Irresponsible Assembly.

[JAStewart]

In the past few weeks, something occured to me that was quite weird.

We had, as I'm sure you all did too, Assembly, where we would sit down in the hall infront of the headteacher on a monday and they'd give us the motivational anecdote and we'd sing a song or something. It was the latter that got me thinking.

We used to sing "All things bright and beautitiful", I'm sure you all know it.. "...the Lord God made them all". I think that it is irrisponsible for schools to be making children sing this in School, because above all, it doesn't respect your beliefs. Now, i'm not saying that I was an Atheist aged 8, but my family were in no-way religious or associated with any religion. Sure I'd been to Sunday School and whatnot, but I remember seeing Hindu children singing this in assembly too. It doesn't seem fair that children should have this religious stuff thrown into my face at such an impressionable age.

I mean.. if we have to sign this crap, couldn't we at least sing the Monty Python version?

All things bright and beautiful
All creatures great and small
All things bright and beautiful
The Church has nicked them all.

At least it would contain factual information ;)

[TX50]

"All things bright and beautiful, all
creatures grunt and smell..."

[Tokenconservative]

In the past few weeks, something occured to me that was quite weird.

We had, as I'm sure you all did too, Assembly, where we would sit down in the hall infront of the headteacher on a monday and they'd give us the motivational anecdote and we'd sing a song or something. It was the latter that got me thinking.

We used to sing "All things bright and beautitiful", I'm sure you all know it.. "...the Lord God made them all". I think that it is irrisponsible for schools to be making children sing this in School, because above all, it doesn't respect your beliefs. Now, i'm not saying that I was an Atheist aged 8, but my family were in no-way religious or associated with any religion. Sure I'd been to Sunday School and whatnot, but I remember seeing Hindu children singing this in assembly too. It doesn't seem fair that children should have this religious stuff thrown into my face at such an impressionable age.

I mean.. if we have to sign this crap, couldn't we at least sing the Monty Python version?

All things bright and beautiful
All creatures great and small
All things bright and beautiful
The Church has nicked them all.

At least it would contain factual information ;)

Only a very tiny population of the world (not sure where you are in the world) has no belief in some sort of "creator"/"creation."

While this is a Western song, and therefore one can assume it is referencing the Judeo/Christian/Muslim God, from what you've supplied (no, I don't know it) it does not seem to be saying "Jesus, the Christ" created them all or some such.

So where's the harm?

Oh...that's right, a few youngsters whose parents are zealous, evangelical "atheists" don't like it.

Well, reason enough right there to stop! And if you are a parent who believes the earth is flat, or that the Holocaust did not happen, or that men never went to the moon, or that Evolution is a lie and a conspiracy, why then...we should accomodate those beliefs too!

Tokie

[e-sabbath]

Excuse me, but Athena made _none_ of those things. She did make one spider, mind you, but she didn't make all things bright and beautiful.

[TX50]

Excuse me, but Athena made _none_ of those things. She did make one spider, mind you, but she didn't make all things bright and beautiful.

Yes, but she only made the spider to make up for throwing a hissy fit
because Arachne was "disrespectful" and better at needlework. As if
starting the Trojan war wasn't enough. These virgin goddesses...huh?
:rolleyes:

[Big Les]

Only a very tiny population of the world (not sure where you are in the world) has no belief in some sort of "creator"/"creation."

While this is a Western song, and therefore one can assume it is referencing the Judeo/Christian/Muslim God, from what you've supplied (no, I don't know it) it does not seem to be saying "Jesus, the Christ" created them all or some such.

So where's the harm?

Oh...that's right, a few youngsters whose parents are zealous, evangelical "atheists" don't like it.

Well, reason enough right there to stop! And if you are a parent who believes the earth is flat, or that the Holocaust did not happen, or that men never went to the moon, or that Evolution is a lie and a conspiracy, why then...we should accomodate those beliefs too!

Tokie

Not wishing to be compelled to sing about something you don't have belief in, is not a belief in itself. I have no problem with schools having hymns and otherwise Christian religious assemblies, but anyone that wishes to be exempted from it, and whose parents agree, should be permitted to do so. This way, attendance at assembly will reflect the views of non-Christians in society at large. If Christianity remains the dominant religion, they will have enough numbers to continue their version of "assembly". If other religions and none hold sway, then they will cease due to lack of numbers.

It should be about freedom of choice, and not assuming that every child that attends a school should be given the same "spiritual" "education".

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

While this is a Western song, and therefore one can assume it is referencing the Judeo/Christian/Muslim God, from what you've supplied (no, I don't know it) it does not seem to be saying "Jesus, the Christ" created them all or some such.

So where's the harm?

Oh...that's right, a few youngsters whose parents are zealous, evangelical "atheists" don't like it.
Watch the false dichotomy there, Tokie. There are at least three camps:

Rabid religious folks who, for some reason, need their kids to sing about God in school.

Folks who, for various reasons, don't want their kids to sing about God in school.

Folks who pay no attention or don't care.

Now, in order for this to be an atheist conspiracy with any clout, camp (2) has to be somewhat larger than camp (1). Do you think that's the case? Is it possible that, in some areas, camp (1) might be larger, making it a religious conspiracy?


Well, reason enough right there to stop! And if you are a parent who believes the earth is flat, or that the Holocaust did not happen, or that men never went to the moon, or that Evolution is a lie and a conspiracy, why then...we should accomodate those beliefs too!
And don't forget the beliefs of all the crazies who don't believe in the Easter Bunny or the invisible pink hamster orbiting Neptune! Or, God forbid, those who don't collect stamps.

~~ Paul

[Georg]

Only a very tiny population of the world (not sure where you are in the world) has no belief in some sort of "creator"/"creation."

While this is a Western song, and therefore one can assume it is referencing the Judeo/Christian/Muslim God, from what you've supplied (no, I don't know it) it does not seem to be saying "Jesus, the Christ" created them all or some such.

So where's the harm?

Oh...that's right, a few youngsters whose parents are zealous, evangelical "atheists" don't like it.

Well, reason enough right there to stop! And if you are a parent who believes the earth is flat, or that the Holocaust did not happen, or that men never went to the moon, or that Evolution is a lie and a conspiracy, why then...we should accomodate those beliefs too!

Tokie

To compare the non-belief in a creator with the denying of the holocaust, the belief the earth is flat, the moonlandings are a hoax etc. seems a bit strange to me. Do you really think that is about the same or were you just trying to stir up the feces?
Just in case you were serious, and I don´t think so, let´s do it the other way round: Would you please provide evidence for the existence of a creator that is as compelling as the evidence for the earth not being flat, the holocaust to have happened etc.? If you can´t, please shut up. School is for teaching knowledge, not faith. Would you like your children to be forced to sing songs of a religion they don´t belong to?

