posted on March 27, 2003 09:26:02 PM new
Yes, just pointing it out, not to correct your spelling because God knows I'm the worst offender here in that area. Just because you and KRS always spell it the same way.
posted on March 27, 2003 09:54:34 PM new
Ah Helen, you're back. I noticed that you and yeager were missing for a few hours. (Not trying to imply anything.)
posted on March 27, 2003 10:45:46 PM new
And I'm sure thee most Reverend Jesse Jackson would be preferable to you. He was on FOX news today, talking about the humanitarian aid
Art Bell Retired! George Noory is on late night coasttocoastam.com
posted on March 27, 2003 10:57:18 PM new
You're bad Near. And to think I went to all of this work just to find Aiden Quinn's phone number for you... oh well, in the shredder it goes...
posted on March 27, 2003 10:57:23 PM new
::Besides which, I don't think that Billy Graham is going to save the souls of the Christians.
No... Billy Graham can't 'save the souls of Christians' if they are Christians, wouldn't there souls already be saved? ::
You are not really good at this sarcasm thing are you?
Let me translate -
Besides which, I don't think that Billy Graham is going ( to Iraq) to save the souls of the Christians.
As in - yes, I know about the Christian, as well as the Catholic Iraqis however I do not believe that Grahams intentions in going are to counsell to them, but rather to attempt to covert the Islamic majority to Chrisitianty
posted on March 27, 2003 11:16:08 PM new
Freedom to practice one's religion does not mean that the government endorses that religion, or in any way supports that religion.
There is also a difference between a "public" place and a government institution.
Classroom religious demonstartions led by the teacher is an unconstitutional mixing of religion and government.
Starting governmental meetings with religious invocations is unconstitutional mixing of religion and government.
The freedom of religion is for the individual or group to practice, it is not for the individual or group to use government officious venues to practice.
Bush's political use of his religion will prove to be a huge mistake. Winning the war in Iraq is going to be somewhat easy. Winning the peace in the Middle East is a going to be a great challenge. Bush interjecting his religious beliefs into his official pronouncements will poison the peace process.
posted on March 27, 2003 11:32:20 PM new
" That was a funny link gravid. But how do you explain whole countries that are FULL of religious fanatics? Mass hysteria?"
You don't need ALL of them to have visions. They just need to believe the one who does. And all religion centers around one nut. That's how it works. Pretty much like politics and Ponzi schemes.
posted on March 28, 2003 03:30:52 AM new
I support the rights of people to gather anywhere they like to publically express things I agree with, such as the religious beliefs I hold, but I deny that people have the right to gather anywhere they like to publically express things I disagee with, like anti-war views.
And that's why all our veterans gave their lives on 9-11, to protect our way of life, don't forget that! I know I never will.
posted on March 28, 2003 04:05:25 AM new
Beautiful.
Sounds like a national form of what my brother in law does to the family. Whats mine is mine and what's your's is mine too.
The 10 Commmandments have been and still are in tons of our country's government offices as they have, for years been in our schools
Since I try to avoid government offices as often as possible, I can't speak to that, but I've been in education a REALLY long time, and I don't know of any public schools that use the 10 Commandments in classrooms, until recently. Those that do, IMO are violating the constitution.
Our children are asked to accept and learn about other religions in school....like read and learn about the Koran. Well, try that with the Bible and you'll be hung. If it's right for one, it's right for all. Not all except....
You are mistaken. My class recently completed studies on the middle east. We studied the religious traditions of all of the major religions of that region, including judaism and christianity. Our text series has extensive chapters on Abraham's epiphany in Ur and his trip to Canaan, the enslavement of the Jews in Egypt, ,the story of Moses,the historical basis of Jesus etc. This is a text from one of the largest educational publishing houses in the country, not some religious tract. It is widely used in schools all over the country.
posted on March 28, 2003 06:29:57 AM new
profe - While you may have done or do things differently in your classes, all these years, I'm sure you must have read/heard of teachers who are doing exactly as I described while teaching ME history and diversity to their students.
