Indoctrinating the new brownshirts *UPDATED*
Bookworm on Nov 07 2008 at 11:52 am | Filed under: Children, Education
I didn’t put this on my site because (a) I found it so terribly disturbing I wasn’t yet prepared to deal with it and (b) I pretty much assumed you’d see it on all the other sites (including Drudge) that carry it. Still, Deana is right that we cannot do enough to expose the humiliating brainwashing that is part and parcel of the thinking of so many Obama acolytes. Prepare to be enraged, upset and depressed:
UPDATE: The good news is that the school superintendent is taking it seriously — responding with grace and not defensiveness.
Email This Post To A Friend
115 Responses to “Indoctrinating the new brownshirts *UPDATED*”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Is this from a public school? If so, that’s disturbing.
If it’s from a private school, it doesn’t even compare to footage of children being indoctrinated by followers of George W. Bush.
In one video, they even provide a cardboard cut out of Mr Bush for the children to pray to/over.
Ozzie, a link to the video you referred to, please?
How did the woman in that video ever become a teacher? What an oppressive, ignorant lout.
Thank God we have strong teacher unions here in California dedicated to weeding out unqualified folks like her.
Ozzie, a link to the video you referred to, please?- CM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86LzKSsuB2w&feature=related
I was wondering if you would post this, Book…
Her behavior could be described as unprofessional at best, but to my mind unconscionable or criminal are closer to the mark. My heart goes out to that poor girl.
Ozzie has expressed her grave concern about the influence of people of faith on our country and culture - most often by reference to liberties threatened or possible outcomes. I’m far more concerned about the imposition of political ideology, and there’s nothing vague or ambiguous about this. What we see here is a concrete example of indoctrination through intimidation. Any other child not toeing the teacher’s line in that class wouldn’t, couldn’t speak up after that disgusting browbeating. This one is right up there with the kindergarten teacher who brought her class on a school-funded field trip to her same-sex wedding a couple of weeks ago.
Those of us not able to choose where our children go to school risk this scenario every day. If that teacher is allowed to continue in the classroom, what a sad statement that would be regarding the education establishment. Any and every politician sucking at the teat of the NEA is complicit in this outrage.
Grrrrrrr!
Oz, thanks for the link.
Whoa, that is some truly dimwit stuff. Thank goodness Bush is a lame duck and that this didn’t take place in a public school.
(Regarding your surmise, Protestants do not pray to anybody but God. They do, however, pray over people.)
Charles, you are too funny.
Ozzie, what goes on in private schools is the marketplace at work. If people want to pay money for that kind of educational crap, let them. What people mostly want is for their kids to succeed, and one wacky little school somewhere is not going to take over the educational establishment, so please don’t get your knickers in a twist.
However, what’s going on in public schools should get everyone’s knickers in a twist. My 9 year old has become a rabid anti-environmentalist because he can’t take the non-stop indoctrination that’s going on in his (public) school. It permeates everything and is based on a remarkable amount of superficial thinking and out-and-out ignorance. Thank God he’s got half a brain and can cut through to the sheer stupidity of so much of what they do. And thank God that our school hasn’t yet sunk so low as to use tax payer dollars to publicly humiliate students for their family values.
Ozzie, what goes on in private schools is the marketplace at work. If people want to pay money for that kind of educational crap, let them. What people mostly want is for their kids to succeed, and one wacky little school somewhere is not going to take over the educational establishment, so please don’t get your knickers in a twist.- bookworm
It’s actually an entire movement, Book, with one college actually funneling such kids into government positions, which is why I’ve had my knickers in a twist for quite a while.
But yes, that’s why I asked if this was a public or private school.
If it’s a private school, it’s merely disturbing. If it’s a public school, this teacher was waaaaay out of line.
“The Golden Age of Knickerdom,” a fascinating new social history by Charles Martel, describes the joy, bordering on ecstasy, in 1961 when Chubby Checker came out with his smash hit, “Let’s Do the Twist.”
Knickers everywhere jumped joyously in, twisting themselves into shapes that nobody had ever thought possible.
Alas, all good things must end. The Locomotion and Mashed Potato soon came along to eclipse the Twist, and the idyllic Knicker moment was no more.
Ozzie,
If I’m not mistaken, this is a clip from “Jesus Camp”, a documentary about a Pentacostal camp in the midwest. I can see why you find it disturbing - I’m a self-proclaiming evangelical Christian and I find it disturbing too (and I’ve seen the whole slanted film).
The salient point here is that it’s from a Pentacostal summer camp, not a publicly-funded educational institution. Parents chose to send their kids to that camp, and paid their own money to send them there. I didn’t fund the camp. We’re free to believe what we’d like and practice those beliefs, or not.
We all pay for public schools, directly or indirectly. Our money is supporting this type of indoctrination - and there’s no choice involved. I’ve worked in school districts. I know the ‘investigation’ launched by the school district will have to work through the local union, usually a branch of the NEA. Our remedies to this situation are generally murky and convoluted.
I’m far more disturbed by the jack-booted (figuratively, of course) ‘educator’ than I am by the snake-handling (figuratively, of course) camp director.
Ozzie, you refer to one college that’s “funneling” kids into government. Do you recall the name of the college?
Just to be clear, according to the update on MM’s site, this is happening in Cumberland County schools - Fayetteville, NC.
It’s a public school, and “waaaaay out of line” is too mild a criticism.
Ozzie, you refer to one college that’s “funneling” kids into government. Do you recall the name of the college?- CM
It’s Patrick Henry College, which was formed in 2000.
Published on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 by the Independent/UK
The Bible College That Leads to the White House
The campus is immaculate, everyone is clean-cut and cheerful. But just what are they teaching at Patrick Henry College? And why do so many students end up working for George Bush?
by Andrew Buncombe
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0421-09.htm
We all pay for public schools, directly or indirectly. Our money is supporting this type of indoctrination - and there’s no choice involved. - Bobk
I agree, which is why I asked for the clarification.
>>My 9 year old has become a rabid anti-environmentalist because he can’t take the non-stop indoctrination that’s going on in his (public) school.>>
God bless the little children! I figure we have about 30 years of being outcast in the wilderness before these little rebels will do to those who have voted Obama in just exactly what they have done to those of us who see Obama as disaster. If there’s anything left by then. I figure we’ll have a reverse hippy movement…!
Speaking of “funneling” college graduates….why do you think Obama wants all young people to go to college? That way they get to indoctrinate and evaluate the results of their indoctrination. Those who “prove” themselves to be reliable comrades will be recommended for positions of influence, those who prove themselves to be incompatible to political correctness will be black marked and will _never_ get into a position of influence.
As for “And why do so many students end up working for George Bush?”? Maybe two reasons - perhaps they have an excellent curriculum, and ideas that are compatible with the ideas that Bush has? It’s a little like Obama going on about McCain supporting so many of Bush’s ideas….well duh! They’re both Republicans! Wouldn’t it be idiotic if they both reached positions of prominence in the same political party and had completely different ideals?
Ozzie, I had a feeling you were referring to Patrick Henry.
If you take a look at the college’s curriculum, you’ll see what students learn there is light years away from the pap that those brainwashed Jesus Camp kids were being fed.
In other words, it is an immensely sophisticated curriculum — Great Books and all that reactionary tommyrot — that produces highly literate, articulate and thoughtful people who can run rings around their Ivy League counterparts.
