Two gold stars for using the phrase "curriculum vitae" :D

SI

So to you free speech is telling a 12 year old they are going to hell if they don't accept Jesus.

Thank you for reinforcing what I said.

Ted Kennedy.

Edit: Er, in response to Jon's question. I'm not quite sure what his point is, though.

Good job -- I'd say flere beat you to it, but with our whacked out post sequence lately, who can be sure?

You both receive one brownie point :D

{edit to add} - LMAO, it put this post in front of the one I was responding to, right on cue.

Now I need to work on getting more green checks...

I like brownies. Is that the most cloyingly liberal Massachusetts senator in the history of the world?

It was in response to cuervo's comment somewhere about "I would at least want to see said wino's curriculum vitae."

Basically, it was an easy opportunity for a quick TK joke.

Now I'm going to post & see where the "post sequence wheel of fortune" lands this time :D

Actually I believe I am a lot more tolerant than most. I just happen to believe that prayer (in any form) is not something to be spouted in public places except when designated for that purpose.

To hear public prayer is very offensive to me (and others). There is a time and place for everything. But as part of the 'majority' I don't believe you (the generic you) can understand that. It's more of my time is anytime, and my place is anyplace, and who the hell cares what some non-christian thinks because they should be in hell anyhow.

I was with you on most of your original post but the public prayer thing I gotta disagree with.

For instance, I'd really like to punch every single person around me who talks on their cell. I mean, really, just belt them a good one so I don't have to hear them saying "Oh, I'm on my way home, see you in 2 minutes" or when some dumb blonde gets on her phone, saying "Where am I? I'm on campus, walking to class. Where are you? Oh, cool!" because she'd rather talk to another vapid friend than spend some time in quiet reflection, thought, or just minding her own damn business and not polluting my air space with her noise garbage. But last I checked, I couldn't do it because no matter how rude it was, they're allowed to do it.

SI

I support you on the cell issue and understand your point. The difference is the cell thing is just rude and annoying and ignorant. The prayer thing has the added feature of making non-christians feel like they don't belong.

A few thoughts to this painful thread:

- The blind hostility of JoninMiddleGA's earlier posts and the desire to squash any meaningful debate is precisely what the author of the article is most afraid of.

- By the way, it's not a Christian's right to free speech - it's an American's.

- Jesus never advocated violence against anyone in the name of God, even though his people (the Jews) were savagely oppressed by the Romans and it would have been easy for him to do so. He took the harder path. So to say that God is on America's side, God supports Bush's decision to go to war to "free" people, etc. is a gross miscarriage of Jesus' most important message.

- As listed in her biography, the author's efforts to help others less fortunate seems to fit into Jesus' teachings pretty well.

- I would like to know what qualifications I must have in order to articulately express my opinion with legitimacy? A cross? A Young Republican badge? Or can an article stand on its own merits without pre-judgement or stereotypes?

Yeah, but I'm pretty sure that's not grounds to dismiss their right to free speech on.

And I'd say that if they were praying to (pardon any misspellings) Yaweh, Allah, Buddah, Satan, or Arnold Schwarzegger.

SI

Actually, I think to get JiMGA to listen you have to have a "Crotchety Old Republican" badge and even then he'll listen with one ear to the ground, making sure you're legit ;)

SI

Exactly how many Philosphers do we have at this forum? Straw man? Ad hominem? I'm still waiting for the red herring.

Hitler was heavily involved into the occult: Devout Christians were persecuted along with Jews and others that did not follow the Nazi Party line. Any real research would reveal this, not the usual lazy-man leftist propaganda equating morality with evil.

Now there is soda on my keyboard... (Still laughing)

But guess who is? Hall of Famer Rod Carew!

(He converted.)

I'll take my previous quote a step further: It appears to me more and more that the secular crowd is attempting to equate traditional morality with evil and traditional immorality with virtue. Seems to be the common thread amongst most anti-religious articles and 'research.'

Good Point. Hmm...might be worth the court time to actually do this....

I saw Hellboy too! That was some crazy shit those Nazis tried pulling. Good thing we got to the big, red fella first. :)

It's just a red herring.... (from the movie Clue)

The Pope also support Germany during this time...and Italy for that matter...

Don't know about 'Hellboy', but History Channel had some good stuff on this: Origins of Hitler's 'Master Race' theory and such.

I was going to respond, but it's not worth it. Your continued ignorance is staggering.

Generally the secular crowd trys to stay away from using terms such as 'evil'...

Traditional Morality is a term that has many meanings to a great many people.

Incidentally, on the subject of ad hominem attacks: Whatever you think of the posted article, it's far more of an opinion piece than an actual statement of facts. Yes, there are facts stated, but they're relatively basic ones (quotes from books, etc) and not in dispute. Like most good writing, the point of the article is to argue a position -- it's not an purely objective effort by any means.

Given that, questioning the author's background and biases is perfectly legitimate (at least in terms of real world discussion, as opposed to purely logical constructs).

True in some aspects, but you first of all make the common mistake of equating the Catholic Church with Christians in general (not anti-Catholic, but the Pope, Crusades, ect.. is what the Catholic Church did, not Christians in general).

And there is one very famous case at least of a Catholic Priest sent to the concentration camps and eventually killed for speaking out against Hitler. So even that shows your blanket statement has many holes. ;)

First of all, there's no public, government institution telling any 12 year old this. If my 12 year old tells your 12 year old about Jesus in school, that's free speach.