-------
The ACLU has actively worked to remove any religion in as many areas as they can, and not just in the schools. What I'm saying is that there is an increasingly large number of American's that are pleased to see a reversal of some of our national long held traditions that are being chipped away at little by little.
Like non-forced prayer in schools, prayer in our government offices and the list goes on. I'm posting a couple of links that refer to what I'm speaking of when I say the pendulum is going back in the other direction.
http://www.aclj.org/info/psp.asp This link speaks to the court decisions about 1) Offical school acknowledgement of religion....employment of Congressional Chaplins...and daily prayers being said in the USSC, our Senate and our House of Reps. 2) student prayer in public schools "student speech cannot be restricted solely because of the content of that speech."
History The ACLJ opposes the relentless efforts by the ACLU and other liberal advocacy groups to remove prayer from the public arena in the name of the Establishment Clause.
This Nation's founding fathers never contemplated a society in which any public prayer was viewed as anathema under the Constitution. From the inception of our Country, American Presidents have issued Thanksgiving Proclamations establishing a national day of celebration and prayer. President Washington issued the first such proclamation at the request of the First Congress, and "recommend[ed] and assign[ed]" a day "to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be," so that "we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue . . . ." (1) [b]Successive Presidents followed suit, and the explicitly religious nature of these proclamations has not diminished[b], notwithstanding the increasing religious pluralism in our nation.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt urged the Nation to engage in "reading of the Holy Scriptures during the period from Thanksgiving Day to Christmas" so that "we may bear more earnest witness to our gratitude to Almighty God." (2) Similarly, our Presidential inaugurations have traditionally opened and closed with prayers. Federal law directs the President to "set aside and proclaim a suitable day each year . . . as a National Day of Prayer, on which the people of the United States may turn to God in prayer and meditation at churches, in groups, and as individuals." (3)
The Judiciary has also historically invoked divine protection over its proceedings. All federal courts open sessions with the "prayer" that "God save the United States and this honorable Court." Congress has gone even further, employing legislative chaplains to offer prayers every day that Congress is in session, and also setting aside a special prayer room in the Capitol for use by Members of the House and Senate. The room is decorated with a large stained glass panel that depicts President Washington kneeling in prayer; around him is etched the first verse of the 16th Psalm: "Preserve me, O God, for in Thee do I put my trust." Beneath the panel is a rostrum on which a Bible is placed; next to the rostrum is an American Flag. (4)
It is thus clear that public prayer is a vital part of our nation's heritage and our founding fathers would undoubtedly have been shocked at the notion that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment forbids such public prayers. The ACLJ is committed to restoring a proper understanding of the role public prayers play in the life of our nation.
I am under no illusion that anyone is going to change their position/stance on this issue. What I'm saying is these are the issues our history has honored and some are working to protect. The slant to the 'right' you are witnessing now, those Americans who support the President are the people saying...'enough is enough'.
posted on March 28, 2003 08:35:36 AM new
No, I don't, Linda. I recognize, and have defended here in the past, the rights of people to practice and express their religious beliefs, religious beliefs I don't hold, as I'm an atheist.
But you take two situations that have many similarities, the right to freely practice and express religious beliefs, and the rights to freely practice and express anti-war beliefs, and come down on different sides of each situation.
Take a paragraph of yours in this thread:
"For years people have remained silent about their religious beliefs...imo, so as not to offend others. Now those same people have reached the point where they believe their tolerance has turned into encouragement for the full-fledged efforts to remove 'God' from everything. That's what I believe we're seeing a reversal in. More are standing up and in essence saying "I respect your right to not choose to 'believe' but you've stepped over the line and now you're trying to take my right to proudly show my religious convictions to the world. My right, my freedom under our constitution."
We'll change religious beliefs to anti-war beliefs, or dissent, as appropriate, in that paragraph.