[Tokenconservative]

Yes, but she only made the spider to make up for throwing a hissy fit
because Arachne was "disrespectful" and better at needlework. As if
starting the Trojan war wasn't enough. These virgin goddesses...huh?
:rolleyes:

Key term: "virgin." YOU try being a virgin for eternity and see if you don't get a little snippy every once in a while.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Not wishing to be compelled to sing about something you don't have belief in, is not a belief in itself. I have no problem with schools having hymns and otherwise Christian religious assemblies, but anyone that wishes to be exempted from it, and whose parents agree, should be permitted to do so. This way, attendance at assembly will reflect the views of non-Christians in society at large. If Christianity remains the dominant religion, they will have enough numbers to continue their version of "assembly". If other religions and none hold sway, then they will cease due to lack of numbers.

It should be about freedom of choice, and not assuming that every child that attends a school should be given the same "spiritual" "education".

Here is the problem, today (at least in US public schools): ANY religious perspective OTHER than Christianity is not only permitted but "celebrated" in the public schools as they work to utterly erase any notion that the faith that is held by the largest percentage of Americans (by far) is held by anyone.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Watch the false dichotomy there, Tokie. There are at least three camps:

Rabid religious folks who, for some reason, need their kids to sing about God in school.

Folks who, for various reasons, don't want their kids to sing about God in school.

Folks who pay no attention or don't care.

Now, in order for this to be an atheist conspiracy with any clout, camp (2) has to be somewhat larger than camp (1). Do you think that's the case? Is it possible that, in some areas, camp (1) might be larger, making it a religious conspiracy?

And don't forget the beliefs of all the crazies who don't believe in the Easter Bunny or the invisible pink hamster orbiting Neptune! Or, God forbid, those who don't collect stamps.

~~ Paul

Let me see if I understand your reasoning: any conspiracy, in order to be successful, must include the largest number of active participants in a particular population...right?

So Nixon was innocent? Hitler, too? Manson? And Christianity...how exactly did it ever get as big as it is?

Maybe you didn't mean to say that, and we're pretty used to your loose tongue and even looser reasoning, so let's move on:

1. I don't believe that those folks who rabidly desire their particular brand of Christianity to be presented in American public schools should be paid any more attention that that it takes to point and laugh at them.

2. Anti-American "Christians" who want to force their particular brand of Christianity down the throats of American schoolkids are one thing, the rabid SECULARISTS (why don't we use the more accurate term in this debate? Oh...that's right...because it IS the accurate term, and leftists never use the most accurate term when it serves them to use obfuscatory language) who wish to remove not only all traces of Christianity (only) from the public square but also all traces of Western culture are actually dangerous.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

To compare the non-belief in a creator with the denying of the holocaust, the belief the earth is flat, the moonlandings are a hoax etc. seems a bit strange to me. Do you really think that is about the same or were you just trying to stir up the feces?
Just in case you were serious, and I don´t think so, let´s do it the other way round: Would you please provide evidence for the existence of a creator that is as compelling as the evidence for the earth not being flat, the holocaust to have happened etc.? If you can´t, please shut up. School is for teaching knowledge, not faith. Would you like your children to be forced to sing songs of a religion they don´t belong to?

Here's an approach to reading in these forums I've always found marvelously refreshing: read what the person actually says, not what it is you WANT them to have said!

Try it. See if it does not lift the scales from your eyes!

Tokie

[John Bentley]

In the past few weeks, something occured to me that was quite weird.

We had, as I'm sure you all did too, Assembly, where we would sit down in the hall infront of the headteacher on a monday and they'd give us the motivational anecdote and we'd sing a song or something. It was the latter that got me thinking.

We used to sing "All things bright and beautitiful", I'm sure you all know it.. "...the Lord God made them all". I think that it is irrisponsible for schools to be making children sing this in School, because above all, it doesn't respect your beliefs. Now, i'm not saying that I was an Atheist aged 8, but my family were in no-way religious or associated with any religion. Sure I'd been to Sunday School and whatnot, but I remember seeing Hindu children singing this in assembly too. It doesn't seem fair that children should have this religious stuff thrown into my face at such an impressionable age.

Well, were you forced to sing it, or just forced to be present while others around you sang it? Was some form of coercion used to make you sing, or were you punished if you kept silent? If so, then that is over the top irresponsible.

However, if you were just forced to be present as part of the class and were therefore simply exposed to a few religious words in a child's song, then I don't see the harm. You are hardly going to be indoctrinated by such superficial exposure to religion when it's not reinforced in your home life. Give me a break.

[Tokenconservative]

Well, were you forced to sing it, or just forced to be present while others around you sang it? Was some form of coercion used to make you sing, or were you punished if you kept silent? If so, then that is over the top irresponsible.

However, if you were just forced to be present as part of the class and were therefore simply exposed to a few religious words in a child's song, then I don't see the harm. You are hardly going to be indoctrinated by such superficial exposure to religion when it's not reinforced in your home life. Give me a break.

Indeed. The opposite of this is the hyper-religious Christian who believes that if their children go to a school where the "devil's holiday!!!" (the entirely secular Halloween) is "celebrated" (fun for kids who like to dress up have parties and eat candy) then the very foundation's of their kids Christian beliefs will be irredeemably shaken and so celebrating "the devil" should be banned in the schools.

Of course, these same Christians have no problem at all seeing schools shove Christmas down the throats of all kids, Jew, Hinu, Muslim and atheist.

Tokie

[Leicontis]

I don't know the time and location of the schools all of you are talking about. At least the elementary school I went to (which my mother still teaches at, so I'd know if things had changed) was very paranoid about celebrating any non-secular holidays. Granted, this was at least partly due to the occasional Jehova's Witness that that came through. I get the impression that there are, in fact, three major camps:

1. People that want their religious beliefs taught as fact in the schools (most common in the Midwest and Southeast/Southwest parts of the country). These are the ones pushing Intelligent Design, prayer in schools, etc.
2. People that don't want any government-funded organization (including public schools) promoting one religion over another. Most common in the Northeast and West Coast, the fiercer members of this group push for the editing of "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance, and throw a fit if their child is given a candy cane any time in December.
3. People that don't much care either way. Significantly less visible due to their lack of yelling and screaming.

Personally, I'd bet that the third group are in a rather significant majority over the other two combined, but don't appear to be because they're a silent majority. I would say that I fall into the second category, though as long as there is no favoritism shown towards any religion(s) and no attempts at religious/atheist indoctrination, it's fine for minor elements of religion to show up. Official Christmas celebrations are a bit much, but there's nothing wrong with snowmen, reindeer, gingerbread houses, and other secular craft projects.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Let me see if I understand your reasoning: any conspiracy, in order to be successful, must include the largest number of active participants in a particular population...right?
You misunderstood me. I was using the word conspiracy facetiously. The operative word is clout. You are the one implying that it is some sort of conspiracy:

Oh...that's right, a few youngsters whose parents are zealous, evangelical "atheists" don't like it.
Perhaps you don't mean it to sound like a conspiracy. The point is that in some places it might be the religious folks who are zealous and evangelical, and whose numbers give them the clout to force religious events into the schools.


1. I don't believe that those folks who rabidly desire their particular brand of Christianity to be presented in American public schools should be paid any more attention that that it takes to point and laugh at them.
Excellent.