Don't get me started on the kind of crap the schools are pumping into our kid's heads with the government's full endorsement - most of it is amoral, liberal, humanistic crap that is offensive to me.

Second of all, I can't fathom why you think public prayer shouldn't be allowed. Where's you're justification in this? Is censorship of all public speech OK with you, or just the Christian variety?

Honestly... you and Hitler might have gotten along famously. Hey, Jews pray in public, too. Maybe we should tattoo them and make them wear little yellow stars on their clothes, just so we can stay away from them, lest our tender ears be exposed to an errant prayer.

Thanks! :D

BTW, 'lazy-man' comment was referring to author of the article. My opinion!

Yup, next you'll be saying that Hitler had the right idea. You are an ass.

True enough, and makes it all the more fascinating how the secularists attempt to convey the same idea of 'evil', but have to avoid the actual word for fear of giving some credence to anything 'religious' in nature!

Semantics is everything.

Depends. At one time, all there was, was the Catholic Church. Blanket statement? I don't see it. Catholic's are Christians though in a very general sense.

Point. A wacko is a wacko is a wacko. Left or Right. Extremism, while I think is needed, does sometimes cast a bad light on the more moderate of a side.

:rolleyes:

edit: I actually wrote a response to this. I'm going jon's route and just resorting to name calling: Idiot!

You confound me, sir.

I can't quite figure out what sort of logic you're working with. I guess you think persecution is bad, unless it's persecution of Christians, whom you seem to hate.

Which is OK with me. Really.

What is considered traditional morality could very well be evil. Are you referring to how the deep south considers blacks? More interesting is the decay of traditional morality in some respects, such as how gambling suddenly surged back into social acceptability. Did it suddenly become less destructive to society? This occurred under Republican watch, the ones who claim to be the self-appointed guardians of tradition, if not traditional morality. What is virtuous about this?

Sheesh, all I get for that is "blind hostility"? Damn, I have got to try harder. There has got to be a more consistent way to get contempt & revulsion across. Ah well, I'll work on it, I promise.


Other -- none of the above. Just have a point of view that I haven't already found woefully wanting & dismissed. As a matter of fact, none of the things you mentioned gets you a free pass if you fail that particular test.

I was with you on the first part Franklin- I think your kid has every right to pray in public if he feels the need to. Can I thus get you to agree that another 12 year old has the right to tell your kid why he worships Satan or the occult, and pray for it in public ? However, when you start the secular humanism rant- you sound like Bubba. I'm fairly certain you don't need that approach. And equating Christians to Jews in Nazi Germany is a little ridiculous - majority per se ?

Traditional morality in the country is Bible-based. Period. Bible was used as a text-book for both reading and writing up into the 1920s in public schools.

In the new testement, Paul tells the slave (which was a common practice of the Romans, among others of the time) to conduct themself so as to bring honor to Christ. Paul was not condoning slavery, just making the point that regardless of circumstance to rejoice in Christ and bring honor to Him.

But the misinformed often use this particular passage to somehow justify slavery in the South or condemn the Bible for condoning it. As above, the Bible does not justify it. (ALL men are EQUAL in the site of God.)

I love your sig, JIMG. It's says a lot about you.

I can just see Jesus uttering those words as they nail him to the cross...

Oh wait, he said something more like "Forgive them, they know not what they do." Intolerant indeed.

Crapshoot, there are kids in public schools that tell my kids how to shoplift. They share Eminem music with my kids. They do drugs. They drink. They have unprotected premarital sex. They have abortions. They can't get any more satanic.

Fiar enough then- I'd disagree with the characterization as "Satanic", but I do support your kids right to pray and talk about Jesus. AS long as you're consistent about not restricting it - its fair game.

Where in the article does she quote Bush as saying this? One of my key points was that she keeps quoting Bush as saying "I pray to the Lord for strength" or some equivalent, and keeps twisting it into "God supports my actions." The two aren't the same.

Ah, good, I've already been called a name. Thanks, I was feeling left out until that.

gi got it right, my point was that there are extremists on both sides, and to name some Christian extremists and use them as evidence of which direction America is heading is EXACTLY like the statement I threw out there. You can't take examples from Fallwell and Robertson and claim the entire country is following them. You'd have a hard time convincing me that even a majority of Christians are following them.

But I would VERY much restrict this! No Satanic influence is coming near my kids...therefore if and when that day arrives in public school my kids are out of there.

Interestingly, the Iron Boot of the Federal Govt concerning public schools as dictated by the ACLU hasn't infiltrated every corner of the country yet: My kids school actually has the sign out front displaying the dates for "CHRISTMAS Break!" :D

Well, we have a different idea of what is and isn't Satanic. I suppose I should wait until the kids are sacrificing kittens to beelzebub before I apply that label...

Well there is more than a little ad hominem in her arguemnt too.

I'd say you need to lighten up. You call yourself tolerant, yet you claim offense when someone simply speaks a prayer within your earshot. Recognize that not everyone feels like you, and respect and tolerate the fact that prayer isn't offensive to the masses. Instead you feel it is your right to bind their tongue.

Oh man, a real yawner here. We've got politics AND religion in the same thread.

I just wanted to boost my post count.