"For years people have remained silent about their anti-war beliefs...imo, so as not to offend others. Now those same people have reached the point where they believe their tolerance has turned into encouragement for the full-fledged efforts to remove 'dissent' from everything. That's what I believe we're seeing a reversal in. More are standing up and in essence saying "I respect your right to not choose to 'dissent' but you've stepped over the line and now you're trying to take my right to proudly show my anti-war convictions to the world. My right, my freedom under our constitution."
Anti-war speech and protests are protected under the constitution, through a combination of the right of peacable assembly and the right of free speech. Yet for months you and others have dutifully repeated every vacuous reason under the sun to deny that this right should be practiced. They're all Commies, even though one of the groups backing this movement is the Quakers. They've forgotten 9-11, even though one of the groups involved in the movement are relatives of 9-11 victims. It's encouraging to Saddam Hussein, as though one person is responsible for the propoganda spin another puts on his positions (note here that in today's Iraqi press conference, the gov't official pointed approvingly to the resignation of Richard Perle, at Rumsfeld's request, asserting it showed a breakup within the U.S. administration over the Iraqi war), it will cause more deaths by lengthening the war, which might be the coldest argument of all - We're going to kill them anyway, you can't stop us, only pause us, the quicker we do it, the less we'll kill. They're Anti-American and unpatriotic, though many are veterans themselves. And now - it costs too much, though the war itself will cost billions, and on and on and on.
You vigorously defend, in this thread, the right to excercise speech you'd like to excercise, and have spent months attempting to quash, with the same vigor, speech you don't agree with.
posted on March 28, 2003 09:54:13 AM new
Donny - I have never stated people don't have a right to say anything they wish. I have the right to disagree with their opinions and a right to form an opinion from those statements, as to what degree they support the government of the US. Especially when it seems to me to be so far left as to be working towards changing our current form of government. It's me forming an opinion. Just like everyone else does of those they feel are on the 'loon' edge of religion. Are they taking away anyone's 'rights' when then do that? NO.
I don't see using our constitutional rights to practice a religion anywhere vs peoples rights of disent as being any different. The difference I'm seeing and I don't believe you are addressing when you make your above comparison is that both of those are rights. But while some speak out about their disagreement, on either issue, it's not the same as actively working to change laws to not allow one of those behaviors/constitutional rights. ie: remove God from everything. No one is working to pass laws to forbid disent/protesting. They ARE saying it's to be PEACEFUL, not disruptive disent/protesting.
[i]I have never said people don't have a right to peacefully protest. I have pointed out who organizes these anti-war protests and have said I believe people need to be aware of the 'causes' they support. Most are un-aware of who funds those groups, and what their agendas are. And I do believe that when you support groups who are anti-american...against our form of government...you are supporting their agendas. And when I see protester signs that say: "Support our troops, shoot the officers"....that is anti-American to me and is promoting violence....as are many other statements that have been made here. But I'm not actively working to change the laws to throw people in jail who say it, as those who wish to remove/end a constitutional right I have.
You vigorously defend, in this thread, the right to excercise speech you'd like to excercise, and have spent months attempting to quash, with the same vigor, speech you don't agree with. No, I don't see it the same way you do. I'm NOT taking away anyone's constitutional right to speak out, by legislation. That's what the left has been doing to well established rights. What you've see me write is my disagreement with the statements that have been made. To me, there's a big difference in being in disagreement with a view, an opinion, and actually working to remove, in law, someone's right to PEACEFULLY protest.
I've not said they have no right to attend protests, because they do. I just disagree with most all of the reasons they are doing so and I judge that many of those reasons are against the form of government I have enjoyed all my life.
posted on March 28, 2003 10:27:23 AM new
Sorry, Linda, but you're a dupe.
It's no coincidence that you and the others parrot these reasons to each other, in the same order. These are like reasons du jour... or reasons of the week (what's the French word for week?)
The talking point that's put out one week is who's "behind" the peace protests. People lap it up and repeat it dutifully. The next week the talking point is encouraging Saddam. This week the talking point is the cost of protests.
