Your turn...
|
|
home blogs about contact search account 
“Exposing & Combating Liberal Media Bias”
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Open Thread | |
Comments Policy
Just some thoughts.
October 28, 2007 - 12:52 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsJust some thoughts.
Flashback to December of 1941, America is still suffering the effects of a terrible economic depression.
Women and minorities are institutionally discriminated against, but persevere and are slowly making gains.
America's public education system, with all it's faults, is the best in the world. A college education will most likely guarantee a lifelong successful career.
Joining the military is considered an admirable and worthy career choice.
Hard work, innovation, loyalty and a 'can do' attitude can still get you the American Dream.
Americans understand the difference between a 'hand out' and a 'hand up', shun the former and try to extend the latter to friends and neighbors.
People the world over will sacrifice almost anything to become an American citizen.
Pearl Harbor is attacked, Japan declares war with America, Germany and Italy soon follow suit.
America, including women, minorities, and recent immigrants, bands together to fight and destroy the enemy. Almost everyone makes willing sacrifices, for the good of the country.
Fast forward sixty years to September 11th 2001.
America is prosperous, Americans are coddled in wealth, even the poor in America are envied by many around the world.
Discrimination against women and minorities is almost nil, with laws to counter it, while some exploit it for personal gain and power.
America's public education system is slowly being destroyed from within, by self serving bureaucrats, and Johnny can't read. College has become an institution of brainwashing for the socialist left.
Joining the military is considered a poor career choice by some who have taken a cue from a recently disgraced and impeached President.
Hard work, innovation, loyalty and a 'can do' attitude have been replaced by the concept of tenure and entitlements for many.
A great number of Americans depend on, and feel entitled to, a 'hand out' from the government, and would never think to give a friend or neighbor a 'hand up'.
People the world over still will sacrifice almost anything to become an American citizen.
America is attacked and a great number of Americans will do whatever they can to defeat the enemy, while a second great number of Americans say 'What's in it for me?' and try to lay blame at the feet of America.
What a difference sixty years makes.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
DFTT,
October 28, 2007 - 13:04 ET by Dave RWhat a difference sixty years makes.
Imagine what it will be like in this country (or what remains of it) sixty years hence.
I hate to say it, but We the People haven't been very good stewards.
GreenPeace says eating kangaroos will help save the planet
October 28, 2007 - 12:52 ET by RJNumbering around 25 million, there's all that flatuence, ya know....
I wonder if PETA will weigh in....
RJ,
October 28, 2007 - 13:06 ET by Dave RA dust-up between GP and PETA on this would be a real hoot to watch.
Come and getcha JoeyBurgers!
October 28, 2007 - 14:59 ET by RJ...or yer McRoos!
RJ, If I were to grill up a JoeyBurger on charcoal, that means..
October 28, 2007 - 17:09 ET by Dave R..that I would cheese off both GP and PETA at the same time.
Love that idea. :-)
Germany, France, Belgium, etc think Joey meat is gormet stuff.
October 28, 2007 - 17:16 ET by RJSay, I wonder which part tastes best....the tail, maybe?
Tenderloins is the best, in every critter I've tasted :P yummm
October 28, 2007 - 17:19 ET by upcountrywaterEntitlement over infrastructure every SINGLE time.
PETA: people eating tasty
October 28, 2007 - 23:16 ET by candancePETA:
people eating tasty animals
card holding member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
Joseph Farah weighs in on the RINOs.
October 28, 2007 - 14:27 ET by Dave RWhat difference does it make if Giuliani is president or Hillary? .... Giuliani isn't much different from the Clintons in substance. He said so himself in an interview with the Village Voice a decade ago: "Most of Bill Clinton's policies are very
similar to mine."
I cannot honestly say that I disagree with his sentiments.
This country cannot aford another faux conservative in the White House.
Dave, I had seen that
October 28, 2007 - 16:24 ET by motherbeltDave, I had seen that column of Farah's earlier.
I think he may be right. Look at GW Bush...supposedly a conservative. For years I listened to Rush Limbaugh defend him for the prescription drug plan, the education bill, and other things that the Democrats wanted done. He said Bush was smart; was "taking the issues away from them." And Limbaugh thought that was great. Well what good is having a "conservative" president if he's going to give the liberals what they want, so that they can't use those things against him? They had it made...they got him to do what they wanted, and attacked him anyway.
I agree that Giuliani is probably the one that can beat HRC...but at what cost? And supporting a third-party candidate would make her a shoo-in. It's beginning to look like Hobson's choice.
mb, I rarely ever listen to Rush or Sean anymore.
October 28, 2007 - 16:48 ET by Dave RI think both Limbaugh and Hannity have become the republican "establishment" in ways that I am not really comfortable with.
For me, radio-wise, it's Boortz and, once or twice a week, Michael Savage.
Yeah, I know Michael is a little out there at times, sometimes way out there, but I think he makes some excellent points, particularly when they have to do with Mr. Bush, who I am beginning to see more and more as a less than competent president and CIC.
I agree with him that we have all pretty much been had. Bigtime.
Dave, I like Boortz; he
October 28, 2007 - 20:22 ET by motherbeltDave, I like Boortz; he deals a lot in humor. Savage just does screeds. I get uncomfortable listening to him; I bought his book several years ago, and couldn't even finish it.
mb,
October 28, 2007 - 21:38 ET by Dave RI can only listen to Savage for about an hour or so a week, for that same reason. He tends to belittle some of his callers who don't really deserve it.
As for his books, the only one I have read is The Political Zoo, which I thought was great.
I think he is highly intelligent in many ways, but his people skills are lacking entirely.
Boortz
October 28, 2007 - 21:02 ET by ChaitealoverBoortz isn't heard here during the week, just some sort of replay show on the weekend, so I don't know his program very well. I have read his blog in the past, but just sort of drifted away from it, so I guess I wasn't all that impressed.
This afternoon I heard him while in my car and he was insufferably rude to a caller. The caller dared to tell the screener that Boortz was wrong, then softened it when he got to Boortz himself by saying that the research he was citing was wrong. Boortz jumped all over him & didn't even allow him to get to the subject he wanted to discuss. He sounded like a real jerk. I tuned him out & won't listen again.
Hannity's too impressed with himself for my taste; I prefer listening to local San Diego talk radio. I also enjoy listening to Dennis Prager because he frequently discusses topics other than politics.