That may be the reason why they’re trying to, uh, infiltrate their own government.
I think, Oz, in your haste to paint conservatives as slack-jawed, sister-loving troglodytes, your 2-mile-wide brush misses a few subtleties.
“But, to its critics, what is perhaps most striking about this small, influential college with its self-confidence and focus, and its links with America’s neoconservative political elite, is its utter transparency. Patrick Henry College is an institution devoted to spreading its word, spreading its view of the world, and helping to place its students in positions of authority and influence. And it does so in plain view.”- From Ozzie’s article on Patrick Henry University
Wow, that really is creepy. They practice their Christianity in the open. How disgusting.
Ozzie,
My quick research indicates that Patrick Henry College accepts NO federal funding. It isn’t your money or mine that goes to this school, even in the form of federally guaranteed student loans. Even if this is part of a ‘movement’, it’s not one being imposed by governmental fiat. Is there a problem with these people using their own funds as they wish?
Oz, this is a school which indoctrinates young people in a Christian program. Ayers and Obama are doing exactly the same thing with their programs, but their program is one of teaching socialistic values. The problem you seem to have is that you consider the Ayers/Obama program “normal” and acceptable, but you find a Christian program “abnormal” and unacceptable.
It is the Christian values that have made this country what it is today. What’s wrong with them, in your opinion?
Bob, I think the problem that Oz and others have with the school is that students do not reach the proper conclusions.
Apparently the mark of a sound university education is the rejection of any line of thinking that does not lead to Oabamaland.
It is the Christian values that have made this country what it is today. What’s wrong with them, in your opinion?- suek
Even the Biology teachers have to sign a contract saying that the bible is literally true (i.e that the earth was formed in 6 days, the Eve was formed from Adam’s rib, that dinosaurs and man walked the earth together).
Free inquiry is not allowed and there is a narrow world view.
All that is fine if the school is meant to turn out preachers and people who work in the private sector, but this school has a high percentage of people who not only have government jobs in mind, but land them.
There is a movement to train fundamentalists FOR Government jobs, with the idea that it’s their job to change government..
If you dont believe in the separation of church and stae, you see no problem with that.
If, on the other hand, you feel that that a separation of church and state is crucial, you’ll find it alarming.
Is there a problem with these people using their own funds as they wish?- Bobk
No. No problem at all.
The problem stems from having a certain brand of Chritistianity as a litmus test for whether or not you can get elected to high office or as a stepping stone to government service.
Wow, Oz, your “logic” — as usual — is all over the place.
1. The Constitution specifically bars a religious test. I see that you disagree. You apparently believe that “separation of church and state” (which is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution) means that only the irreligious may work for the government or form it.
2. What litmus test are you referring to? You’re the one with the litmus test.
By the way, your contempt for, and ignorance of, Christianity is appalling. Christian denominations are not “brands.”
(I noticed that you avoided answering suek’s question, “It is the Christian values that have made this country what it is today. What’s wrong with them, in your opinion?” Do you have a problem answering such a straightforward query?)
Friend of mine works in the public school system in NC. That video, that woman’s diction and attitude, doesn’t surprise me the least little bit and I’ve no doubt it is a public school. From the reports I’ve received public ed in NC is dominated by people exactly like that. And let me add the Jesus camp idolatry appalls me too but the taxpayers are not footing the bill for that.
noticed that you avoided answering suek’s question, “It is the Christian values that have made this country what it is today. What’s wrong with them, in your opinion?” Do you have a problem answering such a straightforward query?- CM
I don’t have a problem with Christian values, though I’m not sure who defines what they are.
The values I grew up with as a Catholic are different form the values other Christians seem to believe. (as a Catholic, venial and mortal sins mattered, though from my understanding, others feel that being “born again” is important)
That said, I have a problem with the agenda to place fundamentalist-leaning Christians in high office and turn the government into a Christian Nation.
They got pretty close in 2004-2005.
To me, that’s very much like this teacher berating the student for not having the proper political beliefs.
It’s authoritarian and it’s creepy.
>>Even the Biology teachers have to sign a contract saying that the bible is literally true …
Free inquiry is not allowed and there is a narrow world view.>>
“Only faculty, senior administration, and trustees are required to adhere to the Statement of Biblical Worldview. We do not require students to sign this document at any time. This represents the philosophy of what will be taught, not what is required to be believed by students.”
>>All that is fine if the school is meant to turn out preachers and people who work in the private sector, but this school has a high percentage of people who not only have government jobs in mind, but land them.>>
So you would limit government jobs to people who do not believe in the literal truth of the bible? That sounds like a litmus test to me. Just a different litmus test. I can just see the interview now…. and how would you know that the person saying that “no, of course I don’t believe in the literal truth of the bible” was telling the truth? Or would you just eliminate all students from non-approved colleges?
>>If, on the other hand, you feel that that a separation of church and state is crucial, you’ll find it alarming.>>
The purpose of the separation policy - which is _not_ in the constitution, by the way - was to insure that the _government_ did not establish a religion, and would not interfere in religion. We, the people, are supposed to be guaranteed _by the first amendment - explicitly stated - that we have freedom of religion. Now you might not like the religious beliefs that people choose, but that’s neither here nor there. WE HAVE FREEDOM OF RELIGION. It seems to me that that is the whole crux of your problem. You want to impose _your_ view of religious correctness on the rest of us. We do not want to impose our religious beliefs on you, but you wish to impose your un-religion on us.
I have a problem with the agenda to place Marxists in government and create a socialist nanny state. (It’s authoritarian and it’s creepy.)
However, the Constitution, which is the supreme law of my land, allows people to run for office and try to peacefully and democratically impose their political views on the land.
If Christian ideas turn out to be more compelling than Marxist ideas, why would you complain?
By the way, Oz, I’m a Catholic, too. I’m going to venture that the depth of your knowledge of Catholicism might come up to my ankles. As I said, your contempt for Christianity comes shining through in spades.
Please note that I,too, was raised as a Catholic. Oz and I couldn’t be farther apart, it seems. Maybe the difference is that she went to college with the Jesuits…it’s a standing joke that the Jesuits may return to the church - one day! The practice of Jesuit colleges is to attack all Catholic beliefs in the first semester of the freshman year, and encourage students to tear apart their basic beliefs. The second semester is to rebuild the beliefs that they tore apart the first semester by tearing apart the arguments they presented the first semester.
Somehow, I think Oz missed the second semester.
Forgot to note, CM, that Oz apparently went to a Jesuit college in Pennsylvania. I’ve forgotten the name, but it came up in a different thread.
Thanks, suek. That makes Oz’s ‘tude (and ignorance) even more appalling.
>>My 9 year old has become a rabid anti-environmentalist because he can’t take the non-stop indoctrination that’s going on in his (public) school.>>
(again!)
Tell that boy to hang on…he’s just getting started!
http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/11/07/obama-plans-to-require-volunteerism-reader-post/
Required volunteerism. What a concept. Perhaps they can be called Young Pioneers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Soviet_Union-1972-Stamp-0.04._50_Years_of_Pioneers_Organization.jpg
The beauty of Marxism is that it perfects Christianity.
In Christianity, altruism is voluntary. In Marxism, it’s compulsory.
Marx and Obama are clearly better thinkers than Jesus.
