church to see her get baptised. My daughter was happy, I was happy for her. No problem.
What is, to me, a problem is imposing religion on other people. I didn't impose my religious views on my own children. I'm not a an atheist in the way some people are, it's not a religion to me. If it was me, the teenage Donny in that school in Pearl, I probably wouldn't care one way or the other what 600 or so of my classmates were doing in the hallways, or what posters they were putting up. It's not going to bother me.
But I can see that it's quite possible it would bother someone else. You say these aren't the lines that divide. No, they're not, as long as you're on the right side of the line.
posted on August 7, 2001 11:59:23 PM new
But Donny, Don't you see that 99.999% of the population sees others as imposing their anti-religion on them?
I homeschool because I can't NOT begin to imagine my child being taught history, or science, or literature without God. God is the very basis for all existance. To leave God out, is to create a entire world that is a lie.
And what about what I said about a "standardized curriculum"? What if curriculum is introduced that TOTALLY goes against the religious beliefs of 99.999% of the families of the school body? Should they grin and bear it? I have seen nationally proposed curriculum that I would not DARE want my children taught.
I know that I am beating a dead horse here but I want people to understand that there ARE schools and communities who overwhelmingly believe in God and want that to be a part of their life. Kids spend more waking hours in school that anywhere. 1 hour of quality time with parents a day would be a REACH. One-two hours of (and that's pushing it for REAL education) church education a week. That can't give kids what they need. Faith and Christian commitment is a LOT more important to many people than science or grammar. One is only temporary. One is eternal. If I have the choice of having my kids live in poverty with eternal life, or in wealth with none...I vote for their soul. But I hope to give them skills as well as good character and faith.
Sometimes it is tempting NOT to do the hours and hours of work that I do to achieve this and just put them in a godless school. IF I put them in school for educational reasons (such as if I reach a point that I can no longer meet their educational needs)...it will be when they are spiritually more mature and their character is well developed. If I take ONE thing in life with DEAD seriousness, it is being a parent. It is my God given #1 responsibility while I am on this earth.
When I look at myself at my daughter's age, and I look at her...I think I am doing a DARN good job because she is a much better person than I was at her age. What she will be as an adult is still to be revealed.
T
"Catholics are Christians."
Depends on who you ask...the Catholics...or the Prodestant Christians.
~adding "Prodestant"
[ edited by jt on Aug 8, 2001 12:02 AM ]