Sure, you admit there's a Constitutional right to protest... but over and over you've repeated reasons, reasons that obviously don't originate with you or the others, as to why protesting should be supressed.
Look -
"Most are un-aware of who funds those groups, and what their agendas are."
And you discovered this on your own, or was it fed to you through obliging media? Did you know that one of the funding groups are the Quakers, and one of the organizing groups is relatives of 9-11 victims, or do you just repeat what's been fed to you?
You've been propogandized.
What can't be done short of changing the Constitution, removing people's right to express, in mass, disagreement with the government's policy, is attempting to be done by an organized attempt through social pressure.
posted on March 28, 2003 11:10:33 AM new"Bush's political use of his religion will prove to be a huge mistake. Winning the war in Iraq is going to be somewhat easy. Winning the peace in the Middle East is a going to be a great challenge. Bush interjecting his religious beliefs into his official pronouncements will poison the peace process."
posted on March 28, 2003 11:10:46 AM new
donny - Sorry you find it necessary to start calling me names and to insult my abilities to form my opinions without being a follower of another person. Because I hold a different opinion than you hold. Sorry, Linda, but you're a dupe. I am no fool, donny.
[i]Sure, you admit there's a Constitutional right to protest... but over and over you've repeated reasons, reasons that obviously don't originate with you or the others, as to why protesting should be supressed. No...you're not listening here. We over and over repeat why we see them the way we do.....that's NOT supressing their rights. That's disagreeing with their opinions and actions.
"Most are un-aware of who funds those groups, and what their agendas are." And you discovered this on your own, or was it fed to you through obliging media?
Why can't anyone here communicate without the insults, sarcasm? Yes, as a matter of fact if you do a search of past posts I've made, you see I shared with either neonmania or msincognito the results of spending almost two full days checking it out for myself. I've shared when I first heard it stated [who was really behind the organization of these protests], I didn't automatically take it as 'truth'. I went through several of the 'about me' pages of these groups. And when I go to the names of some, I did searches on their groups....to see what they support. I saw groups that support Marxism, the theories of Stalin, [in others] the group name said they were communists. Others were supporters/financial supporters from NK, Arabs, Muslim and communist groups etc.
You've been propogandized. No, you're very, very wrong about that. But I have noticed that many here see what they believe to be propoganda on the side of the US and don't believe it, but when they read or hear propoganda from another country, they 'lap' it up...quickly side against their own country.
What can't be done short of changing the Constitution, removing people's right to express, in mass, disagreement with the government's policy, is attempting to be done by an organized attempt through social pressure. Social pressure is how it all works, donny. Has in families, towns, states and the Federal government almost since time began. Majority who agree....rule.
profe - While you may have done or do things differently in your classes, all these years, I'm sure you must have read/heard of teachers who are doing exactly as I described while teaching ME history and diversity to their students.
Of course I have. I believe these are the exception, not the rule as to how things are taught in classes nationwide. We love the sensational in all things these days. People wishing to further religion in the classroom will jump on these cases and make them look like the whole country has banned discussions of religion in classrooms. It simply hasn't happened. it 's a "crisis" IMO created to help further the cause of fundamentalists bringing their dogma into schools.
posted on March 28, 2003 02:21:00 PM new
"I've shared when I first heard it stated [who was really behind the organization of these protests]"
...and you still don't realize that you've picked up the bait of propoganda and made it your own.
"But I have noticed that many here see what they believe to be propoganda on the side of the US and don't believe it, but when they read or hear propoganda from another country, they 'lap' it up...quickly side against their own country."
And once again, being anti-war is equated with being anti-American.
And you can see how expressing religious views is akin to expressing anti-war views, and it makes perfect sense to you that I correctly support the right of other people to express religious views, religious views which I myself believe to be mistaken, that expression of such views should be protected from pressure from others to be supressed, and yet still continue on, in regards to anti-war views, that "Social pressure is how it all works, donny"
Right, in regards to views you personally find to be mistaken.
posted on March 28, 2003 03:15:21 PM new
profe - I believe these are the exception, not the rule as to how things are taught in classes nationwide.