As Obamism unfolds over the next few years, Charles, you will have a sudden epiphany and realize the critical errors of your thinking, and be thus compelled to confess these egregious errors and devote yourself to social justice and progress. Wait and see.
Wouldn’t it be nice if we could all be in one room together, conversing? The wit and knowledge at this blog always impresses and delights me.
>>you will have a sudden epiphany and realize the critical errors of your thinking, and be thus compelled to confess these egregious errors and devote yourself to social justice and progress.>>
Or else.
Ozzie,
Same dance, different song here. Your response to Book’s post is, in essence, “It’s a shame if the teacher did that… but look at what those Right-Wing Religious Nuts are doing!!!”
You’ve raised two religious straw-men in a discussion about the actions of a government employee. First, you serve up a slanted, biased documentary about a private religious camp. Second, you single out a college that assiduously avoids the very problem being discussed by refusing to accept any federal money. They teach what they want, because federal money comes with big long strings attached as to what you can teach.
Your examples trying to divert attention from the main issue at had (governmental indoctrination by intimidation in the context of public schools) illustrate that the right, even the religious right, respects both the letter and the spirit behind any ’separation of church and state’. suek addressed this when she said:
I have only one disagreement with that statement. The words ’separation of church and state’ aren’t found in the Constitution, but the concept is… for the sake of religion (as suek rightly pointed out).
The First Amendment is about protecting an individual’s right to practice - or refrain from practicing - a religion. It’s about protecting this right in the face of a potentially tyrannical government.
My five favorite words in the whole blessed Constitution? “Congress shall make no law…”
Book,
I have an image in my mind of a darkened room in the heart of Sausalito (Mill Valley? Larkspur?). A single candle is burning in a hurricane lamp stand as the late November storm rattles the windows and shivers the eucalyptus trees…
One by one, people masked across the eyes furtively attempt to enter, only to be challenged by a petite figure (also masked…)” “Give me liberty…”
They whisper back “…or give me death!”. Then and only then are they welcomed into the subversive discussion group.
And, then, when all are accounted for…
the chocolate is passed around.
Free-trade chocolate, right?
Can’t have chocolate made from oppressed workers.
Book:
I took the liberty of reserving a table at Left Bank in Larkspur under your name.
Now, if you’ll just forward me some credit card information so I can confirm the hold on the table. . .
CM (#40):
Oh, you sweet Marxist, you! But it’s true that you can always spot me at a restaurant, since I’m the one swooning over the chocolate desserts.
CM said:
Ummm…. you meant “made BY oppressed workers”. I hope….
BobK (#38)
A single candle is burning in a hurricane lamp stand as the late November storm rattles the windows and shivers the eucalyptus trees…
One by one, people masked across the eyes furtively attempt to enter, only to be challenged by a petite figure (also masked…)” “Give me liberty…”
One figure came walking up after the discussion was well under way. The petite masked figure challenged “Give me liberty…”
The new figure paused for a second, and said, “… by filling up the gas for my car, and paying off my mortgage.”
The petite masked figure said, “We’ve reserved a place for you out back, it’s perfect for you.”
The new figure went off around the corner. A few minutes later, the figure came back around the corner, and protested, “Hey! There’s nothing back there but a drop-off and a huge wasteland!”
The petite masked figure said, “As I said…”
BobK,
Don’t forget the secret handshake and fist bump.
Dang…my work discussion always brings me into these discussions way to late.
Speaking of fanatically narrow-minded, ideologically fanatic fascism-promoting colleges grooming subversives to infiltrate our government and undermine our Constitution….Yale, Princeton, Columbia, U. of Wisconsin, U. Michigan, Berkeley, UC-Santa Cruz….
Danny,
Please be serious… No one graduates UC-Santa Cruz capable of coherent thought or purposeful action…
Ummm…one of mine graduated from SC…in about ‘88.
My fault - I didn’t realize it was Berkeley light. If I had, he would have gone somewhere else or not at all. We visited, but it didn’t seem so bad - until we attended his graduation. They had all the posters out for that, and the kids were all in high (maybe even literally) spirits. I had had no idea!
20 years later, with two kids, he’s thinking of attending law school. He’s also solidly conservative, and lives kind of close to SF. His political positions have undergone a _lot_ of transition! I don’t know where I got him from…! If I hadn’t been there when he was born…! At 14, we asked him what he wanted for his birthday, and he said he wanted a mandolin. A _mandolin_!!!! Where the heck did that come from!! He spent 4 years at SC, graduated with a degree in anthropology, and became a jeweler.
Makes me wonder if maybe there really are changelings!!
Suek: He sounds like a lovely person who marches to the beat of his own drummer. If he became a mature conservative, he’s already proven himself to be a person of trust and honor.
Interestingly, Mr. Bookworm has moved in the opposite direction. Part of it is sheer contrariness. Even as I’ve moved Right, he’s moved Left. Part of it, though, is his work milieu. His job sees him surrounded by people in the 20s and 30s, many gay, many graduates of the furthest Left colleges. To the extent that his long work hours mean he spends more time with them than he does with me, it is they who color his political beliefs. Kind of weird.
BobK”
>>Ummm…. you meant “made BY oppressed workers”. I hope….<<
LOL!
My son, a rock musician (drummer) has been dating a lovely girl for four years who just graduated from UC Santa Cruz.
I love her to bits, but she drank the Kool-Aid long ago and wants to become a frickin’ lawyer. Just what the world needs.
She took a course from Angela Davis. When I pointed out to her that Davis is a murderer who got away with her crime just like OJ, and that she expounds a philosophy that so far has been responsible for 100 million deaths, it went right over her (very) pretty head.
I fear that it is going to take some almost cosmic-sized disaster for most of our kids to wake up.
My son? He’s fine. He works as head salesman at a music store and knows from 25,000 miles worth of cold nights and hard driving to play at venues across the country, as well as three years of 30-hour-a-week practice sessions, what real work is.
He didn’t last more than a year at college, and you know what? I’m glad he dodged that time-wasting, mind-trashing bullet.
Also, no secret handshakes for me, I’m afraid.
I was at that Greenwich Village townhouse when Bill Ayers’s girlfriend accidentally blew herself up. I’m down to my head mounted on a trolley cart, so the best I can do is gum you.
“Thank God we have strong teacher unions here in California dedicated to weeding out unqualified folks like her.”
Hey Charles,
This comment cracked me up. I personally did a mental health assessment on a teacher years ago when I worked for a large school district in CA. She was clearly psychotic, paranoid and delusional. When I talked with the principle I shared with him my impression that she was mentally ill and should be no where near a classroom. It never occurred to me but that she would be gone soon. He looked at me sadly and said that he had no confidence that this would happen, in fact he was sure it would not. Sure enough, she was sent downtown to a District psychiatrist for assessment. There she was deemed competent and was sent to another school to teach their children, all the while paranoid, raging, sure others were out to get her.
Thanks to the Union and fearful District personnel, she could not be removed.
This experience, so many years ago, made me realize that the Unions was not about protecting the kids at all.
>> She was clearly psychotic, paranoid and delusional. >>
That’s an educator who truly believes she is one awesome teacher.
I mean, when all of her students fail to pass the standard graduation test, it’s not because she failed to teach them. It’s because they all deliberately failed, to make her look bad.
Charles Martel (#50)
>> I’m down to my head mounted on a trolley cart, so the best I can do is gum you. >>
Charles, I hope you’re on the level.