2. Anti-American "Christians" who want to force their particular brand of Christianity down the throats of American schoolkids are one thing, the rabid SECULARISTS (why don't we use the more accurate term in this debate? Oh...that's right...because it IS the accurate term, and leftists never use the most accurate term when it serves them to use obfuscatory language) who wish to remove not only all traces of Christianity (only) from the public square but also all traces of Western culture are actually dangerous.
Agreed. We often refer to these folks as postmodernists. I don't know that they are any more dangerous than various other factions, but so be it. And your idea that all the schools are gleefully celebrating various other holidays is certainly not the case around here.

~~ Paul

[Big Les]

Well, were you forced to sing it, or just forced to be present while others around you sang it? Was some form of coercion used to make you sing, or were you punished if you kept silent? If so, then that is over the top irresponsible.

In my school at least, 15-20 years ago, you most certainly would be pulled up for not being seen to sing during hymns, and bow your head and close your eyes during prayers. As long as Christianity is a) your state religion and b) the majority faith (with atheists in the minority also), I can't possibly object to such rituals being observed. But as you say, there's no way anyone should be compelled to do more than be in the same room, and frankly aside from logistical reasons (what do you do with the opt-outs at the same time) I don't see why anyone should have to take part at all. But hey, this is school, not the real world, and children quite simply don't have the same luxury of choice. Perhaps they should, but given the other problems in the typical "western" education system, I think making what is presently a minority feel marginally more comfortable rather than just letting them studiously ignore the hymn lyrics and the head-bowing etc, is over the top cosseting.

However, if you were just forced to be present as part of the class and were therefore simply exposed to a few religious words in a child's song, then I don't see the harm. You are hardly going to be indoctrinated by such superficial exposure to religion when it's not reinforced in your home life. Give me a break.

Agreed. I may not like it personally, but I can't really argue with that. Compulsion to actively take part, I will protest though.

[Tokenconservative]

You misunderstood me. I was using the word conspiracy facetiously. The operative word is clout. You are the one implying that it is some sort of conspiracy:

Perhaps you don't mean it to sound like a conspiracy. The point is that in some places it might be the religious folks who are zealous and evangelical, and whose numbers give them the clout to force religious events into the schools.


Excellent.


Agreed. We often refer to these folks as postmodernists. I don't know that they are any more dangerous than various other factions, but so be it. And your idea that all the schools are gleefully celebrating various other holidays is certainly not the case around here.

~~ Paul


Sorry...you are a lib, and I have a very hard time ascribing something like fascetiousness to anything a lib says.

I never said it was a "conspiracy." It's quite clear (to those who wish to see) that the left has been using American schools to proselytize since about 1965 (this is the second go-'round, since Dewey and his crowd couldn't really get it off the ground in the 1030s and '40s). If it's a conspiracy, it's not of the super-secret, Bilderberger-Illuminati kind as they make no secret of it and anyone who is paying attention can see that's what's been going on.

We are supposed to, in America, have "community" schools that reflect the wants and desires of the local community. I know this drives centralized governance libs nuts, but that's how it was set up, and yes, that can mean that you have a district that is filled mostly with evangelical Christians who are not scandalized by a Santa Clause made out of macaroin in the Kindergarten class.

That would not be San Francisco, where a child found doing something like that would be carted off to some sort of district PC re-education class to learn that fat, old white men are evil, and that their fatness is something to be horrified about, and any fat, white old man who gives children toys must also be a pedophile (which leaves many libs a bit confused, because they also believe traditional Christian values regarding sex with children to be "patriarchal" and outdated...Gaia, it's got to be hard to be a lib!).

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

I don't know the time and location of the schools all of you are talking about. At least the elementary school I went to (which my mother still teaches at, so I'd know if things had changed) was very paranoid about celebrating any non-secular holidays. Granted, this was at least partly due to the occasional Jehova's Witness that that came through. I get the impression that there are, in fact, three major camps:

1. People that want their religious beliefs taught as fact in the schools (most common in the Midwest and Southeast/Southwest parts of the country). These are the ones pushing Intelligent Design, prayer in schools, etc.
2. People that don't want any government-funded organization (including public schools) promoting one religion over another. Most common in the Northeast and West Coast, the fiercer members of this group push for the editing of "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance, and throw a fit if their child is given a candy cane any time in December.
3. People that don't much care either way. Significantly less visible due to their lack of yelling and screaming.

Personally, I'd bet that the third group are in a rather significant majority over the other two combined, but don't appear to be because they're a silent majority. I would say that I fall into the second category, though as long as there is no favoritism shown towards any religion(s) and no attempts at religious/atheist indoctrination, it's fine for minor elements of religion to show up. Official Christmas celebrations are a bit much, but there's nothing wrong with snowmen, reindeer, gingerbread houses, and other secular craft projects.

And it's gettin worse. Now that Halloween is on the chopping block, Native Americans are going after Thanksgiving, claiming that NA children are very conflicted by it, and ashamed.

1. And Muslims in the Mid-West wanting Islam taught in the public madrassas...I mean schools?

2. These are zealous, religious, proselytizing leftist-secularists.

3. Most people just don't care. But since they don't file lawsuits and organize pickets and stuff, the schools don't pay attention to them. Besides, the schools are more than happy to carry the water for the left and to help de-Judeo/Christianize and de-Westernize the US.

Tokie

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Sorry...you are a lib, and I have a very hard time ascribing something like fascetiousness to anything a lib says.
You have no idea what my politics are, but you appear to require pigeonholing everyone. Why is that?


I never said it was a "conspiracy."
Okay.

~~ Paul

[John Bentley]

In my school at least, 15-20 years ago, you most certainly would be pulled up for not being seen to sing during hymns, and bow your head and close your eyes during prayers. As long as Christianity is a) your state religion and b) the majority faith (with atheists in the minority also), I can't possibly object to such rituals being observed. But as you say, there's no way anyone should be compelled to do more than be in the same room, and frankly aside from logistical reasons (what do you do with the opt-outs at the same time) I don't see why anyone should have to take part at all. But hey, this is school, not the real world, and children quite simply don't have the same luxury of choice. Perhaps they should, but given the other problems in the typical "western" education system, I think making what is presently a minority feel marginally more comfortable rather than just letting them studiously ignore the hymn lyrics and the head-bowing etc, is over the top cosseting.



Agreed. I may not like it personally, but I can't really argue with that. Compulsion to actively take part, I will protest though.

I admit, my viewpoint is from the U.S. We have never had a state established religion. The very idea is anathema to what the United States is supposed to be about, so the very idea is sort of alien to me. But on the other hand, it seems to be sort of a petty thing to spend your time and ire over. I have a chronically ill small child that constantly gives us fears of imminent death. And that is just my own small child in my own small family in my own small town. Trust me, there are bigger things in the world to worry about. People who spend inordinate amounts of time fretting over whether their children might be exposed to a Christmas carol in public school just make me sigh and laugh. It simply points out to me that most Americans have no idea of what life and death are truly about. Oh...and they have way too much free time.