I agree, this is not happening in the majority of the classrooms. But the fact that it happens at all is troublesome to me and others. Especially when one reads about it happening in more than one case....classroom.
We love the sensational in all things these days. I don't love it. I agree much is sensationalized these days. But sensationalize subjects are brought to the table by both sides. Gets emotions going on both sides of any issue.
People wishing to further religion in the classroom will jump on these cases and make them look like the whole country has banned discussions of religion in classrooms. It simply hasn't happened. To be [hopefully] a little clearer here, I am not promoting any religion being taught in the classroom. As I stated I am against those who wish to block the religious to practice their religion anywhere they wish....and I won't repeat myself on where those were.
When I read of a case or two happening in different schools I don't just to the conclusion of 'it's happening all over America' type of thoughts. I have said if it's okay for one, and not another, that's not right.
It's a "crisis" IMO created to help further the cause of fundamentalists bringing their dogma into schools. This is were we part company. Because I'm saying that these 'hot' issues we discuss were allowed and have been slowly taken away. The right is tired of that and what we're seeing is an attempt to reverse that. Some will be allowed to return to the schools, some won't.
I do understand the position of those who are against this. I'm just saying some of these issues have been taken too far. Like I used in my smoking analogy.
posted on March 28, 2003 03:41:55 PM new
::Because I'm saying that these 'hot' issues we discuss were allowed and have been slowly taken away. The right is tired of that and what we're seeing is an attempt to reverse that. Some will be allowed to return to the schools, some won't. ::
Linda, as I have stated, I have no religious beliefs, it's not something I have felt a need for in my life. This does not mean that I do not respect those of others because quite frankly, each person does what is right for them and who am I to tell them that something that gives them emotional comfort is wrong.
That said. I fervently oppose one of those things that was taken awa y that the right is trying to reinstsate, mainly , organized prayer. Organized prayer was abolished during my time in school and I cannot tell you how greatful I was when it heppened. Thru the early years, that time was the bain of my existance. I was repeated singled out because I chose, not to argue against, but simply not to participate in the reciting of the 23rd psalm every day in home room. Originally it was by the teachers and then from the students after my mother informed them that I would pray if I wanted to and only if I wanted to.
It was ridiculous and looking back on it, it is actions like that that lend themselves to me never adopting a belief system.
Considering that prayer is a deeply personal matter, why should it be an organized aspect of the day? Take a look at the literacy levels of our youth today. I would much rather they be spending that extra five minutes learning to spell, to read, to write a coherent sentence than saying a prayer.
posted on March 28, 2003 03:56:50 PM new
donny - and you still don't realize that you've picked up the bait of propoganda and made it your own. My definition of propoganda is to further or damage a cause. Are we together on that? Because I live in society, listen to the radio, watch tv, read online news sites....I hear both sides to a lot of issues. And if I do, I've picked up 'the bait of propaganda' even though I've done my homework and, as best I could, and verified what was being said was true or not? If that's what you're saying.. then I don't agree. And how would that be different from what both sides do to form their own opinions, on the different issues, in your judgement?
You quote me: "But I have noticed that many here see what they believe to be propoganda on the side of the US and don't believe it, but when they read or hear propoganda from another country, they 'lap' it up...quickly side against their own country."
And then you say: And once again, being anti-war is equated with being anti-American. Where did I, in that paragraph say anti-war? In that statement [above] I was speaking about things like when the Iraqi news says we'll killed 50,000 of their innocent women and children...some here are quick to believe that, when they don't believe their own country saying it's not true... 50 were killed. That's the 'lap it up' I was speaking of.
And you can see how expressing religious views is akin to expressing anti-war views, and it makes perfect sense to you that I correctly support the right of other people to express religious views, religious views which I myself believe to be mistaken, that expression of such views should be protected from pressure from others to be supressed, and yet still continue on, in regards to anti-war views, that "Social pressure is how it all works, donny."