What the heck were you doing messing around with Ayers and his girlfriend? Because of that, you’ve had a very difficult life for all these decades. Well, your head has, anyway. But hope is here! What with a new Obama Administration, and rainbows and daisies breaking out all over the place, I can promise you, in your life on a trolley cart, your struggles are all over. And it’s all downhill from here.
Mike: LOL!
Bill’s girl liked the cut of my jib.
He was so crazy jealous of me, even after I was reduced about 7/8ths by the explosion, that he swore he would find a way to get venegeance. (You have to understand that Bill was — and is — a physical coward, so he wouldn’t come after even a legless, trunkless, armless head like me.)
He said that if were ever in a position to cut off my head trolley benefits (stuff like new wheels and the occasional detailing), he would.
Do you guys think I should be scared even though he’s just an “acquaintance” of The One?
I think I should proofread more carefully. I meant “were”.
Wow!
I go to work (someone has to pay for Obama’s “hopeychangey” ideas), come home, and log on only to find this amazing thread! I love this!!!
Bookworm - I often have wished we all could meet in a salon for good food, good wine, and good discussion. I’d be perfectly happy to wear a wig and dark glasses to preserve our anonymity!
Mike D and BobK: your little scenarios made me laugh heartily and I thank you! I needed it today.
Deana
I wrote this on purple’s blog in response to his post concerning reforming education.
“I seriously think they should be teaching kids two things.
1. How to use violence and all the social taboos dealing with such things as murder and cannibalism and why they exist. Not just the use of firearms but the knowledge of why “violence works”. Why it often you have one guy doing it and one guy receiving it and this state of things never really changes.
2. The usage of propaganda and psychological warfare and how to defend against them.
The system, of course, will need re-tooling but those two subjects are something I think every six year could benefit from learning. Course, we’ll hold back on the “goodies” until they are 12 or something.”
Link
Book’s topic here is only one of several reasons why.
We all pay for public schools, directly or indirectly. Our money is supporting this type of indoctrination - and there’s no choice involved.
I doubt Oz places any great priority on you having a choice, Bob.
It is extremely hard to be intimidated by someone that you know you can dismantle from head to foot without breaking a sweat. Hard, though not impossible.
You can tell a child to not be afraid of bullies as often as you want, but so long as the child is defenseless in both mental and physical spheres (like the civilians in Iraq), it doesn’t matter what the child wants to feel for fear is going to happen and fear is going to take control because fear knows that you don’t have any idea of how to handle the situation.
As glad as I was to see the superintendent’s response, I am afraid that nothing will wind up happening, that the investigation will not result in any consequences to that woman.
She should NEVER be permitted to teach again. Anywhere. Her career should be over. Permanently.
The folks in Fayetteville, NC, will know what happens to this woman in the long run. Hopefully, they’ll notify people so we learn her fate. I realize that the school system cannot release information about personnel issues but people must be able to see justice carried out.
Deana
OK.
The Fayetteville Observer just uploaded a new article about the teacher. Some interesting little tidbits:
That woman has been “teaching” for 27 years.
The class that teacher was teaching was MATH class. Yeah. You read that right: math.
The father of the one young girl toward the end of the video was unaware of what had happened until the superintendent called him to apologize. If this woman was willing to say what she said knowing she was being videotaped, what has she been doing to God knows how many children when no one was watching????
As of Friday afternoon, she was still employed. And guess who she is blaming for her problems? You got it: McCain supporters.
Here is the article: http://www.fayobserver.com/article?id=309848
Deana
If Christian ideas turn out to be more compelling than Marxist ideas, why would you complain?
- CM
I was appalled when the House passed legislation designed to permantly subvert the Constitution and thereby pave the way to turn the US into a Chrisitian Nation.
But mostly, I was alarmed that there were people who were had access to White House to make sure that U.S foreign policy conformed with Bibilbal prophecy.
I keep having to remind myself that it’s over.
Andrew J. Bacevich, yesterday:
Evangelical foreign policy is over
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/11/06/evangelical_foreign_policy_is_over/
However, the Constitution, which is the supreme law of my land, allows people to run for office and try to peacefully and democratically impose their political views on the land. - CM
I agree.
But the Religous Right-fueled House tried to use a loophole in the Constitution to permanantly sidestep the Constitution:
Published on Monday, July 26, 2004 by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution
House Vote Doesn’t Only Threaten Gays
by Jay Bookman
Every politician has — or should have — a line that he or she will not cross just to gain political advantage. Even for the most ambitious and ruthless, there should be some things that are off-limits, some steps that aren’t worth taking because the potential damage to the nation outweighs any political gain.
But like many Americans, I have a sneaking suspicion that the line has shifted considerably. In fact, after last week’s events in the U.S. House of Representatives, you have to wonder if it still exists at all for some people.
Frustrated by the Senate’s failure to produce even a majority of votes in favor of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, House leaders decided to take a more controversial approach. Citing an obscure and largely untested provision of the U.S. Constitution, the House voted 233-194 to bar the Supreme Court from considering the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, a 1996 law dealing with gay marriage.
That is a power grab of breathtaking consequence. If Congress has the authority to tell the Supreme Court that certain issues are off-limits, it would give legislators a free hand to do whatever they wished, without worrying about whether it violated the Constitution. The whole idea of a separation of powers could be rendered null and void if that happened.
And unfortunately, it could. The provision in question, Article III, Section 2, gives the federal courts the power to decide a broad range of cases, including challenges to the constitutionality of federal laws. However, it also grants the courts that power “with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.”
Theoretically, that allows Congress to pass a law — say, making it a felony to criticize members of Congress — and then forbid the courts to review such a law. It could pass a law making Christianity the national religion, and bar the courts from hearing a challenge. It could allow government to tap our phones without a warrant, or toss dissidents into prison without trial, and refuse to allow the courts to intervene.
That’s why the provision has remained obscure and largely untested. Previous generations of politicians, even in the heat of intense battle, have understood and respected the potential damage it could do. They saw it as a Pandora’s box that once opened could threaten not just our constitutional liberties but the whole concept of a balance of powers among the judicial, legislative and executive branches.
. . .
for more:
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0726-08.htm
So you would limit government jobs to people who do not believe in the literal truth of the bible? - suek
I would suggest that, when it comes to governance, they hold the Constitution in higher regard than the Bible.
But yes, I also feel that if someone believes that dinosaurs and man walked together and that the earth is only 6,000 years old, and literally prays for Armaggedon, he or she should not have access to the nuclear codes.
So, Ozzie, you do support a litmus test. All we are really discussing here is the hue of litmus.
So, Ozzie, you do support a litmus test. All we are really discussing here is the hue of litmus.- Danny
I support the separation of church and state. When John F Kennedy ran for president, he had to assure people that he did, too.
These days, however, that trend has reversed..
My attitude towards the Religious Right has evolved over time. In the 1990s, Jerry Falwell was a fringe figure who thought Tinky Winky was gay. It was just silliness that I didnt take seriously. In 2001, he and Pat Roberstson were fringe people who blamed 9/11 on feminists and gays. That was mean-spirtedness that I didnt take seriously, either.
As I studied Religious Right-fueled legislation, however, my attitude shifted. When I learned that groups were meeting with White House officials to make sure that U.S foreign policy conformed to Biblical prophecy, I was shocked and dismayed.