Chai
"Our people have shed more blood for the liberty and freedom of other peoples...than all the other countries put together. And I don't feel any need to apologize for the United States of America" - Fred Thompson
Chai, Neal has a short fuse at times.
October 28, 2007 - 21:44 ET by Dave RBut, I think he has one of the most informative shows on the radio anywhere.
Of course, I have been a Boortz fan for over twenty years, so I guess I've gotten used to it.
Illinois recently passed a
October 28, 2007 - 13:12 ET by Indiana JoeIllinois recently passed a law requiring a "moment of silence" in public schools. Some students are expected to use that moment for prayer, although that is not mandated. Of course, this is being challenged by the usual suspects, i.e. Robert Sherman, the atheist. I thought his kid went to school in CA? Wasn't that where he started the movement to take "under God" out of the Pledge?
Anyway, I feel that a "moment of silence" is just fine in school. Each student can use the time as they wish, with no one knowing what they're thinking. And, to borrow from the anti-prayer crowd, if there was no "MOS," the students who DO choose to pray would draw attention and possible ridicule. Seems like a good compromise to me.
Thoughts?
I don't have a problem with
October 28, 2007 - 14:27 ET by motherbeltI don't have a problem with it at all. Anyone who doesn't want to pray can use their time to recite rap lyrics or whatever. Believe it or not, some have argued against it because students might think they were "supposed" to pray, which would be a kind of subtle coercion.
You can't win. The only thing that's allowed is being forbidden to pray.
Everyone rights should be protected
October 28, 2007 - 16:44 ET by general companyKids down here often pray after games or school activities, my son even particapated in a short play called "You cant say his name" or somthing simular. My daughters softball team was forced to forfite a game they had won because they prayed on the field after the game, even though some of the other team particapated. They took the high road, and never complained, and continued to pray after every game.
Funny, seems we will have foot baths in these very school that will ban prayer. Also how is it you can ban prayer? How do you accuse one of prayer? Who are these accusers and what right do they have to tell others their rights are limited?
Prayer
October 29, 2007 - 04:13 ET by UnsaneI prayed in school once, with some friends...
...but it wasn't the kind of prayer you are thinking of.
I was 17 at the time. By the time we were done, we practically had the hallway to ourselves. :-)
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Home
October 29, 2007 - 04:10 ET by UnsaneI am all for prayer!
At HOME.
(Why some people want a bunch of educators, many of whom are hostile to religion anyways, to sanction prayer is beyond me.)
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Nobody is asking or telling
October 29, 2007 - 06:15 ET by Indiana JoeNobody is asking or telling educators to "sanction prayer." It's a "moment of silence," period. Should students' right to practice their faith be banned from such a moment?
Don't want to pray? Think of the troops... or your dog... or how stupid people who want to pray for a minute are. But, since everyone will (theoretically, at least) be "silent," no one will know who is praying and who isn't. I think it's a pretty good compromise, it doesn't paint a target on anyone's back, and allows ALL to enjoy their 1st Amendment rights.
And again, if atheists truly don't believe in God, why do they object to any display of belief in Him? I don't believe in Vishnu, for instance, so the sight of a Hindu praying to him/her would not bother me in the least.
Moments of silence (right)
October 29, 2007 - 07:17 ET by UnsaneA moment of silence is merely school prayer in disguise.
And again, if atheists truly don't believe in God, why do they object to any display of belief in Him? If you aren't bothered by atheists, why pose this question? My concern is leaving the schools completely neutral in matters of religion, leaving such matters to those who should be in total control of such matters: the PARENTS (remember them?). Yes, in my view, this means no prayer...no prayer rugs, no sacrificial chickens, NOTHING. Why? Think about it. I'd reason that most of the teachers/administrators today look upon religion with sneering scorn anyways. Why would you want them leading ANY sort of prayer at all? Another issue is that even if you had a prayer...would it be compatible with ALL denominations of Christianity?
If you want your kids to pray...I mean, a "moment of silence"...take them to a Christian school, or teach them your religious values at home. Why is that so much of a reach?
I'm not bothered by prayer at all, though I should note your snarky question reminded me of the most grossly overrated, overhyped moment in my life: high school graduation. They had an invocation/benediction, and that is how my mother found me in the crowd: I was the only one who did not bow his/her head, and she expected that to happen. However, me being the immature p$#!k that I was back then, I snickered through the whole thing...quite loudly, I might add.
I should point out additionally that atheists like myself aren't bothered by displays of belief in God. I walk past churches every day, and the last time I checked, they are kind of hard to miss. I probably have walked past synagogues and mosques. I have visited cathedrals around the world, and temples of both Buddhism and Shinto. All of these are hard to miss...yet you don't see me wanting them demolished, your eagerness to confuse me with Enver Hoxha notwithstanding.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
If that's the case, let's
October 29, 2007 - 07:23 ET by JerryIf that's the case, let's get rid of the "Theory" of evolution, which seems to be the religion of choice for many.
You did know that the CHRISTIAN Bible was the primary textbook of our public education system back in the founding father's days. The first superintendent of public education was opposed to introducing new textbooks into the curriculum for fear that it would take the focus off of the Bible.
Tell me again how we are supposed to believe that the intent of the founding fathers was a separation of all things Christian from public forums??
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachmen
vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
Not everyone thinks like you
October 29, 2007 - 07:36 ET by UnsaneBack in the founding father's days, there was scarcely the concept of public education as we know it today. In TX it didn't begin until the days of Gov. Davis in the late 1860s.
I have no "religious" view of the theory of evolution, because the key word in that phrase is "theory". It can quite easily be disproved, and when such evidence comes along, I will gladly hear it.
The Bible as a primary textbook? Which version? I will take a guess and say it would the the King James version...I have read the Bible, and correct me if I'm wrong, such subjects as chemistry, physics, algebra, geometry, economics and so on are not to be found there. It will grant much spirituality, and even make you a more eloquent speaker and writer (as the King James Bible ranks up there in importance in the English language as Shakespeare's works, and both come roughly from about the same time)...but beyond that, what else?
Do you know that not everyone who attends public school is a Christian? Seeing the tone of your posts, that prospect absolutely frosts you. If you want your kids to learn about the Bible, great! Do it AT HOME.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
My "tone"? I simply
October 29, 2007 - 08:56 ET by JerryMy "tone"? I simply re-stated the intent of our founding fathers. I have no problem with "non-Christians" in public schools, just their attempts to change it.
Not everyone who comes to our country believes in democracy. Not everyone who comes to our country believes in capitalism. Should we change our system so as not to offend?