[Tokenconservative]

You have no idea what my politics are, but you appear to require pigeonholing everyone. Why is that?
~~ Paul

I like to know where a person sits before listening to them quack at me about where it is they stand.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

I admit, my viewpoint is from the U.S. We have never had a state established religion. The very idea is anathema to what the United States is supposed to be about, so the very idea is sort of alien to me. But on the other hand, it seems to be sort of a petty thing to spend your time and ire over. I have a chronically ill small child that constantly gives us fears of imminent death. And that is just my own small child in my own small family in my own small town. Trust me, there are bigger things in the world to worry about. People who spend inordinate amounts of time fretting over whether their children might be exposed to a Christmas carol in public school just make me sigh and laugh. It simply points out to me that most Americans have no idea of what life and death are truly about. Oh...and they have way too much free time.


Well said.

And I agree. I've never been faced with anything like what you are going through and can't even imagine how terrible it has to be.

I wish you and your family the best.

Tokie

[JoeEllison]

It is important to learn at an early age that religious people have no respect for anyone outside of their religion, or any respect for religious freedom for anyone but themselves.

[Big Les]

With respect John, and I admire anyone dealing with what you describe, what bearing does your very unfortunate personal situation have on other people's priorities and chosen courses of action? If all of us were so afflicted, or our nations were on a true war footing (for example), you would have a point, but sadly, such hardships are borne by a minority in today's society. Just about everything starts to seem insignificant when life is genuinely hard (and I agree that this issue doesn't even appear on the "dangerous" radar), but why should the rest of us stop worrying about everything else? Not everyone can be a charity worker or a member of the emergency services, or do anything comparably important in their spare time. So the rest of us acknowledge that our jobs or hobbies are relatively insignificant, and our personal lives relatively trouble-free, but feel able to pursue such interests nonetheless, and it's right that this should be the case. From "our" perspective, we are trying to improve a small area of life as we see fit, and in a way

Not that I do anything more than pontificate on the internet and with friends about such things. I'm no activist. And as I've said, I really don't think this issue is worth worrying about, unless children are being compelled to actively take part. Even that isn't the end of the world, of course it isn't. But why not aspire to something better (from one's own perspective at least)?

[Tokenconservative]

It is important to learn at an early age that religious people have no respect for anyone outside of their religion, or any respect for religious freedom for anyone but themselves.

And that all black people love watermelon.

(sitting back, waiting for the warning)

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

With respect John, and I admire anyone dealing with what you describe, what bearing does your very unfortunate personal situation have on other people's priorities and chosen courses of action? If all of us were so afflicted, or our nations were on a true war footing (for example), you would have a point, but sadly, such hardships are borne by a minority in today's society. Just about everything starts to seem insignificant when life is genuinely hard (and I agree that this issue doesn't even appear on the "dangerous" radar), but why should the rest of us stop worrying about everything else? Not everyone can be a charity worker or a member of the emergency services, or do anything comparably important in their spare time. So the rest of us acknowledge that our jobs or hobbies are relatively insignificant, and our personal lives relatively trouble-free, but feel able to pursue such interests nonetheless, and it's right that this should be the case. From "our" perspective, we are trying to improve a small area of life as we see fit, and in a way

Not that I do anything more than pontificate on the internet and with friends about such things. I'm no activist. And as I've said, I really don't think this issue is worth worrying about, unless children are being compelled to actively take part. Even that isn't the end of the world, of course it isn't. But why not aspire to something better (from one's own perspective at least)?

Just so. Most of us in Western culture have really never known any real hardship. Even our poor live like kings compared to the TRULY poor in places like Africa.

I know a family that spends every Halloween hiding in their basement reading the Bible by candlelight.

This is an extreme, to be sure, but it should tell you something about the way some people percieve the world. And, by the way, it's not just rightwing evangelical fundy nutjobs who percieve it this way. It's not evangelicals who are leading the charge to rid the public square of any mention of Christmas, Colombus Day and now even Thanksgiving. It's the PC left.

Tokie

[John Bentley]

I realize that my response was a bit strident. I should clarify that none of the respondents or the OP fall into my category of spending inordinate amounts of time obsessing over this topic. I was speaking more about the people who actually bog down the court system sueing their school system for singing Christmas carols, or similar silly actions in my opinion. I'm not asking for pity for my kid, I just mentioned it to illustrate that facing death on a very personal level, even when it is essentially insignificant in the grand history of the cosmos, tends to lift the blinders. There is so much death and destruction in the world and so many ways that every one of us could make a real difference in the impact of these calamities that obsessing about one religious phrase in a children's song just seems silly to me now. I guess I disagree a little with you about not everyone being able to do something helpful in these areas. You only have to look as far as the end of your nose to find a way to truly help.

As for intolerance from the religious, as JoeEllison describes, I don't think that is limited to religion. For instance, here in the U.S., the anti-smoking crowd is so incredibly intolerant, that they want to regulate whether or not you can smoke in your own house. That's the first example that comes to my mind, I'm sure I could come up with others. I think intolerance to accept other people's point of view has gotten worse lately in the U.S. People seem to think they have a right to never hear or be exposed to anything they consider offensive or inappropriate. I say, your life has to be incredibly "Brady Bunch" free of problems to worry about some of this stuff.

[Wowbagger]

I like to know where a person sits before listening to them quack at me about where it is they stand.
This could be your biggest problem. It should not be important to know "where a person sits". Doing so is blatant prejudice, and calling them out for it is Argumentum ad Hominem.

You should learn to argue the arguments, not the person.

You might find you can actually "fight" against the "libs" more effectively, when you learn to debate more effectively.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

It is important to learn at an early age that religious people have no respect for anyone outside of their religion, or any respect for religious freedom for anyone but themselves.
Yikes. It's a contest to see who can make the grossest generalizations, my friends!

~~ Paul

[JoeEllison]

Yikes. It's a contest to see who can make the grossest generalizations, my friends!

~~ Paul

"Gross"?!?

I thought it dainty and petite, dammit!:mad:

[Leicontis]

The rush to generalizations I'm seeing in this thread is highly characteristic of a cognitive phenomenon called the "availability heuristic" (I'd post a wiki link if I had the post count to do so...). Basically, we base our perception of a group on those examples of the group that come to mind most readily. With groups of people, this means that the most vocal (and thus often the most extreme) are those we take as representative of the average member of the group. Every viewpoint has those who will take it too far, and those are often the most vocal and/or most covered by the media. To assume that the Westboro Baptist Church is representative of Christianity, or that Michael Moore is typical of liberals, is a major cognitive error.

Back on topic, I find it slightly distasteful to have children assembled to sing a religous song in a public school, as this does imply that the school (and, by extension, the government it's attached to) endorses that particular religion. Far better would be teaching about a variety of religious (and non-religious) belief systems, without any implicit or explicit statement about their veracity, though this would be best left for Social Studies class, not the science class.

[Big Les]

Wow, good post Leicontis. I certainly do that all the time, try as I might not to. I suppose that phenomenon served us well when we lived in small insular communities - the examples of "different" people you met really would have been representative. I guess our brains just haven't caught up with the fact that we can now very readily converse with people of all sorts from all over the world. Our primitive coping mechanisms just aren't up to it.