My attitude towards the Religious Right doesn’t stem from a hatred of Christians or Chrisitainty, but from watching the End Times contigency over the course of years.
I now believe that anyone who tries to subvert the Constitution (by using a loophole in the Constitution), or believes that the president should care whether or not U.S foreign policy conforms with Biblical prophecy is a danger.
Ozzie are you equally upset with the encroachments of sharia law in the West?
As I said, your contempt for Christianity comes shining through in spades- CM
Its not contempt for Chrisitanity.
These people are also upset:
“. . . The National Council of Churches includes more than 100,000 individual churches, made up of about 45 million churchgoers, and is hoping it can use its membership to curb the political and social influence of Christian Zionism, said Antonios Kireopoulos, the group’s director of interfaith relations.
The brochure will be handed out in member churches.
As a resource for those churches, the council is also creating an analysis of parts of the Bible that Christian Zionists use to justify their views, he said.
“We have to wake up Christians,” said the Rev. Gwynne Guibord, of the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles, also a member of the council.
“We have to show Christians and others that there is another way of looking at these things, a way that isn’t so antithetical to who Jesus was,” she said.
(The brochure they refer to will be handed out to nearly 45 million people, alterting Christians to the danger of an ideology which “leads to a conclusion that ‘involves the death of all non-Christians, including Jews, through apocalyptic warfare or divine judgment” and “is not based on traditional teaching or doctrines of the Church.’)
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-beliefs25-2008oct25,0,2153443.story?track=rss
I’ve argued that as a Catholic, I wasn’t taught to belive in the Rapture or that the Book or Revelations was the literal truth, but that’s not the point: People are free to believe whatever they want to believe and can eagerly await the end of the world all they want.
I just don’t want those who hold these beliefs determining U.S. foreign policy or having access to the nuclear codes.
It looks as of the Council of National Churches shares my view.
Thank God.
Ozzie are you equally upset with the encroachments of sharia law in the West?- Zhombre
Yes.
Fundamentalism is dangerous, making it easier to dehumanize “the other,” which invariably leads to atrocities.
You keep telling me that I believe propaganda, when that’s all you spout. The Right lost because they live in a cocoon where George Bush is noble and Sarah Palin is qualifed.-Oz
You wrote that to me on the Attitude thread, Oz. It seems apparent that your attitude is that you believe you know what is propaganda or not while we’re living in a “cocoon”.
Except for the little inconvenient fact that you don’t understand propaganda, you may have had a point. You don’t know what fundamentalism is because you can’t recognize it when your perceptions are controlled by other people’s propaganda.
your perceptions are controlled by other people’s propaganda.- ymar
Sorry, Ymar, as someone who’s been repeatedly accused of being a nihilstic, far leftist concern troll sent to wage psychological warfare on Obama’s behalf, I cant help but snicker at your understanding of propaganda and/or perception.
Ozzie,
I’m so happy the NCC is doing this! Distributing pamphlets to churches that are rapidly losing membership is a great way to use up their ever-more-limited funds.
As a Catholic, I was taught to read the Bible - not just the segments that are read at Mass. Given that, I’m quite certain that your church had readings from Matthew 24 at some point in the liturgical cycle. This does not sound like a parable to me. Perhaps no Catholic should be allowed to hold office, given Jesus own words there…
Seriously, Ozzie, I wonder at your fear. You are very concerned about pro-Christian dominionist legislation. If the dominionist agenda is so powerful and pervasive, how do you explain the lack of implementation? Why didn’t the neocons and fundamentalists simply declare martial law after 9/11? Let me suggest that it wasn’t for a lack of ability or foresight - perhaps it’s because the agenda you so fear is simply not there, except for a fringe minority comparable in size and influence to the 9/11 truthers.
I’m going to try and drag us back to the topic here…
Ozzie, religion, universalist (National Council of Churches) or fundamentalist is irrelevant to Book’s original post discussing the browbeating Obama-evangelism of that publicly-funded ‘teacher’ - admit or deny?
“and literally prays for Armaggedon”
Extremely few do that. It is a lie invented by radical secularists and leftists to discredit those they disagree with. But then, what else can we expect of the left?
The left seeks to control the classroom, indoctrinating all children as they see fit, and does everything it can to hide what it does from parents–and, when it cannot be hidden, to make parents powerless to control how what is taught.
Seriously, Ozzie, I wonder at your fear. You are very concerned about pro-Christian dominionist legislation. - Bobk
Actually, the legislation that passed the House wasn’t Dominionist legislation, it was just run-of-the-mill Religious Right-sponsored legislation . But yes, I can’t believe that the House actually used a loophole in the Constituion to try to subvert the Constitution.
If it had passed the Senate, Congress could, in theory, pass a law making the U.S a Chrstian Nation, while preventing the Supreme Court from challenging the law.
Dominionist legislation was introduced in 2004 and 2005, but never passed.
OZ STRIKES AGAIN!
1. A “loophole” in the Constitution could limit where the Supreme Court is allowed to interefere in people’s lives. Gosh, do you think the Founders knew about it?
2. A citation generated by the National Council of Churches, a pro-Marxist, pro-homosexualist, pro-abortion group of “progressives” who abandoned orthodoxy years ago and have very little influence among anybody but upper middle-class whites and the credulous (that’s you, Oz).
3. (Endless) citations from suspect sources, such as the Boston Globe (NYT Lite). Never, never, never, ever an argument generated by herself. Just cut-and-paste twaddle from newspapers, those always-to-be-trusted paragons of truth.
By the way, Oz, as a supposed “Catholic,” you sure have a jones on for some very un-Catholic things. Where were you when you got the revelation that Holy Mother Church was wrong when it comes to things like killing fetuses and approving of sex acts where people try to fertilize one another’s dinner from last night?
pst314 -
Yes. I think that has been one of their top priorities for quite some time. That is unlikely to change given the amount of influence people like Ayers have had on Obama.
So the latest news about this incident in NC is that the young girl’s parents think Harris is getting a “rough deal” and that she didn’t do anything wrong. According to the young girl, the teacher is “usually messing around.”
I may be wrong but this does not pass the smell test. I think there is something going on here.
If it is true, then I’m sorry that her parents feel that way but the teacher MUST still suffer severe consequences for this. If this is not fought, if people do not see what the consequences are for this sort of behavior by teachers, then we are setting up the stage for more of this. There will be no end to it.
We cannot afford that when we just elected a man who has had a long association with one of the most radical “education theorists” this country has ever seen.
Deana
Deana:
I fear that this stuff goes on all the time all over the country. The horse is out of the barn when it comes to some of the more pernicious aspects of Bill Ayers’ Maoist educational philosophy.
When the Massachusetts Supreme Court reached into its collective rear end and pulled out the plum of gay “marriage,” I got into a discussion with a group of friends about judicial usurpation and original intent.
One of the group, a highly regarded third grade teacher, shrugged and said in her best moonbat voice, “Well, who are we to say what the Founders were thinking when they wrote the Constitution?”
The others around me nodded, but got a little peeved when I pointed out that the Federalist Papers and thousands of letters of correspondence from the men who attended the Constitutional Convention just might give us the tiniest indication of their intent.
What bothered me about the incident was that this woman is teaching our children to NOT think.
Yikes.