Unsane, it seems to me that you were basically saying, "If Christians don't like it, get out." What if I had said, "If atheists don't like it, send your kids to an Atheist school.."? Why should we simply stand by and watch while everyone who doesn't like how our educational system was founded, changes it to their liking, and tells us to shut up or get out?
And I'm sorry, but standing and loudly snickering during a public school prayer is not "rebellion". That's just classless and rude in my opinion. I would think the same of a Christian acting that way during a Muslim prayer.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
}}---> School Agenda
October 29, 2007 - 09:01 ET by Cool ArrowSeems to me if you sanitize the school systems of everything remotely offensive, you challenge nobody.
And here we go with our tolerance: "Mommy, today we learned it is our place to lick Cartman's feet clean."
Negative
October 31, 2007 - 05:17 ET by UnsaneCool Arrow - This is not about what is offensive to me...this is about respect other people's decisions about what values to raise their children with. Period.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
For Jerry
October 31, 2007 - 05:16 ET by UnsaneOne, I am not offended by the existence of religion. Your tone, in this post and the one I responded to, makes it seem that the existence of atheists offends YOU. Why is that?
I simply re-stated the intent of our founding fathers. Really? How do you know what the intent of our founding fathers was? What arrogance. (If you do, you have a golden career as a historian that awaits you.) We can't even determine that historically, as they left little evidence of why they came up with what they did in the Constitution.
Not to mention you fail to understand that the idea of taxpayer-funded public education was in the pre-dawn stages at that time. Hence that idea, let alone prayer in such schools, was beyond imagining for the founding fathers, your attempt at mind-reading notwithstanding.
Unsane, it seems to me that you were basically saying, "If Christians don't like it, get out." It seems that way to you. This is because you are ignoring me when I say: if you like prayer, instilling religious values in your kids, great! Do it AT HOME. Go to CHURCH. I want YOU, the parent, to be in total control of that, without bringing in others. See what I get for trying to show respect to religion and the personal lives of others?
And I'm sorry, but standing and loudly snickering during a public school prayer is not "rebellion". That's just classless and rude in my opinion. That's every bit as classless and rude as your selective literacy that you have demonstrated here. Did you miss the part where I said that I was being "immature"? Of course you did. But that's okay. Christians are just as given over to classlessness and rudeness. One time when working...won't say where, but it was in the logistics industry, I took a call from a woman who screamed and screamed and screamed at me and other total strangers, and who also questioned the legitimacy of my birth, took the lord's name in vain several times, and threw other such curses. When I got her situation settled, and called her back, I got hold of her answering machine, where she ended it with "Blessings!" Doubtless she is saved, and can be as classless and rude as she wants to anyone else, because she is saved.
Nobody, not Christians, nor atheists, are perfect.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
For Unsane
November 1, 2007 - 00:40 ET by Jerry"Your tone, in this post and the one I responded to, makes it seem that the existence of atheists offends YOU."
Please point out any quote I have made that would indicate an offense to the existence of atheists.
"How do you know what the intent of our founding fathers was? What arrogance."
Fisher Ames. Founding Father. First Superintendent of Public Schools. Was adamant that the Bible remain the primary text book in public education. I don't have to arrogantly deduce the intent. He proudly left it there for all to see.
"It seems that way to you. This is because you are ignoring me when I say: if you like prayer, instilling religious values in your kids, great! Do it AT HOME.."
NO. It seems that way to me because you said, "..send your kids to a private (Christian) school.." It seems that way because you are so freaking threatened by a moment of silence.
"That's every bit as classless and rude as your selective literacy that you have demonstrated here."
First of all, I READ what you posted. And even if I didn't, are you claiming a moral equivalency between a perceived slight in a blog and standing/snickering during a solemn ceremony? Surely you jest.
"Did you miss the part where I said that I was being "immature"? Of course you did. But that's okay."
You certainly appeared to be proud of the "stand" that you made. If I misread it, then I apologize. But if you honestly look into your heart and feel that twinge of pride, then I stand by my assessment. Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that it was classless and rude.
"Nobody, not Christians, nor atheists, are perfect."
Never said otherwise. Christians know that ALL men are sinners with a sinful nature.
Look, I don't have any beef with you, Unsane. I entered the fray to point out the bastardization of "Freedom of Religion". We have gone from a Biblical focused education system to one where you can't even say MERRY CHRISTMAS on CHRISTMAS.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment
vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any
President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
Jerry
November 1, 2007 - 20:28 ET by UnsaneFisher Ames. Founding Father. First Superintendent of Public Schools. Was adamant that the Bible remain the primary text book in public education. I don't have to arrogantly deduce the intent. He proudly pride can only be bad if it's Unsane (not that I was, but I just find that word an interesting usage) left it there for all to see. Your future in history is golden. Write a book on him and make millions. Because like it or not, the idea of taxpayer supported public education was barely existing when the Constitution was written. Therefore, those who wrote the first phrase of the First Amendment had no clue about such arguments. And, if you are in fact correct, how come the Constitution forbids religious "tests" or qualifications for office?
In fact, I have looked into the history of this, and noticed something peculiar. In Colonial America, it was not uncommon for colonies to have established official churches. But then in the 1760s-1780s, for some reason, the attitude changed.
Besides, what people like you completely fail to realize or understand is that not everyone in the United States values the Bible as you do. And even those who DO sharply disagree on it. I don't think, for instance, that Catholics would be in agreement that the King James version should be the centerpiece of schooling as you do.
Also, you miss my other point, quite on purpose...in the Bible, can one learn about chemistry, physics, economics, biology, and other such subjects? Yes, it can give those who seek it spiritual enlightenment. And considering how the KJV and Shakespeare's plays/sonnets are the greatest works in English, it can help with language. What else?
NO. It seems that way to me because you said, "..send your kids to a private (Christian) school.." It seems that way because you are so freaking threatened by a moment of silence. When you say "moment of silence" you really mean prayer in disguise. What, Jerry? Kids can pray ANY TIME they want to. Why do they HAVE to do it then? YOU are the one that is so insecure in your faith and filled with EXTREME, INTENSE, OVERWHELMING FEAR of people like me that you MUST have a moment of prayer in disguise - I mean, a "moment of silence" - in schools? Afraid that the United States is going to burn in the hottest region of hell forever if every school in America does not have a moment of prayer in disguise - I mean, a "moment of silence"?