And yes, in my ideal world, schools wouldn't push any religion above another, nor above atheism, just teach about all of these positions. Back in the real world, that's just not feasible for the foreseeable future. The majority in the UK and US at least, are Christian, and it's my country's official religion. It'll have to come, if it comes at all, as the result of a gradual process of social change.

[Tokenconservative]

This could be your biggest problem. It should not be important to know "where a person sits". Doing so is blatant prejudice, and calling them out for it is Argumentum ad Hominem.

You should learn to argue the arguments, not the person.

You might find you can actually "fight" against the "libs" more effectively, when you learn to debate more effectively.


LOL!

Well, I wish you luck in that battle, but tell me: using this approach has permitted success how many time for you?

Look, I am not attempting to convince or convert any lefties. That's not something I can do regardless of how logical I might be (and believe me, there was once a time I followed your very youthful and inexperienced advice myself!). In fact, once you get a few more years of dealing with libs under your belt, you may come to the same realization I did about oh, 6-7 years ago: those few who are not antilogical are at minimum alogical.

By the way, for your continuing education: identifying someone for what they are ideologically is no more an ad hom argument than is pointing out that they have a big zit on their nose, so long as they DO have a zit on their nose.

Your youth and inexperience apparently have not led you to understand either that a modern American lib's first line of defense is to DENY his/her/other own liberal-ness. They are not a liberal! They are a "centrist", a "moderate" at most a "progressive", an "anarchist" (LOL!) or my personal favorite after someone pelts me with a virtual index of permissible lefty stances "I have no particular political views!!!"

Oh...um, in case you have not figured it out yet, along with lacking any ability to think or certainly emply logic, libs are hypocrites.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

The rush to generalizations I'm seeing in this thread is highly characteristic of a cognitive phenomenon called the "availability heuristic" (I'd post a wiki link if I had the post count to do so...). Basically, we base our perception of a group on those examples of the group that come to mind most readily. With groups of people, this means that the most vocal (and thus often the most extreme) are those we take as representative of the average member of the group. Every viewpoint has those who will take it too far, and those are often the most vocal and/or most covered by the media. To assume that the Westboro Baptist Church is representative of Christianity, or that Michael Moore is typical of liberals, is a major cognitive error.


Indeed.

But can you NAME a prominent "moderate liberal" in American politics...I mean, one that was not assassinated in Texas in the early 1960s?

This phenomenon is well-known among conservatives who've studied the enemy and come to a better understanding of that enemy,

In this forum, for example, the "definition" most posters hold (though they may not admit to it and most assuredly will not put it to um..screen) of "conservative" runs along these lines: stupid, ignorant, backward-looking, racist, sexist, homo'phobic', xeno'phobic', backwoods, warmongering chickenhawk hater.

They ENTER all ideological and political discussions with this "definition" burned in their minds and so any conservative wishing to engage a lib in any sort of discussion must be aware of this GOING IN, or said conservative will quickly find him/herself in a state of utter puzzlement by his/her enemy's statements and arguments. To wit: conservatives only want secure borders becasue the hate people with brown skin. WMD were not found in Iraq (not true, but beside the point) ergo, conservatives are warmongering haters. The IPCC (a political body and part of a UN that is determined to destroy the US) has found that the US is causing Global Warming; only conservatives deny this, because they are ignorant. Etc., etc.

Conservatives who enter discussions with libs who do NOT understand this hardwired "definition" often end up chasing their own tails. It's like a heart surgeon opening up an abdomen and wondering why the heart is this enormous liver-colored thing that isn't beating. If you don't know, or in a milquetoast conservative way continue to believe "they are just like us, only with slightly differing views on a few things," you end up giving a heart patient a new liver.

You have to understand that liberals are not "just like us." They are and have been working very, very hard to destroy not only America but indeed all of Western culture for a very long time now.

The bad news (to loyal Americans) is they have been very successful in these endeavors.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Wow, good post Leicontis. I certainly do that all the time, try as I might not to. I suppose that phenomenon served us well when we lived in small insular communities - the examples of "different" people you met really would have been representative. I guess our brains just haven't caught up with the fact that we can now very readily converse with people of all sorts from all over the world. Our primitive coping mechanisms just aren't up to it.



And there it is.

Here, a lib has decided that what the heuristic in question means is: we hate anyone who does not look like us.

This is a perspective that is hardwired into the liberal mind (a liberal who either does not have this or somehow rewires him/her/otherself, instantly becomes an non-liberal, one of the very "others" about which Les believes he is speaking).

Today, in America, the most bigoted, prejudiced and hateful institution with any power has to be identified as the "liberal movement." Does that mean every person who is say, a registered Democrat is one of these?

No. But every person of POWER on the left is. The individual liberal can seperate from the hate, bigotry, etc. of his movement to some degree, but not openly/ publicaly.

Of course, every lib reading this is now blowing snot all over his/her/other keyboard as they fume over the revalation of this truth (something else liberal ideology cannot stand).

But no lib reading this can name a national, liberal figure who is in favor of our efforts in Iraq.

And of course, the argument is: well of course not! Only a mad fool would be in favor!!!

And if you do not understand what the last two paras/lines here portend for ration discourse, you are either truly blind or...a liberal.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

The rush to generalizations I'm seeing in this thread is highly characteristic of a cognitive phenomenon called the "availability heuristic"

Oh...and my "generalizing" is hardly rushed.

I've been engaging in political discourse of this nature since before there was a real Internet to do it on (anybody remember "bulletin boards?").

Tell me, Leo, is there a similar name/phenomenon for those who assume "rushing" when the opposite is true?

Tokie

[e-sabbath]

I have come to the conclusion that Tokie is, in fact, a Berkeley student that is simply faking his opinions. If he were for real, he would be unable to operate a computer.

Howdy, Tokie. I'm a conservative. The descendant of a long line of soldiers, dating back to the French and Indian War. I'm of the opinion that Roosevelt ruined the country with his social programs, and everything after that has been a consequence.

Sir, you are what is wrong with America. Your blindness, your faith-based politics... and I'm not talking religion, I'm talking about your view of the world. You see, there's one view of the world, where you look at the evidence and make up your mind based on your moral standards. There's another one where you skip looking at the evidence and just make up your mind based on what you feel in your heart to be true.
That second one is impossible to argue against, because it has no connection to reality. And that, sir, is how you operate. You pick a conclusion and then search for evidence to prove it.

snip

Liberals who favor Iraq? Dennis Miller. Ed Koch. Happy, now?

[Big Les]

And there it is.

Here, a lib has decided that what the heuristic in question means is: we hate anyone who does not look like us.

Er, no. What I was saying was that we all tend to go approach people with certain assumptions and prejudices, and that we need to be aware of that phenomenon in order to be fair and not make decisions on the basis of this first impression. And that goes for what people say and do, not just how they look. I was just wondering if that was originally a useful way to think, but that in today's admittedly liberal society, it's not appropriate.

How you get "we hate anyone who does not look like us" from what I wrote, I really don't know.