>>…but got a little peeved when I pointed out that the Federalist Papers and thousands of letters of correspondence from the men who attended the Constitutional Convention just might give us the tiniest indication of their intent.>>
But if your philosophy permits - even encourages - you to twist words to mean whatever you want them to mean, then the result is that they end up meaning nothing. The result is that we are completely unable to communicate. So naturally we don’t know what the Founders meant. They might as well have been talking gibberish! Oh yeah…and add to that the fact that the vocabulary of the Founders was more extensive by far than that of our so much more educated college graduates of today. The truth of the matter is that many of them don’t have any idea what the words actually did mean. It’s almost like a foreign language to them.
I remember being in my late teen years - not quite college age, but with friends who _were_ in college - and just starting into the serious discussion about life’s big questions phase. I found it no end of irritating to be constantly asked “what do you mean by xxx” - either a particular word or a particular phrase. Eventually I learned that you can have a conversation with someone and lo and behold, somewhere down the line discover that when you said “beautiful sky” you were thinking a bowl of blue, the your conversant was thinking blue with massive cumulus formations - so you better find out what someone meant when they said xxx! And obviously, that problem is still with us today! On this very blog!
Charles -
I know in my heart that you are right. I know it.
I think one of the reasons this has me so upset is that I am the cousin, niece, daughter, and grandaughter of men who have served in our military over a span of three generations. And there just doesn’t seem to be any end to the number of people who just keep chipping away at the very ideas for which they offered up their lives.
We long ago decided it was perfectly acceptable to spit on the faces of our soldiers. How have we allowed ourselves to get to the point where it is acceptable to shame their children???
And it is exactly as you say: there is no appreciation, no AWARENESS even, of what made us “us.” We seem to be throwing away our treasure with both hands, just as fast as we can and it is breaking my heart.
Deana
By the way, Oz, as a supposed “Catholic,” you sure have a jones on for some very un-Catholic things. Where were you when you got the revelation that Holy Mother Church was wrong when it comes to things like killing fetuses and approving of sex acts where people try to fertilize one another’s dinner from last night?- CM
Charles,
As a young woman, when faced with an unplanned pregnancy, I made a choice.
I am not sure when life begins, but when faced with that decision, I chose to err on the side of caution. He is now 32 yers old and was a pleasure to raise and I’m very happy I listened to my heart.
It’s one of the best decisons I ever made.
That said, I am still not certain when life begins and am glad that I had a choice.
The Pope was also against the war in Iraq, by the way, as was the National Council of Churches.
The only churches who were FOR the war were those who believe in End Times prophecy.
Ozzie,
It is the usual MO of Ozzie to read an opinion that she agrees with and then tries to pass this a gospel. ( Pun intended )
For some information from the historical record, try this.
http://www.supremecourthistory.org/04_library/subs_volumes/04_c14_l.html
Once again, the record predates Ozzie’s conspiracy theorys.
Ozzie has become a predictable one note poster.
“But yes, I also feel that if someone believes that dinosaurs and man walked together and that the earth is only 6,000 years old, and literally prays for Armaggedon, he or she should not have access to the nuclear codes.”- Ozzie
These are small points, but important ones. I know of no Christian that is praying for Armaggedon. We are certainly looking for Christ’s return. Just like the first century Christians were. What our mandate is the fulfilling of the Great Commission- which was to go into all the world and make disciples. What our job is as Christians is to share the good news that God offers reconciliation to him through Jesus. It’s not God’s choice that you are separated from him, and he is calling everyone to become “right with God”.
As to the age of the earth, I don’t know how old it is, and neither do you. There are many Christians that have offered explanations synthesizing the biblical account and the current scientific theory as to the age of the earth.
Since science doesn’t have an explantion for the origins of the universe, my belief that God created it makes sense to me. Intellectually, without any compelling narrative as to a natural origin of the universe, I’ve place my faith in an eternal Creator, who has revealed himself in the person of Jesus.
Darwin’s explanation for origins has been called into question by advances in science and there is even disagreement over the natural processes, the only agreement by secularists seems to be that God didn’t do it.
It is the usual MO of Ozzie to read an opinion that she agrees with and then tries to pass this a gospel. ( Pun intended )- rock
The loophole I’m referring to is Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution.
It’s a matter of record that the Congress used it to pass legislation which could neuter the Supreme Court and threaten the separation of powers.
That’s not opinion. it’s what occured.
Nevertheless, the Religious Right argued that Congress should use it to tear down the wall between Church and State.
In an Oct. 6, 2003 op-ed in the Washington Times, former Rep. William E. Dannemeyer openly advocated using this tact. “Congress should use Article III, Section 2, clause of the U.S. Constitution to recover what has been stolen,” he wrote, listing egregious acts such as: “Enacting a wall of separation between church and state; Banning nondenominational prayer from public schools; Removing the Ten Commandments from public school walls; and Removing God from the Pledge of Allegiance” as primary transgressions.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2003/oct/06/20031006-085845-5892r/
If you think the founders never intended for there to be a wall between Church and state, you’ll agree with this.
I believe that the wall between church and state, as described by Thomas Jefferson, is a fine and noble thing.
“I’ve argued that as a Catholic, I wasn’t taught to belive in the Rapture or that the Book or Revelations was the literal truth, but that’s not the point: People are free to believe whatever they want to believe and can eagerly await the end of the world all they want.
I just don’t want those who hold these beliefs determining U.S. foreign policy or having access to the nuclear codes.”-Ozzie
Just because you weren’t taught to believe these things doesn’t make them either true or false.
It’s my understanding that Middle East policy was actually the product of neo-conservatives. They certainly can’t be accused of being part of the Religious Right (whoever that is. Is’s so convenient to create monolithic groups.)
You might argue that their interests coincided. But here’s the big rub. The overall goal of the neo-cons was to bring a workable peace to the middle east. That is not in the interests of end timers as you characterize them, since Armegeddon is a cataclysmic battle between the forces of good and evil. Peace will certainly not advance the cause of that final battle. To be consistent with your argument, these folks (end-timers) need to be working toward the goal of greater conflict and tension.
Now you could argue the position that the neo-conservatives were advancing a strategy they thought would lead to a greater Middle East peace, and the fundamentalists in the administration, having biblical insight about the end times, went along with it, knowing it would lead to a wider war.
But that doesn’t fit with what we know of George Bush. He is a compassionate man. He’s committed $50 billion to Africa. He’s committed to a peaceful resolution of Iraq. (Actually, he’s committed us to that).
If the end-timers had such great power, we would have left Iraq soon after we took out Saddam, and let the Arabs and Persians duke it out, with the knowledge that the only common enemy of the two is Israel.
Ozzie, here’s a website that has created what I would call Millenialism 101. It might give you an understanding of the divergent views of Christians. It’s very short and might give you a better understanding of the different views.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/mill.cfm
You don’t want religious people shaping government policy, but by default, you have no problem with marxists, or any of the other isms making government policy?
Ozzie,
Congress does not need a “loophole’ to limit cases before the Supreme Court.
I linked to precedent as proof.
From your link,
200 years of precedent. That sure is some loophole.
And I find it interesting the author of the article did not mention the cases link above.
Perhaps Book or DQ would have more insight to this issue.