First of all, I READ what you posted. And even if I didn't, are you claiming a moral equivalency between a perceived slight in a blog and standing/snickering during a solemn ceremony? Surely you jest. Obviously, you did not, or else it would have dawned on you that I referenced MYSELF as an "immature prick". Where I am from, that's not a compliment. I was 18 at the time. But then, I am probably talking to one that NEVER did anything stupid when he was a kid, so he can sit firmly, comfortably ensconced in his seat of judgment. Right?
I was 18 then; I am considerably older and wiser now. But clearly that point is lost on you.
You certainly appeared to be proud of the "stand" that you made. If I misread it, then I apologize. Apology not accepted. But if you honestly look into your heart and feel that twinge of pride, then I stand by my assessment. Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that it was classless and rude Then get in your time machine and go kick my ass for it. Besides, it is only classless and rude because I am not "saved". If I was "saved", I would have the license to be as classless and rude to everyone on earth I ran into. Because I don't believe in any "rewards" in the hereafter, I have learned from that - as much as you believe all you want that I haven't - I have to be the best person I can be in the here and the now. I would hate to die and not hit "rigor mortis" before people went on endlessly about what an asshole I was when I was alive.
Look, I don't have any beef with you, Unsane. You coulda fooled me. I entered the fray to point out the bastardization of "Freedom of Religion". And guess what? If you would put your animosity aside for me for longer than five seconds - you might see we have some common ground. Read on. We have gone from a Biblical focused education system and that isn't a bad thing. Christians can't even agree with what Bible to use! My mother, being Catholic, has a Daily Missal sitting on her dresser. How would you feel if the Daily Missal was used in class? If you're not Catholic, you'd probably not be too happy about that. Why don't I want prayer in school or moments of silence? To end arguments, and to leave spritual instruction with YOU, the PARENT, and at HOME. (Also, you underestimate peer pressure in school.) You want spiritual instruction? Go to CHURCH. to one where you can't even say MERRY CHRISTMAS on CHRISTMAS. And that is taking things to the other extreme, which I am not happy with. Why? A spade is a spade. For instance...in college, calendar years were referred to as "BCE" or "CE". It frosted my professors when I insisted on using the correct terms BC and AD. Now, why, as this hypersensitive atheist you have depicted me as being, would I do this? Because that is what they are. Not this "BCE" and "CE" crap.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Unsane
November 1, 2007 - 23:32 ET by Jerry"Because like it or not, the idea of taxpayer supported public education was barely existing when the Constitution was written.."
EVERY idea relating to our nation was barely existing when the Constitution was written.
"..not everyone in the United States values the Bible as you do.."
Never said otherwise. This argument has no bearing on the foundations put in place by the framers of our Constitution.
"..I don't think, for instance, that Catholics would be in agreement that
the King James version should be the centerpiece of schooling as you do.."
Please show me where I said the KJV should be the centerpiece of schooling. What I DID SAY was, the Bible WAS the centerpiece in the beginning, so the founding fathers definitely did not intend for everything Christian to be removed from our public schools.
"..And considering how the KJV and Shakespeare's plays/sonnets are the
greatest works in English, it can help with language. What else?"
Provide the moral foundation that is necessary to remain a strong and just nation.
"When you say "moment of silence" you really mean prayer in disguise..."
No. It is not in disguise. It IS prayer (un-disguised) for people who WANT to pray. It is a moment of silence for those who DON'T WANT to pray. Plain and simple.
"I was 18 then; I am considerably older and wiser now. But clearly that point is lost on you..."
And how does this change the fact that it WAS rude and classless? I did NOT say you were still rude and classless. I said what you did was rude and classless. Do you dispute this?
"Apology not accepted."
That's your problem.
"Besides, it is only classless and rude because I am not "saved". If I
was "saved", I would have the license to be as classless and rude to
everyone on earth I ran into. "
Huh?
"If you would put your animosity aside for me for longer than five seconds.."
Disagreement is not animosity.
"It frosted my professors when I insisted on using the correct terms BC and AD."
Well I'm proud of you. Any time you can frost an elitist professor, that's a good thing.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment
vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
Jerry
November 2, 2007 - 00:03 ET by UnsaneEVERY idea relating to our nation was barely existing when the Constitution was written. Three branches of the military, for one example, predate the Constitution. Some state constitutions are older than the federal one. The idea that the taxpayers should fund schooling barely existed in the United States at the time of the founding of the country. (And that is one reason I hold teachers in such contempt: they believe they and public schooling are an indispensible part of civilization when the fact of the matter is that society survived without them for thousands of years.)
Please show me where I said the KJV should be the centerpiece of schooling. What I DID SAY was, the Bible WAS the centerpiece in the beginning, so the founding fathers definitely did not intend for everything Christian to be removed from our public schools. Please tell me which version of the Bible was the centerpiece of learning. Then tell me which version of the Bible YOU want all learning to revolve around. My educated guess is the KJV, considering most immigrants to the English colonies were Protestants of some variety. Even Maryland's Catholics started getting outnumbered by the Protestants towards the end.
Provide the moral foundation that is necessary to remain a strong and just nation. So, by extension, as an atheist, I cannot have any morals, and no sense of right or wrong. Correct?
No. It is not in disguise. It IS prayer (un-disguised) for people who WANT to pray. It is a moment of silence for those who DON'T WANT to pray. Plain and simple. And we ALL know if we DON'T have that precious moment of silence that America will burn in the hottest region of hell forever. Right?
Jerry, if you spontaneously pray in class, the teacher has no legal grounds to stop you. There are Christian organizations on campus - at least there were when I was in school, and I'm older but not THAT much older. (So much for the oppression of Christianity and religious freedom in schools.) So, therefore, why are you so neurotically obsessed with the prayer in disguise - I mean, the "moment of silence"? What, are their studies out there showing that our children don't learn without a prayer in disguise - I mean, a "moment of silence"? And since the children can pray whenever they wish - I even knew children who would say grace before lunch (I never got that, but that's besides the point) - why do you even NEED a prayer in disguise - I mean, a "moment of silence"?
And how does this change the fact that it WAS rude and classless? I did NOT say you were still rude and classless. I said what you did was rude and classless. Do you dispute this? I guess referencing yourself as an "immature prick" is high praise where you are from. What do you think I was doing by referencing myself as an "immature prick"? Patting myself on the back?
That's your problem. Your problems are: extremely shaky faith, animosity towards all that disagree with your faith, and thinking you can just paper things over with "I apologize". So, no, I am not the one with the problem here.