You don't know me, and I'd sooner you didn't do exactly what I was talking about and pigeonhole me as some Eurowussie bedwetting pinko. By American standards, yes, I am liberal. However, I am not a Liberal as such. I am pro-military, given half a chance I would be pro-gun, would demand a scientific argument for the restriction of hunting, and by UK standards I would be seen as conservative in some ways, a Liberal in others. The political situation here is not nearly so neatly divided as it appears your own country is. All things considered, if I lived in the US, I'd probably be seen as some kind of Libertarian, but I take relatively little interest in politics to be quite honest, and am certainly not politically active. I can't stand any of our three political parties, and will be spoiling my paper at our next election.

Much as I do dislike the ideology of the far right, I equally despise that of the far left. It's pretty clear that whoever gets the upper hand and ceases being the plucky underdog trying to bring down an "oppressive" orthodoxy, once given a sniff of power simply tries to institute their own new orthodoxy, in the case of the left, probably to include new, more numerous and restrictive laws, and an imposed secular morality that is no less onerous than that of the religious right.

You're not dealing with one of your cookie-cutter sandal-wearing stereotypes here, so do you think you could step off the soapbox for just one moment?

[e-sabbath]

A note: The snip in my post above was made because I reported my own post. I wasn't sure if I went too personal in the matter or not.

[Tokenconservative]

I have come to the conclusion that Tokie is, in fact, a Berkeley student that is simply faking his opinions. If he were for real, he would be unable to operate a computer.

Howdy, Tokie. I'm a conservative. The descendant of a long line of soldiers, dating back to the French and Indian War. I'm of the opinion that Roosevelt ruined the country with his social programs, and everything after that has been a consequence.

Sir, you are what is wrong with America. Your blindness, your faith-based politics... and I'm not talking religion, I'm talking about your view of the world. You see, there's one view of the world, where you look at the evidence and make up your mind based on your moral standards. There's another one where you skip looking at the evidence and just make up your mind based on what you feel in your heart to be true.
That second one is impossible to argue against, because it has no connection to reality. And that, sir, is how you operate. You pick a conclusion and then search for evidence to prove it.

snip

Liberals who favor Iraq? Dennis Miller. Ed Koch. Happy, now?


First of all, thank you and your family for their service to our nation. Let's all hope that with the brave efforts of you and people like you, we'll be able to keep it when the time comes to take up arms against our oppressors (again).

Second, a piece of your post seems to have been "snipped" by a mod. I don't know why they do this. Maybe you were a cussin' and cursin' me? Wouldn't bother me, and certainly wouldn't be the first time and I am pretty creative so I doubt it would've offended me much.

Anyway...you are certainly not a conservative. You may be a milquetoast-turn-the-other-cheek-until-you-look-like-Linda-Blair-in-the-Exorcist "conservative," but anyone who does not understand that the greatest enemy we face today is not some bearded, unwashed camelrider in Saud, but rather a bearded, unwashed, Volvo driver (that he hides a few blocks away) protesting the war or logging, or energy production or...well, whatever (they protest things as normal people see a movie, or go to a game, you know) is, as the libs love to say "a part of the problem, not a part of the solution."

You are the kind of "conservative" libs like those in here love. You are forever bleating "c-can't we all j-just get along!?" and everytime they slap you, you grin stoically, shake it off and shout "thank you sir! May I have another!?"

You are the worst enemy your own children will ever face because you are blind to the desstructive nature of the left; you think they are "just like us!" but with slight policy differences.

And while that was true to a large extent prior to about 1979, and while you ignore it entirely, the fact of the matter is, the left has very stedfastly and effectively weeded out anyone who is even mildly oppositional to their current FAR left ideologies. Your Pollyannah blinders are lag-bolted so tightly to your temples you can't see this and if someone like Tokie comes along with Skil-Saw and forcibly removes them...you close your eyes, cover your face with your hands and start shrieking "I can't hear you....I can't HEEEEAAARRRR YOU!!!"

And then, you parrot the leftist line, all the while howling as how you are actually a "conservative!" You believe that since my ideals are directly opposed to yours, that my ideals needs must therefore have simply been "made up" sans any evidence. Why, certainly if I cannot provide links--LIIINNNKKKSSSSS!!!--this MUST be true! Nobody has ever lived life, or read a book, or watched events unfold over time before a time when one could provide a link--LIIIIIIINNNNKKKKKK!

I despise true leftists, sabbath (not because of policy differences, but because they would trample on my Constitution and enslave me and my children) and would see many of them hung in the public square. But by far, the worst enemy of this nation is your kind, those who run about making claims on their own conservatism while out of the other side of their Janus-like head they make nice-nice with those who would enslave us all.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

[QUOTE=Big Les;3178592]Er, no. What I was saying was that we all tend to go approach people with certain assumptions and prejudices, and that we need to be aware of that phenomenon in order to be fair and not make decisions on the basis of this first impression. And that goes for what people say and do, not just how they look. I was just wondering if that was originally a useful way to think, but that in today's admittedly liberal society, it's not appropriate.

I always like talking to Brits because they can slam me, often quite effectively, without resorting to the tactic leftists in the USofA get from their Playbook: simply shrieking "racist!' or "sexist!" or some other "phobe!" or "ist!" at me in place of any sort of reasoned discussion.

Thanks for that, anyway.

As you'll see from the post directed at me by someone called "Sabbath" many here do not believe it to be so cut and dried. The reality is that it is, just as you perceive it to be: them and us. Those who ACTULLY love our country and our Constitution, and those who pay lip-service to that, or openly admit that they hate America; both are actively working to turn us into a socialist workers paradise--at least this group is honest about it.

As to your assertion: yes, we do approach people with certain fears, assumptions, prejudices, etc. This is what's called "Human." In America, it has long been assumed that this has another name: White, hetero male. Nobody else, you see, is afflicted with this. And that's not because they are not human. It's because in America, white, hetero males are not human.

This is a tiny bit of what we face here. Imagine the aggregate: slivers of this sort of thinking piled as high as the moon, each, in and of itself imminently dismissible, and regularly done so: oh, you're just a rightwingnut to think that a feminist filing a lawsuit against a guy for opening the door for her says anything at all about the left's plans for America!

But if you pile up enough of these slivers, over time...well, you can see what happens.

Worse, when someone like me points this very phenomenon, up, out come the shrieks of "conspiracy nut!! Conspiracy nut!!!" or howls of "racist!" or "sexist!" or "homo-" or "xenophobe!" and all discussion must then comes to stop, regardless of the truth or the facts. This is why here, if you oppose a female or black politicians IDEALS...you are not simply someone who opposes their destructive notions, but rather a "racist" or "sexist" and sometimes both!

According to what I've read over the decades (no...Surprisingly I don't have a link to some article I read in Science or Psychology, 20 years ago...I must be lying!), yes, thinking like that was very useful to early humans who had to be very suspicious of any other humans they came across (in the American leftist perspective, of course this only developed in N. Europeans who were male--remmber: here, based upon the barest of evidence, the view is that for 20,000 years, a peaceful, matriarchal society ruled all of Europe). Of course, initially, those humans would've looked just like the suspicious ones. As we became more "racially" diverse, and then ran into these different races again, after spreading out and changing over a million years, differences more obvious than "I don't know you" only magnified this. As we (Western civ.) became more civilized we came to understand that these differences, while real (try selling THAT at a US college campus), don't really amount to much. Try selling as well the fact that ONLY Western culture and that means mostly US and N. Europe are at all even today concerned with this.