>>I believe that the wall between church and state, as described by Thomas Jefferson, is a fine and noble thing.>>
I’d agree if the judicial branch wasn’t in the process of eliminating freedom of religion in the public sphere. You - among others - have argued that we are _not_ a “Christian” nation, yet the frequent and constant suits of the ACLU have been to remove the traces of Christianity that have been in the public life for the last 100+ years. Typical Marxist - change the history textbooks, then deny that something ever was.
Your definition of a wall between church and state would effectively ban anyone of any religion from serving in government. As I said before, the intention of the wall between church and state was to prevent the _state_ from interfering in _church_ matters. Your intention is to eliminate religion.
You’re another one of those who can’t accept being told “you sinned”. You made your decisions, but can’t accept responsibility for it. You are unable to say “I was wrong. Forgive me”. For that reason, you hope to eliminate anyone who might be able to point a finger at you and accuse you.
“My attitude towards the Religious Right has evolved over time. In the 1990s, Jerry Falwell was a fringe figure who thought Tinky Winky was gay. It was just silliness that I didnt take seriously. In 2001, he and Pat Roberstson were fringe people who blamed 9/11 on feminists and gays. That was mean-spirtedness that I didnt take seriously, either.”- Ozzie
Jerry Falwell fringe figure?
http://www.keithboykin.com/arch/1981/06/17/moral_majority
This sound like something you might write Ozzie. Only it was written in 1981.
Your definition of a wall between church and state would effectively ban anyone of any religion from serving in government- Suek
No. I would like to make certain that the U.S. never becomes a Christian nation, by law.
All modern presidents have been Chrisitans, but it wasn’t until George W. Bush did we have an administration that actually met with End Times literalists to make sure that U.S foreign policy conformed with Biblical prphecy.
It was fascinating to see Bush dance around a question regarding Iraq and the End Times. He didnt know how to answer.
Was he a true literalist? Or did he pretend to be to win elections?
I dont know. But we’ve never faced anything like it before.
“should not have access to the nuclear codes”
If every liberal who thought Karl Marx had a point, felt sympathy for Hugo Chavez, or respected Castro more than Bush were barred from government the conservatives and libertarians would control by default.
From the Globe Opinion piece by Andrew Bacevich: Link provided by Ozzie.
This is why dialogue with the left is impossible. Bacevich can only see our intervention in Iraq in “crusader” terms, since it provides the necessary conflict to condemn it, without having to confront the realities of its objectives.
As to Niebuhr’s obvious conflicts, this may not serve President Obama or the American people well, since all intellectual thought has been reduced to the individual.
Sorry, Ymar, as someone who’s been repeatedly accused of being a nihilstic, far leftist concern troll sent to wage psychological warfare on Obama’s behalf, I cant help but snicker at your understanding of propaganda and/or perception.
I’m sorry that you don’t have any sources you can quote here that will defend you from these charges, Oz. I know that it is unsettling to you when you have to think up counter-arguments to the truth on your own. That, however, is not my problem.
This sound like something you might write Ozzie. Only it was written in 1981.- Brian
I don’t see your point, Brian. I said I thought Falwell was a fringe person, but that was before I saw how organized and determinded the Religious Right was.
There is autoritatrian at the core of this, which, to me, is every bit as frightening than the authoritarianism on the left.
I watched this tape and cringed. Here was a teacher who believed that she knew what was right and good and true, and she used her power, without coinsidering her student’s feelings, to imply that they did not.
I see the same sort of mindset in those who believe that they know God, and that others have it wrong, and have no qualms brow-beating those who dont see things their way.
In each case, ideology gets in the way of conscience and compassion.
I did not consider Jerry Falweel to be a very nice man.
Your opinion may differ.
Ozzie:
Thank God for your decision not to kill your son in the womb. I can tell that you are thankful you made it. It sounds like he is a fine young man and a source of joy to you.
Regarding your happiness at having had a choice, you always had a choice. You could have decided to kill him, regardless of whether the U.S. Supreme Court had given you that “right.” Abortionists have been with us since the Fall.
What interests me, though, is what the euphemism “choice” means. My wife is a pro-choicer and she gets visibly uncomfortable whenever I ask her this question:
“Having a choice means having alternatives. I know a woman can choose to deliver the child in her womb. I also know that she can choose to not deliver it. Could you tell me that that latter choice entails? Could you state in plain English what it takes to make sure that that child never sees the light of day?”
Of course some remnant horror in her shrinks at describing aloud what this wonderful second choice is that all women are supposed to be thrilled to have.
I imagine that when you sit down with your son, you can’t quite bring yourself to say, “You know, son, if I had been feeling differently at the time, I would have had you eviscerated. Isn’t it wonderful we live in a [non-Christian] country where I had that choice?”
I know that it is unsettling to you when you have to think up counter-arguments to the truth on your own- ymar
It’s tough. I’ve lost communication with with the Concern Troll Department of Obama headquarters, and my connection to Nihlist Central has also been lost.
I imagine that when you sit down with your son, you can’t quite bring yourself to say, “You know, son, if I had been feeling differently at the time, I would have had you eviscerated. Isn’t it wonderful we live in a [non-Christian] country where I had that choice?”- CM
It has nothing to do with how I was feeling that day. It has to do with who I am and what I believe.
He knows that.
On the other hand, I also realize that others don’t believe as I do.
“Having a choice means having alternatives. I know a woman can choose to deliver the child in her womb. I also know that she can choose to not deliver it. Could you tell me that that latter choice entails? Could you state in plain English what it takes to make sure that that child never sees the light of day?”- CM
I have no idea what goes on in another person’s heart and/or mind, CM, and I wouldn’t even try to venture a guess.
I also dont know when life begins or when the soul enters the body.
This doubt was what led me to have my son, but it also leads me not to judge others.
Ozzie, no sweat. I can get you hooked up again with the official talking points. Just cut and paste from the following:
Wikipedia
The New York Times, Boston Globe, LA Times, San Fran Chronicle, Washington Post, Pravda, Granma, The Guardian (UK), AP
ABC, PBS, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN
Time, Newsweek, The Nation, The Progressive, Harper’s, Utne Reader, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, Tikkun, The Advocate
The National Council of Churches, Catholics for Free Choice, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, the Episcopal Church, the Unitarians
Well, this is a start. Please let me know if I can provide you with other sources to do your talking and thinking for you.
Oz:
>>I have no idea what goes on in another person’s heart and/or mind, CM, and I wouldn’t even try to venture a guess.<<
Me neither. Unfortunately, that is not the question I asked my wife. I didn’t ask her when life begins (even though it’s obvious that the child you’re killing is alive. How do you kill something that isn’t?).
I didn’t ask her what the mom is thinking or feeling as she’s having the child put to death.
I asked, very simply, to please have the process of killing the child described to me in plain English.
What is so hard about that?
I asked, very simply, to please have the process of killing the child described to me in plain English.- Cahrles
I’ve never gone though it, Charles, so I don’t know.
Some dont believe it is a child in the first trimester. They believe it’s a “clump of cells.”
I obviously didnt ascribe to that theory, but others do.
Perhaps you should ask a woman who’s had an abortion?
“Well, this is a start. Please let me know if I can provide you with other sources to do your talking and thinking for you.” CM
I try to be respectful, but this gets to be a bit much.
Ozzie,
Should the US use our influence and force Israel to withdraw from the West Bank, accept the division of Jerusalem and accept the right of return of Palestinians to Israel?
Short of that, what should be our level of support for Israel?