"Besides, it is only classless and rude because I am not "saved". If I was "saved", I would have the license to be as classless and rude to everyone on earth I ran into. " Self-explanatory.
Disagreement is not animosity. Wow, you coulda fooled me.
Well I'm proud of you. Any time you can frost an elitist professor, that's a good thing. I do what I can. You see, much as this may shock you, I actually respect religion. Sure, I think a moment of silence or prayer in schools or whatever is beyond the pale, but I have no problem with those Christian groups that meet on HS campi, as I pointed out earlier. I like "freedom of association". I think the term "winter break" is stupid, for I call a spade a spade. It's CHRISTMAS Break!
I could go on and on, but I will leave you with the well-spring of my attitudes. My mother and father could have easily gone to war with each other on my religious upbringing. My mother is Catholic; my father comes from a long line of itinerant preachers. What did they decide to do, in my case? Why, remain completely neutral in matters of religion. There are religious accoutrements throughout the house, but my parents never took us kids to church (my sisters went on their own). I suspect that was largely to keep the peace of the household. I now have a sister who is Episcopalian, another older sister who is Christian but who I would consider "non-denominational". Then there's me. None of us bring up the topic, and all of us are free to pursue whatever spiritual paths we want to. I can't see why that is so hard to accomplish on a societal level.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Unsane
November 2, 2007 - 09:10 ET by JerryYou're missing the entire point of my argument:
If our founding fathers intended Christianity to be the cornerstone of public education, how is it that a "moment of silence" or a "moment of prayer" is suddenly such a threat to our Constitution?
We have different opinions. I am fine with that. You appear to think if anyone disagrees with you, it is based in hatred and fear. Sorry, but that's just not the case.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment
vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any
President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
"Atheist" = "Intellectualy Challenged"
October 29, 2007 - 10:14 ET by BrillianceNothing can create it's own existence - Therefore, the fact that anything exists is proof that something ALWAYS existed.
The "something", is GOD.
I know what your counter argument will be:
"Okay smarty pants, where did God come from"?
Answer: God didn't come from anyplace, He ALWAYS was (think about it - then think about it some more).
I don’t like to speak for
October 29, 2007 - 10:19 ET by JimboI don’t like to speak for the atheists, because I am most certainly not one, but I think their argument is that creation is a product of evolution and natural selection... starting at the very beginning with amino acids combining in the proper manner to create one cell life…
Or something like that.
I for one, believe in God as the creator of Heaven and earth.
Leon says "By the way, I'm not afraid of fat people, I'm repulsed"
Truth Monger Says - "Both are religions [Christianity & Islam], yes - with the same percentage of terrorists."
Yeah, I understand.....
October 29, 2007 - 10:37 ET by BrillianceAtheists, and scientists I'm sorry to say, ultimately devolve into smoke & mirror magicians when it comes to "absolute origin".
They fail to recognize, or at least fail to acknowledge that the so-called "strings" had to come from somewhere.
So-called brilliance
October 31, 2007 - 21:47 ET by UnsaneBrilliance - What an arrogant screen name, and comfortably ensconced in your seat of judgment, you call everyone that doesn't follow your version of events stupid.
And you wonder why people like me don't want anything to do with organized religion. Why hang out with a bunch of arrogant a$$holes like yourself?
Let's see how intellectually challenged YOU are. If there is a God, then why isn't earth a big, fat Garden of Eden? Square that away.
I read something to this effect on randi.org some time ago: a preacher in New Orleans thanked god for sparing New Orleans the brunt of Hurricane Katrina. (As to what god thought of those in MS who prayed the brunt of the storm wouldn't hit them, he of course did not say.)
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Brilliance, Your argument
November 1, 2007 - 21:26 ET by hydrodynDMBrilliance,
Your argument relies on an assumption that you should try to justify - that "Nothing can create it's own existence".
I'm not sure if by this you mean that everything has a cause ("cause and effect") or that you can't get something from nothing (maybe "energy conservation"), but either way, both of those can be questioned on a couple of levels.
First, there are examples of non-causal processes and there are examples of violations of energy conservation. Granted, both only seem to happen on the atomic scale and the later for only short periods of time, but these things do happen.
Second, if you accept something like a Big Bang origin to the universe then it isn't unreasonable to acknowledge that things like cause and effect and energy conservation and perhaps even more fundamental things like logic don't necessarily apply before the Big Bang (actually, you can't even say "before" since time came into being with the Big Bang).
The point is that ideas that seem reasonable or even necessary to us might not apply outside of our universe.
The other criticism of your argument is that even if one accepts your premise, it doesn't follow that the "something" that has always existed is "God". Here, I assume you mean God as defined by a particular religion. Since you have no independent knowledge of this "something", there is no way to attribute any characteristics to it. Using your same argument, I can conclude that that "something" is an omniscient tomato.
hydro
November 2, 2007 - 18:46 ET by botg"Nothing can create it's own existence".
there are certain ideas which are asserted based on their own apparent truthfulness. The above statement would fall into that catagory. If you wish to assert that there are things which can create themselves, well knock yourself out, but i hold you in higher esteem than to think you would seriously hold such a counter-intuitive.
"The more I study science, the more I believe in God." Einstein
botg, Yes, the statement
November 4, 2007 - 23:41 ET by hydrodynDMbotg,
Yes, the statement "Nothing can create its own existence" does seem to be obviously true assuming you don't allow things like time travel (do you want to get into that?). However, Brilliance was using something like this statement to suggest that life (and maybe the universe) had to have an intelligent creator.
So I had two options in terms of interpreting the statement. One, that it was basically circular since the wording already suggests an intelligent agent, or two, that they were making a comment about something like "cause and effect" or "energy conservation".
Ultimately, it's up to Brilliance to clarify.
Of course, if you want to address some of the points I brought up...
well hydro time travel may
November 4, 2007 - 23:57 ET by botgwell hydro time travel may be possible given a greater than infinite force to accelerate us beyond the speed of light (as you know as velocity approaches c: m approaches infinity requiring a greater than infinite force to exceed c) and even then the equations do not directly hypothesize what happens (probally because such is non-attainable)
but it is Sunday night and time to sleep
GoHunter08
Unsane, you presume much.
October 29, 2007 - 19:25 ET by Indiana JoeWhich part of "moment of silence" don't you get? NO ONE is asking, expecting, or even WANTING anyone to "lead" any prayers.