You said: " It's pretty clear that whoever gets the upper hand and ceases being the plucky underdog trying to bring down an "oppressive" orthodoxy, once given a sniff of power simply tries to institute their own new orthodoxy, in the case of the left, probably to include new, more numerous and restrictive laws, and an imposed secular morality that is no less onerous than that of the religious right."

Indeed. Couldn't agree more. This is a very astute observation (I realize I have not grounds to make any judgment about your intellectual acuity; you are probably much brighter than I, and being that you are a Brit, almost certainly better-educated). But you are not going to get any lib to TRULY admit/believe that you've hit the nail on the head here.

Which is one of the reasons I am so vitriolic toward them. Most lefties in America are simply mindless drones that believe they are individuals just like all the other drones, and that they express their intellectual individuality best by parroting the party line. Which is why you have them (and at least one self-deluded "conservative" in here) assuming that since I am a conservative I MUST therefore be a Bible-thumping Evangelical who would like to invent a time machine so that I can go back and murder Darwin in his crib and that we should denude the planet of all life, poison the air and water and flush all arable soil into the sea so that the Rapture will happen.

Understand: in America liberals have a definition of "conservative" that starts with: stoopid, ig'nant, backwoods, un-so-fist-eye-kated, racist, sexist homo'phobic', xeno'phobic' warmongering chickenhawk hater. Everything they think or do is borne on this definition.

I don't know how deeply runs the hatred between "conservative" and "liberal" in GB, but here, because the left has been steadily building this definition to this point since about 1979, using their schools, their media, their professional organizations, etc. to drive not simply a political wedge but a social one between the two sides, that the hatred here is deep and unsalvable. That hatred came first from them, by the way. It was the left who first began asserting (1979) that the simple fact of your being a conservative proof-positive that you were not very bright and began building the above "definition" based upon their own identification of this, that or the other true nutcase in America as a "typical conservative."

Yes, I could, as does that other "conservative" in here, "turn the other cheek." But I got a crick in my neck from doing that for 20 years. Like many other conservatives in the US I either had to stop doing it or risk suffering a permanent physical handicap. And that's why SOME of us have made the conscious effort to strike back at libs by ignoring the useless--and inaccurate-- admonitions of our mothers that bullies will get tired and go away if you just ignore them, and that we shouldn't lower ourselves to their level.

We tried that for decades. One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different outcome. It didn't work. It's time to try something else. It may not work either--indeed, given the socialism of our "conservative" president, it's pretty clear it's not--but at least SOME of us are not just letting the socialists walk all over us any longer.

That's where I come from. In future, so long as you don't walk and quack like a lefty, I will not identify you as a migratory waterfoul. You might do me the favor of disabusing yourself of the assumptions you've made of me, based in part on your acceptance of the rabid American leftists' view of me in here. I can assure you I am not a Bible thumping, secluded compounder who believes dinosaurs and man lived together but that they all died because Noah thought they looked funny. Just because no leftist in America can conceive of a conservative who does not fit neatly into their increasingly strictured, movement-sanctioned definition, does not mean Noah didn't let us onto his impossibly big boat.

Best,
Tokie

[e-sabbath]

Sir, you are blind. The greatest enemy we face today is the government. Terrorists, we can survive. The gathering of our freedoms into things that the government lets us do is what will turn us from the greatest country in the world into a mockery of Soviet Russia. What the government grants, it can take away, and can limit. And will do so at its leisure.

It seeks to have immunity when it breaks the laws and restrictions on itself, as well.

And you, sir, have swallowed that line, hook and sinker. You are what is wrong with this country, you are the greatest foe to our freedoms.

[Tokenconservative]

Sir, you are blind. The greatest enemy we face today is the government. Terrorists, we can survive. The gathering of our freedoms into things that the government lets us do is what will turn us from the greatest country in the world into a mockery of Soviet Russia. What the government grants, it can take away, and can limit. And will do so at its leisure.

It seeks to have immunity when it breaks the laws and restrictions on itself, as well.

And you, sir, have swallowed that line, hook and sinker. You are what is wrong with this country, you are the greatest foe to our freedoms.

Indeed. We agree.

And leading us down that path are leftists.

Your blind assumption that I am a blind follower of certain personages who claim some membership in nay, even ownership of "the right" speaks more to YOUR blindness, howmsoever, than my own.

I suggest you try thinking rather than reacting.

The greatest foe to our freedoms are those, like you, who rely upon others to tell them what and even when to think, and who thank those they then put into positions of immense power over themselves--and us all--when they "permit" us this or that little bite of freedom.

Tokie

[e-sabbath]

The greatest foe to our freedoms are those, like you, who rely upon others to tell them what and even when to think, and who thank those they then put into positions of immense power over themselves--and us all--when they "permit" us this or that little bite of freedom.

Tokie

The greatest foes to our freedom are those, like you, who rely upon others to tell them what, and even when to think. Then castigate those who choose to think differently.

You are no more than a shell, fighting against ghosts that exist only in your own mind. Argue. Argue all you wish. But argue honestly, against what is presented to you, not what you wish you see.

Good day, sir.

[Tokenconservative]

The greatest foes to our freedom are those, like you, who rely upon others to tell them what, and even when to think. Then castigate those who choose to think differently.

You are no more than a shell, fighting against ghosts that exist only in your own mind. Argue. Argue all you wish. But argue honestly, against what is presented to you, not what you wish you see.

Good day, sir.

By the way...has anyone TOLD Dennis Miller he's a lib?

LOL!

You are a stitch.

Not sure which way you bend, but you SOUND like a typical Playbook lib: you get your marching orders from Rush and FoxNews!!!!

It's difficult to argue, argue, sir against much of anything that's presented the way you present things, as irrational rants against invisible foes.

A man must well, man up eventually and take a stance. Running about puling "c-can't we all j-just get along!?" while the enemies of decency and American tradition and Western culture dismantle your world while castigating those who take a hard look at them as are doing so, marks you, in this case as a gutless wonder.

Pick a side. Learn what that side REALLY represents (in the case of the right, not what the left-advocacy media TELLS you you should think about it), grow a pair and take a stance.

Good day to YOU, my boy.

Tokie

[godless dave]

Don't feed the troll.

Should UK schools do this? If I lived there I wouldn't think so. But remember, you have an established state religion.

[Tokenconservative]

Don't feed the troll.

Should UK schools do this? If I lived there I wouldn't think so. But remember, you have an established state religion.

Trolls have to eat too...good DAY to you, sir!

Tokie

[dannagain]

That would not be San Francisco, where a child found doing something like that would be carted off to some sort of district PC re-education class to learn that fat, old white men are evil, and that their fatness is something to be horrified about, and any fat, white old man who gives children toys must also be a pedophile (which leaves many libs a bit confused, because they also believe traditional Christian values regarding sex with children to be "patriarchal" and outdated...Gaia, it's got to be hard to be a lib!).