Charles,
You made your point. I certainly applaud Ozzie’s choice. I suspect that given the opportunity, she would relate her personal experience and satisfaction at her choice to anyone confronting a similar situation.
Oz, part of respecting people that you are trying to persuade — remember, this is a conservative blog and you are not a conservative — is to offer your own arguments and to avoid citing sources that few here believe.
When the Jesuit priest Matteo Ricci went to China to convert the emperor to Catholicism, he referred to Confucian and Taoist texts to set up the points he wanted to make.
In other words, reason with us from our truth texts, not yours.
Ozzie,
Please define what you mean by a “Christian nation”.
If you’re talking about self-identification, we already overwhelmingly identify ourselves as Christian (78.5% according to the CIA World Factbook).
If you’re talking about philosophical approach, it’s hard to avoid the strong influence of Christians and Christian philosophy among our founders. They were primarily Christians, but even those that weren’t were strongly influenced by Christian approaches and ideals. Jefferson, for example, had no problem with Christian religious services in the House chamber.
If you’re talking about governance, the First Amendment is VERY clear: “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion….” and the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over all cases arising under the Constitution. This jurisdiction is Constitutionally granted, and cannot be changed through legislative action. A strict constructionist would surely object to any legislation that sought to give preference to one religion over another as a national church. Justices such as Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas are, ummmm, inclined to take the words of the Constitution at face value.
And, for that matter, how do you reconcile President Bush’s appointments of Roberts and Alito (both Catholic, I seem to remember) with his supposed “End Times literalist” proclivities? It seems that he would have been better off appointing justices philosophically inclined to construct new law out of whole cloth, instead of justices that actually look to the original intent of the founders as their guiding principle. And, according to your recollection, Catholics don’t believe in the literal truth of the Book of Revelation.
I’m really trying to quiet your fears regarding an Armageddonist (is that a word?) takeover of the U.S. government. I, as an evangelical Christian, don’t personally know ANYONE who is ‘for’ the war. I pray for our victory in a conflict begun by enemies of our country - if that is within God’s will. I do NOT pray for continuation of a conflict or the start of some new conflict to hasten the second coming of Christ. That will happen, but Scripture tells us that only God knows the day and hour.
And, O.T., I’m thankful that you’ve been blessed by your decision for life! La Chaim!
I’m really trying to quiet your fears regarding an Armageddonist (is that a word?) takeover of the U.S.
Oz, being a nihilist, does not fear an Armageddon. She sees it as entertainment. If you ask her directly on this score, she will say that she doesn’t fear or doesn’t take counsel of her fears. She has also said that it’s nice to see the problems in the nation and how it won’t be solved by either party. Oz doesn’t have any solutions because Oz is more entertained by the calamity than the solutions.
You haven’t had the benefit of seeing the numerous times Oz has been gleeful in tone and in word over the problems she has highlighted in the United States. We have, however.
I’ve lost communication with with the Concern Troll Department of Obama headquarters, and my connection to Nihlist Central has also been lost.
You don’t need lines of communication, Oz. You just need an article you can cut and paste here, with the link. Are you having trouble finding one?
I’ve never gone though it, Charles, so I don’t know.
This seems an interesting observation. You don’t know because you lack personal experience, yet you “know” the Religious Right rigged the elections of 2000 and 2004 with electronic voting machines because you read and heard it in your sources.
Do you simply lack sources that will tell you how it is, Oz? Or do you refuse to read them because it is something you don’t want to experience and know?
>>Catholics don’t believe in the literal truth of the Book of Revelation.>>
Ok…so don’t quote me, but it’s my recollection that the Book of Revelation was written in an exceedingly obscure manner due to repression and persecution during the period, and that had you lived in the time, that the more bizarre verses would have made sense. A bit like the Mother Goose nursery rhymes actually were political verses or stories at the time, but those of us in this time no longer have the connections to correctly interpret them. True or not, I can’t say.
In a sense, it doesn’t matter. If the end times are upon us, does our knowledge of that fact make any difference? We should be living our lives as if we _are_ in the end times, but if the end times are a million years away, should we be living our lives any differently?
Same thing with evolution. What difference does it make how we got here? would our knowledge change anything? If we were created in an instant by the hand of God, or if we developed from the slime of the earth in a literal sense, we’re here. The evolutionists goal is to “scientlifically” destroy the belief in God. Whether they’re right or wrong, evolution is and will remain a theory, not a fact. Evolutionists are just another branch of Marxists who wish to destroy religion. Nothing else.
Have you read Off Armageddon’s Reef yet, suek, by David Weber?
You don’t want religious people shaping government policy, but by default, you have no problem with marxists, or any of the other isms making government policy?
Brian, Oz has no problems with what the government is doing, regardless of who is in control of it. Oz just likes to take pot shots at people like Sarah palin because those kinds of people can actually solve the problems in government. Solutions to problems are not nearly as entertaining and interesting to Oz as the problems themselves.
Sitting on a fence allows you to shoot either side. Oz is going to do whatever makes her feel better.
>>…Armageddon’s Reef…>>
No…never heard of it. Should I?
>>Sitting on a fence allows you to shoot either side. Oz is going to do whatever makes her feel better.>>
I wonder if there’s another blog Oz comments on where she takes equally denigrating potshots at libs…!
Somehow I doubt it. So…why is she here?
“…which, to me, is every bit as frightening than the authoritarianism on the left.”
You will find authoritarians on the right, but leftism is not authoritarian but totalitarian. There are vast areas of my life that Jerry Falwell has no interest in controlling, but the left aspires to control every aspect of society and manage our lives in the greatest detail.
I’m not sure I really understand what “authoritarianism” is.
Totalitarianism, I get. “Do as I say or I’ll throw you into jail (take all your possessions, put you in a re-education camp along with your entire family)”
I do think someone has to have their hand on the helm - otherwise we have anarchy.
If we eliminate authoritarianism, totalitarianism and anarchy, I assume we’d have what Oz wants, but I don’t know what that is.
Suek, here’s a rough explanation: Both authoritarians and totalitarians operate on the basis of “do what I say or I’ll throw you in jail.” The distinction is that authoritarians are only interested in exerting control over limited areas of life, whereas totalitarians seek total control of all of society. Under a totalitarian regime there is no such thing as a private life.
For authoritarian think Pinochet who was a brutal dictator but in nearly all areas of life left people alone (particular the free-market economy which would have been destroyed if Allende had been able to carry out his radical socialist agenda) versus Castro or worse Mao, who sought to control everything that people did and said and thought. Or consider Mussolini, who was not nearly as brutal as Hitler (beatings and occasional murders but no network of death camps) but nonetheless was just as much a totalitarian because he sought to create a system in which the state controlled everything. (”Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.”)
Progressivism is totalitarian even when it disavows state terrorism because no matter how smiley-faced it is, it remains a prescription for state control of everything and does not recognize any practical limits on what areas of life are legitimate targets for control. Benevolent maybe, but nonetheless totalitarian.
“Ozzie, no sweat. I can get you hooked up again with the official talking points. Just cut and paste from the following…the Unitarians”
That reminds me: Islam says “There is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet.” The Unitarians say “There is no god and Karl Marx is his prophet.”
How does the old joke go?:
“What do you get when you combine a Unitarian and a Jehovah’s Witness?”
“Someone who wanders around the neighborhood ringing door bells for no reason.”