I am not bothered by atheists. They seem to be bothered by ME, or at least by anyone showing that they don't agree with the atheistic religion of "no religion." It seems to me that atheists declared war on religion, not the other way around.
And a moment of silence is just that, your assumptions notwithstanding. This is about as "neutral" as it gets, as opposed to a forced prayer OR abolition of prayer. Why do you feel it is your right to go into someone's head and dictate what they think about at ANY time? My boy DOES go to a Catholic school. My sense of fairness and principle is what puts me on this side of this debate.
And my question was not intended to be "snarky." I think it's no "snarkier" than your comments in this post, a good deal less I would say. It is obvious that you ARE bothered by prayer and religion. Walking past a church is supposed to give you points for "tolerance?" Please.
I must run right now, but I'll be back. I didn't really expect such hostility on this topic. It will take some time to try to address it. Especially your presumption that I'm not tolerant of other religions... even atheism.
<edit-addendum> Okay, I'll admit I don't even know who Enver Hoxha is... but it's not relevant to the discussion. I don't believe I accused you of trying to "demolish" anything. Why must you make up "straw dog" accusations? I simply asked what your objection is to a "moment of silence?" I'll even grant that the purpose is to give those who wish a chance to pray.
No one is being forced to pray. And no one is being forbidden from it. Why must students give up their religious freedom for the whole eight hours of school? No one is leading any prayers. No specific religion (or lack thereof) is being promoted. No crufixes, no creches, no menorahs, crescents, or statues of Vishnu. Simply a moment when each student can reflect on whatever they choose, without ANYONE being singled out for ridicule by their participation or non-participation. A private affair for each person to use (or not) as they wish.
And please don't make the lame argument I heard on the radio about this, that a whole minute of "education" is being sacrificed. Teachers and students waste more time sharpening pencils and looking for paper.
(btw, I didn't really mean to start a "dog-pile on the atheist" here. I really would just like to have a reasonable discussion, sans the hyperbole.)
For Indiana Joe
October 31, 2007 - 05:45 ET by UnsaneWhich part of "moment of silence" don't you get? NO ONE is asking, expecting, or even WANTING anyone to "lead" any prayers. You also have trouble with selective literacy. The "moment of silence" is prayer in disguise.
I am not bothered by atheists. They seem to be bothered by ME, or at least by anyone showing that they don't agree with the atheistic religion of "no religion." It seems to me that atheists declared war on religion, not the other way around. Yet MORE selective literacy. I have been to many sites of worship throughout the world, and drive by churches every day. I walk by them and even use a church as a running waypoint. Am I offended by expressions of religious faith? No. But I guess lumping me in with other loudmouth atheists makes you feel better.
My philosophy is "whatever floats your boat" as far as religion is concerned. If you believe Christ is the savior, fine. But I don't subscribe for a myriad of personal reasons I do not expect you to understand.
No one is being forced to pray. And no one is being forbidden from it. Why must students give up their religious freedom for the whole eight hours of school? Did YOU know that if a student was to spontaneously pray in class, the teacher has no legal grounds to stop you? Sounds like you have PLENTY of religious freedom in that regard. And when I was attending school, there were Christian groups that met on campus, during school hours, and held prayer meetings in front of the flagpole, and had various other religious activities. Yet, you whine to me that there is NO religious freedom in public schools?
It is obvious that you ARE bothered by prayer and religion. It is obvious that you desperately want me to be bothered by prayer and religion. Walking past a church is supposed to give you points for "tolerance?" Please. Why? If I was truly intolerant, I guess I could deface the church, spit on it, or much much worse, yet I have not done so. In fact, you seem to have missed in the forums where I spoke up in defense of Christianity. Again, it seems to me that you are extremely bothered by my atheism, and that is readily obvious in the tone of hostility in your highlighted sentence here.
You need to understand and accept that my being an atheist is not me being anti-religion. If you can't, then I cannot help you. Besides, if your faith is so rock-solid and unshakable, why the hostility towards me?
Okay, I'll admit I don't even know who Enver Hoxha is... but it's not relevant to the discussion. Yes, it is, as you seem to equate all atheists with him. You don't know who he is? Let me tell you. He was the ruler of Albania from the end of WWII to April 11, 1985, when he died. He was a virulent atheist. On 22 November 1967, he issued a decree declaring that God is Dead. He then had all of the churches and mosques in Albania converted to other purposes. I don't believe I accused you of trying to "demolish" anything. Why must you make up "straw dog" accusations? No "straw dogs" here. If you want to whine that way, then answer this question: do you think I am anti-religious, yes, or no? I simply asked what your objection is to a "moment of silence?" I'll even grant that the purpose is to give those who wish a chance to pray. My objection, if by some chance you are familiar with the Latin alphabet, and the English language conveyed by said alphabet, is that the "moment of silence" is prayer in disguise. Give me a break. We ALL know that it is designed to be a "substitute" for school prayer.
I'm not even against things like posting the Ten Commandments in courtrooms, truthfully. Or Christmas trees on public grounds, or whatever. My oath of office even contained the words "so help me God", yet you didn't hear me whine about that (it's better than other oaths I am familiar with). Fundamentally, the difference with schools is that you are dealing with children, who should be given their spiritual guidance at HOME or at CHURCH if their parents so desire. If the concept of parental autonomy is too difficult to grasp, then I suppose I can explain further.
And please don't make the lame argument I heard on the radio about this, that a whole minute of "education" is being sacrificed. Teachers and students waste more time sharpening pencils and looking for paper. Try this lame argument. Teachers and students waste eight hours a day under the current educational arrangement. Hence, if a voucher program were instituted that gave parents the autonomy to send their children to whatever school they wanted, religious or not, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. You also fail to understand that you are talking to one whose faith in public schools is nonexistent on my best days.
btw, I didn't really mean to start a "dog-pile on the atheist" here A day late and a dollar short...
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
For Unsane
October 31, 2007 - 21:44 ET by Indiana Joe"You also have trouble with selective literacy." An insult, not an argument.
"Yet MORE selective literacy." Ditto.
" ...I do not expect you to understand." Ditto yet again. And condescending, to boot.
"...in the tone of hostility in your highlighted sentence here." Your words show you are "bothered by prayer and religion." Know thyself. Not defacing a church is not a great definition of tolerance, IMO.
"You need to understand and accept that my being an atheist is not me being anti-religion." Hmm... yet you don't need to "understand and accept" any of MY assertions... you just put your own interpretation on them. Seems a little one-sided to me... but hey, I don't even know who Enver Hoxha is!