Tokie

What the hell are you talking about? Why do you just make this crap up?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Should UK schools do this? If I lived there I wouldn't think so. But remember, you have an established state religion.

The UK has an established state religion? Really?

Hint: UK is not a synonym for England.

[Tokenconservative]

What the hell are you talking about? Why do you just make this crap up?

I make up the exagerations, to ad a little amusement...

In SF, the city is "banning" fat Santas because they send the "wrong" message to kids about "obesity."

Sorry you don't like that about a town YOU view as being right of center politically. You can look at stuff like this in that way because from your own perspective, coming from someplace left of Stalin, forces you to. You are the kind of leftie who scoffs at the notion that the NYTimes news reporting is left-biased, even though their own ombudsman admitted it was.

She was prolly lying, just as the whole "fat Santa ban" is something ol' Tokie made up.

Tokie

[KoihimeNakamura]

Guys. Do not argue with Tokenconserative, he'll twist anything to a political rant (he should really post in Politics)

In less related news, I often had to listen to hymns when I went to afterschool Chorus productions. I just shrugged it off, and as long as you are not forced to sing along...

[Tokenconservative]

Guys. Do not argue with Tokenconserative, he'll twist anything to a political rant (he should really post in Politics)

In less related news, I often had to listen to hymns when I went to afterschool Chorus productions. I just shrugged it off, and as long as you are not forced to sing along...

Can you name anything of importance, that's in contention in Western culture and ceratainly in the US today that is not impacted/influenced by the vast, vast chasm between left and right (political ideologies)?

I'll just sit here, listen to the cricket chorus...and await your reply.

Tokie

[NobbyNobbs]

Here is the problem, today (at least in US public schools): ANY religious perspective OTHER than Christianity is not only permitted but "celebrated" in the public schools as they work to utterly erase any notion that the faith that is held by the largest percentage of Americans (by far) is held by anyone.

Tokie

I certainly don't recall our public school overcelebrating Hannukah or Kwanzaa. I don't recall menorahs everywhere and singing "Dreidel, Dreidel". I'm not sure where you get this "fact" from.

LOL!

Well, I wish you luck in that battle, but tell me: using this approach has permitted success how many time for you?

Look, I am not attempting to convince or convert any lefties. That's not something I can do regardless of how logical I might be (and believe me, there was once a time I followed your very youthful and inexperienced advice myself!). In fact, once you get a few more years of dealing with libs under your belt, you may come to the same realization I did about oh, 6-7 years ago: those few who are not antilogical are at minimum alogical.

By the way, for your continuing education: identifying someone for what they are ideologically is no more an ad hom argument than is pointing out that they have a big zit on their nose, so long as they DO have a zit on their nose.

Your youth and inexperience apparently have not led you to understand either that a modern American lib's first line of defense is to DENY his/her/other own liberal-ness. They are not a liberal! They are a "centrist", a "moderate" at most a "progressive", an "anarchist" (LOL!) or my personal favorite after someone pelts me with a virtual index of permissible lefty stances "I have no particular political views!!!"

Oh...um, in case you have not figured it out yet, along with lacking any ability to think or certainly emply logic, libs are hypocrites.

Tokie

/derail/
Tokie--In more than one thread, you have used your age as a reason for why you hold the proper view. However, I don't ever recall you actually revealing your age, nor do I recall those you debate revealling theirs. Aside from the fact that "age=wisdom" is not a logical argument, how do you know that you are debating people significantly younger than yourself?

And if you don't mind my asking, how old are you?
/end derail/

A note: The snip in my post above was made because I reported my own post. I wasn't sure if I went too personal in the matter or not.


That's gotta be a first. I don't know of anyone reporting themselves before. Congrats!

[KoihimeNakamura]

Can you name anything of importance, that's in contention in Western culture and ceratainly in the US today that is not impacted/influenced by the vast, vast chasm between left and right (political ideologies)?

I'll just sit here, listen to the cricket chorus...and await your reply.

Tokie
That is not answering my statement. It is avoiding it. You call people a liberal if they so much as disagree with you. As such they are politcal rants.

[Tokenconservative]

I certainly don't recall our public school overcelebrating Hannukah or Kwanzaa. I don't recall menorahs everywhere and singing "Dreidel, Dreidel". I'm not sure where you get this "fact" from.

/derail/
Tokie--In more than one thread, you have used your age as a reason for why you hold the proper view. However, I don't ever recall you actually revealing your age, nor do I recall those you debate revealling theirs. Aside from the fact that "age=wisdom" is not a logical argument, how do you know that you are debating people significantly younger than yourself?

And if you don't mind my asking, how old are you?
/end derail/

That's gotta be a first. I don't know of anyone reporting themselves before. Congrats!

I don't know how old you are. When I was in school Kwanza did not exist and there were, I think something like 3 Jewish kids.

Anywhooo....that was a different time. Today, we have "Holiday" programs at the schools where mention of the reason for the season is enough to get a principal canned. Or banning of Halloween not because it offends some wackcase Evangelical who ignorantly calls it celebrating da debil's birfday...but because MUSLIMS find it objectionable.

...'course, Muslims are like religions liberals: try and find something that does NOT offend them. G'wan, I doubledog dare ya!

First, you don't need to know my age. Second, I do not use my age as proof I hold the "proper view." That's your perception, not the reality. I use my age to point up to some that my mere prescence on the planet for as many years as I have been here has given me if not any more insight (I doubt that myself) more simple experience with being alive.

It's a matter of math. If you are 20, and I am 60...that means I've had um...six more years on the planet than you. So six more years of stuff happening, stuff I remember, etc.

Reporting themselves for what before? Oh...hmmm, well I've been told I can drive people to madness.

It's a gift.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

That is not answering my statement. It is avoiding it. You call people a liberal if they so much as disagree with you. As such they are politcal rants.

LOL!

The richness of this reply rivals anything I'll have over this "Holiday" season!

I call ducks ducks if they quack like ducks and waddle like ducks.

Should I call them 1976 Zir sedans, instead?

Tokie

[KoihimeNakamura]

... no, you should stop pigeonholing people with opposing views into something.. wrong? I dunno.

[volatile]

I call ducks ducks if they quack like ducks and waddle like ducks.


What if they're loons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loon)?

[NobbyNobbs]

First, you don't need to know my age. Second, I do not use my age as proof I hold the "proper view." That's your perception, not the reality. I use my age to point up to some that my mere prescence on the planet for as many years as I have been here has given me if not any more insight (I doubt that myself) more simple experience with being alive.

Phrase it how you like, it still comes down to using comparative ages to defend your position. Without knowing how the ages compare.


It's a matter of math. If you are 20, and I am 60...that means I've had um...six more years on the planet than you. So six more years of stuff happening, stuff I remember, etc.

That's some pretty poor math. When you homeschool your kids, do you teach them that 60-20=6?

And that's assuming I'm 20, which I'm not. And that's assuming you're 60, the veracity of which you don't seem to be willing to divulge. So without divulging ages, there's really no way to tell whether your extra years of stuff remembered really exists. Which renders those arguments in which you use age to defend your position suspect.