I don't know how to say this to you differently, donny. To me we're talking about two different issues. The constitutional rights we have as American's....[religion and protest] and our personal views...and disagreements. You mention 'protected from pressure' from others. Maybe that's where we're not on the same tract. To practice a religion is a constitutional right. To protest is a constitutional right. To discuss, disagree, argue and debate issues is not 'protected from pressure with what another person is saying'...is NOT violating anyone's constitutional rights. Are we in agreement so far?
No one is trying to lawfully take away anyone's right to protest. But there are those like the ACLU who are actively working to change the laws so religious freedoms are limited, when they weren't in the constitution.
'Social pressure it how it all works, donny.' [Working here to be clearer] If I don't like the wages they grape pickers are earning, I'll boycott buying grapes. That's social pressure. If people don't agree with any issue, they apply 'social pressure' to change it. Calls, emails, letters stating their disagreement, etc. Social pressure we put on our elected representatives to vote on an issue the way we want them too. A family member who's not cooperating in the smooth running of the family chores...and the majority of the family members let him/her know their displeasure....it's all social pressure. Social pressure is when a large majority of women want abortion so they apply pressure to the legislators to make it legal. No one has lost any 'rights' they've been in the minority and have been 'out voted'. Majority wins.
posted on March 28, 2003 04:21:36 PM new
neonmania - It really was NOT my intention to debate *each and every* disagreement people have with what the 'religious right' would like to see happen. As we all know there are varying degrees [wants] in any group. I was trying, obviously not successfully to list some of the reasons I see many of those in the middle and on the right who are glad to have a President in office that supports their views.
No one seems to have read my smoking analogy. Where the 'demand' goes from please don't do something that I find annoying..to you're not allowed to do it here...there..outside...or even in your own home. Little by little the rights were taken away by those who didn't/don't like it. What I've tried to say here is it's my belief that this is the way the 'right' feel about their right to practice their religion. They're tired of hearing it offends someone one. That they can't do this and they can't do that. Especially when it doesn't say that in our constitution...these subjects are all up for grabs...if there's enough social pressure maybe a group of kids will be allowed to use the school room, after school to meet and form a 'XXX' club. Just like others area allowed to do. Just like the Bible study groups Hillary goes to in the Senate buildings.
For me, as you gave what you most object to [thank you] you're speaking of a totally different issue than I am. You're speaking to 'forced' practices. I'm not. I'm speaking to unforced freedom to practice a religion.
I find it offensive that if a high school graduate wants to thank their God for helping them make it though this tough obsticle...they can't...because they might offend someone. Many, many other examples can be give...but they're all the same. And many believe these 'limits' restrict our constitutional rights, when they shouldn't. Because it bothers some, or they find it offensive doesn't 'trump' their rights.
posted on March 28, 2003 04:57:23 PM new
Consider, Linda..
"And if I do, I've picked up 'the bait of propaganda' even though I've done my homework and, as best I could, and verified what was being said was true or not?"
Propoganda isn't necessarily untrue. Very effective propoganda is often the truth, but only part of the truth. The anti-war organizers are one example.
You hear it reported that some of the backers are various communist and socialist groups, leading to the charge that they're all communists and trying to overthrow our government. You double check and see - yes, there are communist and socialist groups backing this, what they said is true. You've done your homework.
But have you? Because the larger truth is that other disparate groups, such as Quakers, Veterans Groups, and relatives of 9-11 victims have also joined together under this umbrella, temporarily, for this one purpose.
But the report you heard repeated over and over, and parrotted over and over yourself, only names communists and socialists as organziers... and that's what you confirm to yourself.
That's being propogandized and duped.
There are very few people, it seems, who support the rights of others to express views that aren't consistent with their own. This isn't a stance properly laid at the feet right-wing or conservative viewholders, the left-wing or liberal set are just the same.
This topic is 9 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new7new8new9new