...et cetera, ad nauseum... Hey, there's some Latin for you! Oops, sorry, that was "snarky." Just couldn't resist.
I had written and posted a much longer, "snarky back atcha, bud" post, addressing you point by insulting point. But I took it down. I won't rise to the bait (well, not much).
You may need to examine your own attitudes, here. IMHO, you may need to work on your "H." Get down off your high horse, buddy. Implying I don't understand English. From behind a keyboard, yet.... Great debate tactic, that. Some insulting terms for that kind of tactic occur to me, but I'll keep them to myself.... Maybe not a bad idea for you, either.
It looks like you won't make an argument, because you can't without admitting that you're more than willing to step on others' rights in defense of your idea of what your rights are. I'll leave it to the readers of this thread to decide who turned this into an insult-fest, ala "Tumbler." And who is trying to surpress the rights of whom here.
And I'll answer your "simple question," even though you seem incapable or unwilling to do the same. Based on what you've written here, yes, I do believe you are extremely anti-religious. You seem to be not merely atheist, but "anti-theist." And you seem to revel in it. At least, until you are called on it. Of course, that's just MHO. And I'm letting you off lightly, at that.
But you did ask! ;^)
anti-Indiana Joe
October 31, 2007 - 21:57 ET by UnsaneAnd I'll answer your "simple question," even though you seem incapable or unwilling to do the same. Based on what you've written here, yes, I do believe you are extremely anti-religious. You seem to be not merely atheist, but "anti-theist." And you seem to revel in it. At least, until you are called on it. Of course, that's just MHO. And I'm letting you off lightly, at that. I have answered your question, but since you are clearly handicapped by illiteracy, you can't read it. If I flip to Cyrillic, will that help you any?
A moment of silence is prayer in disguise.
You make lots of assertions here without any proof. If you have the intestinal fortitude, I want you to point out specifically where I have been anti-religious or anti-theist. Go right ahead. I see you as a bigot who is positively enraged at the thought of anyone reaching different conculsions than you.
For I am not anti-religious, as most other NB members have accepted. I am, however, anti-Indiana Joe. And if you want to deal with me face to face, head on down to Houston. I will be glad to discuss this with you further there if you want.
And thus far with you I have been EXTREMELY charitable. Seems to me that your bigotry towards me renders you incapable of having a civil conversation with me. What is the point of sinking to your level?
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
For Unsmart
November 1, 2007 - 06:19 ET by Indiana Joe"I have answered your question, but since you are clearly handicapped by illiteracy, you can't read it. If I flip to Cyrillic, will that help you any?"
YOU'VE been "charitable?" And you ask me for "proof?" Of what? Maybe you'll eventually learn to not ask questions that you don't want answers to. And now you are "anti-Indiana Joe." Oh, dear, how will I ever get over this snub?
YOU'RE the one who took any questioning of your viewpoint as an insult. YOU made the accusations of snarkiness. YOU blame me because you feel picked on here. Where are all these people who have "accepted" that you're not "anti-religious?" They're sure not on this thread!
You have NOT answered my question. YOU have made an assertion. YOU have a serious cognitive disconnect. You equate "silence" with prayer and declare that to be an answer as to why you object to it. You're not discussing, you're dodging. Oh, and insulting. Where's your argument? You don't HAVE one. Deal with it.
You're as stubborn and intractable as any "fundy" that you look down your nose at. As unwilling to give the other side a crumb as the most ardent abortion advocate. As quick to assign evil motives to and denigrate those who disagree with you as the moon-battiest liberal I've ever met. You are living proof that knowledge and intelligence do not necessarily go together.
I kept trying to get back on topic and have a discussion about this. You continuously refuse to. I try to ignore your constant insults and rise above it. You have to keep poking, looking for a rise.You keep repeating the same mantra, pretending it's an answer. And accusing me of post-like stupidity because I don't accept it.
And YOU'RE the one sitting safely behind your keyboard tossing insults at anyone who dares question your religion. Is it because you're afraid that, if Christianity IS right, you're going to have a slight problem later? "Deal with" you? Are you wanting a face-to-face? Gary, IN is the place to come. You shouldn't have any problem finding a direct flight to O'Hare. Let me know when you're coming, I'll send you the address. If you can work up the nerve to leave your mom's basement, that is.
And just because you couldn't let it go, couldn't back off a bit as I did, can't have YOUR religion questioned, here's that post I pulled back down. It's not really complete, because I didn't address all of your insulting "non-points." And some of it is in what I did post, so it repeats a little. But it will do. Learn to read yourself, you pompous ass.
And I'm sure you'll hold my anger to your little chest as "proof" that Christians are hypocrites. Well, as you said, none of us is perfect. I think that if you punched Gandhi enough, he'd hit you back.
And I won't be back for this anymore. Next you'll drag out, "I know you are, but what am I?" I have much better things to do with my time. You want to discuss it further, you know where to bring it, tex.
Get over yourself, junior.
************************************
The "moment of silence" is prayer in disguise." That's the second, maybe third time you've said that. "Selective literacy?" Why the insults? I heard you the first time, and even comprehended you. AND I even granted that the purpose is to offer the opportunity to pray. Make your case that anyone is being forced to pray. Explain to me why you are bothered by someone's private thoughts during this "moment of silence." Your "myriad of personal reasons I do not expect you to understand" is a thinly disguised insult, "snarky" in your words, and an attempt to deflect the question. I don't know or care why you are an atheist. Again, it is NOT relevant to this discussion. "Silence" means LACK OF SOUND. Who has "selective literacy?" Not me.
"Did YOU know that if a student was to spontaneously pray in class, the teacher has no legal grounds to stop you?" Yeah, I knew that, Mr. Condescending. Did YOU know that if a teacher DID try to lead a prayer, they have no legal grounds to force you to join in? Stalemate. BUT, that argument held no water when prayer was banned from public schools. Are YOU aware that the prayer-banning argument boiled down to the theory that students who didn't participate would be singled out and subject to ridicule? Why wouldn't you expect that students who obviously prayed in such a secular environment would not be subject to that sort of ridicule? And if ridicule is intolerable for student "A," it must be intolerable for student "B." It's called "equal protection."
And I'm not "whining" to you. You have no power to affect this situation, no more than I do, anyway. I wanted a rational discussion of this subject. You haven't provided that, taking disagreement as insult, and insulting my intelligence with your "snarky" remarks. You have yet, IMHO, to make a reasoned argument against this "moment of silence," other than to label it "forced prayer." Again, to use your insult, "selective literacy."
You claim to have a "live and let live" attitude, yet are viciously attacking something that merely allows students to reflect for a moment because they COULD use it to SILENTLY pray. BTW, this "moment" is defined as a minimum of ten seconds. TEN SECONDS! But that seems to be too much for your level of "tolerance." "Tolerance" as defined by NOT burning down a church. And you are serious about that definition, aren't you? I think that's sad.
Once more, I am NOT bothered by your atheism, another's Judaism or someone else's Druidism. I'm not trying to convert you, humiliate you or insult you. At least I wasn't until you decided that was the way to "discuss" this issue.
You are going to believe what you want anyway, as stubbornly as any bible-thumping, fundamentalist Christian to whom you obviously feel superior. You read "silence" as "prayer," and "prayer" as "Christian," and seem to believe it's all some stealth attempt to convert or brainwash you. YOU are the one objecting to someone taking a moment, a SILENT moment, to think and believe what they wish. All I'm asking is WHY does it bother you? It's obvious that it DOES. I'm just trying to understand WHY.
I was going to continue to address your misdirection point by point, but I just don't want to continue to deal with your insults and (purposeful?) incomprehension. You're asking ME a "simple question" regarding your anti-religious stance? When you refuse to answer MY "simple question?" When all you give me are insults, while showing off some arcane knowledge? Yes, Mr. Unsane sir, I'm familiar with English. I've even read your posts before, but your total hubris and unmitigated gall never seemed so apparent. You won't make an argument, because you can't. I'll leave it to the readers of this thread to decide who turned this into an insult-fest, ala "Tumbler." And who is trying to surpress the rights of whom here.
And I'll answer your "simple question," even though you seem incapable or unwilling to do the same. Based on what you've written here, YES, I DO believe you are extremely anti-religious. You seem to be not merely atheist, but "anti-theist." I believe attitudes like yours are the whole reason that the First Amendment includes a prohibition against religious discrimination. Because it's obvious that you would LOVE to be able to force your "religion" of atheism on everyone else. Someone who defines "tolerance" merely as NOT initiating a "Kristallnacht" (sp? You probably know, I don't care) on religious institutions doesn't seem very tolerant to me. Or to many, I would presume.
And if you're offended or insulted, well, turnabout is fair play. I didn't start this war. The final evidence of your strange way of thinking is your blaming ME for the posts others wrote. I guess it's my fault for bringing the topic up. I didn't realize it was a verboten subject.
Oh bother! There's that silly First Amendment again!
**********************************
That's it. As I said, I'm not wasting anymore time with you, because you haven't really said anything. Knock yourself out replying, though, since you obviously need to have the last word. Maybe someone will read it.
Looking forward to your visit. Bigot.
(I hate acting like this. And I resent being pushed to it.)
Indiana Joe
November 1, 2007 - 20:42 ET by UnsaneKnock yourself out replying, though, since you obviously need to have the last word. And you don't? You have got to be the biggest hypocrite walking the earth. And a bigot.
(I hate acting like this. And I resent being pushed to it.) Yep, you have no freewill whatsoever. Evil Unsane usurped your freewill and pushed you into acting like a pompous ass.
Celebrate your true nature. The post above is who you are in real life: one who passionately hates ALL who aren't as Christian as you are. If you could stand on my throat for ten minutes...I can't even begin to imagine the powerful, intense orgasm you would feel at the thought of sending another atheist to hell.
You are most certainly a bigot because you simply cannot tolerate the fact that some of us come to different conclusions than you do.
I think I just might visit, you whiny, hypocritical bigot...AFTER I get done with defending YOU from the jihadists. Mark your calendar for late summer next year. I'm serious. Let's see if you have the guts to tell me all of that to my face, or if you are imbued with what Roger Waters would call "the bravery of being out of range".
I won't even read your entire testimony to your complete unwillingness to read what I type. I have a job, and a life, and a war to prepare for. Crawl back under whatever rock you came out of and stay there.
"YOU'D BE FORGIVEN ENDLESSLY BUT YOUR VALUES ARE ALL FAKE" - Slayer
"Forgive me! I have but two faces, one for the world one for God; Save me!" - Nightwish
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Unsane
November 2, 2007 - 00:51 ET by RESTLESS 1Kerry King and Jeff Hanneman are the resident "athiests" in Slayer, not sure about Dave Lombardo, I think he is a Christian, but I KNOW Tom Araya is a Catholic. While I like Slayer, using their lyrics on a site to disparage Christians when you know most of the posters are Christian seems needlessly rude. I think you were directing that quote at a particular poster, but many more will read it.
I am a Christian, but I do have reservations about organized religions for reasons that are my own. I don't go to church, and I don't think I am damned to hell because of that. I pray, and ask Jesus to watch over my kids, but I am reserved about it.
Btw, Nightwish? To each their own, but I tend more to Deicide and Suffocation and the like for my hardcore tastes, but the more progressive in me likes Amorphis. Take a listen to "Tuonela", if you haven't already, and I think you will like what you hear. It is different, and takes some getting used to if you are into heavier bands, but lyrically and musically, it is definitely worth the time.
Clarification
November 2, 2007 - 01:44 ET by UnsaneI like the line and in Indiana Joe's case, it is VERY fitting to tell him that his values are all fake. Especially after his tar-black vomit of a post. (h/t to Meshuggah) But rather than plagiarize, I'd rather give credit to where credit is due. Whenever possible, I credit my sources.
Of course, I will be scolded and lectured for my "rudeness" constantly, but it pales in comparison to what I have received for my beliefs just from one poster alone. Besides, I practice reciprocity. Be civil to me, receive civility. But don't come crying to me when a poster throws that out the window as Indiana Joe did, and I respond in kind.
And the Nightwish quote is also appropriate. Far too many people are two-faced in that manner. They can be as rude, hostile, and classless to ALL around them, but as long as they cast the right look to the direction of their god, it's okay. (We all know people like this.)
What's really hilarious is that Indiana Joe has no clue that he is part of the reason I want nothing to do with religion. He sure has done a great job of salesmanship!
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
I think you are correct
November 2, 2007 - 09:31 ET by Roger the ShrubberI think you are correct about SLAYER. I thought it was King's influence that was behind the "God Hates Us All" album (I think he wrote most of the lyrics).
It doesn't really matter to me, since Slayer has not put out a good album since "South of Heaven", and