DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Lack of compassion seen on the right...
Pages:  
Showing posts 51 - 71 of 71, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 04/04/2012 06:37:30 PM · #51
Originally posted by Flash:
An example would simply be the numerous posts in religious slanted threads here on DPC and the zeal to which "believers" are crucified for having the ingnorance and audacity to believe in such "fairy tales" and "myths". That attitude is the attitude I am referencing from the left and the insight I was trying to illuminate from a more conservative perspective. Perhaps I was too subtle.


I can't speak for anyone else, but I'll just say that personally, even though I'm an atheist, I have no hostility to the idea of a god or belief in God. I grew up surrounded by religious people. Two lifelong friends whom I've known since childhood, one a Catholic and one a Jew and both fervent believers to this day, I would sometimes go with to the church or to synagogue. I think I understand what they get from their belief and why it enriches their lives. I have no problem with that. I've also worked with progressive Christians on various political causes. So through those experiences I know that religion can sometimes exert a positive influence on its followers. On the other hand, I am hostile to the particular brand of Christianity that is at the moment dominant in the United States, like what was described in the Andrew Sullivan article, the kind that demonizes non-believers, the kind that finds reasons to hate and seeks to control others' behavior, and the kind that believes in, yes, myths and fairy tales, and seeks to supplant the truth with those myths and fairy tales (for example, that the universe is 6,000 years old and attempting through every dishonest and devious method to have this taught in the public schools). And I especially object to using your religious beliefs to justify your authoritarian political agenda.
 04/05/2012 10:16:26 AM · #52
Good to know you have room for believers.

An example from my side would be an article (conservative source) that relates a Massachucettes elementary school that decided to remove the word God from a Lee Greenwood song. This nth degree of removing God from every item in the public square is just overboard. Those of us who are right of center just shake our heads at this continuing attack on anything with the word God in it.

I am missing any reference in Article 1 that prohibits the use of the word God in any public setting. Further I sense that the 1st Amendment provision restricting a STATE SPONSORED religion is far different than the politically correct application that adherants are using to assault anything religious/christian, and personally find it absurd. Yes there are those on the left like Rev Jesse, and Rev Al and Rev Jeremiah that clearly are both liberal and claim to Christian - but I'm not reading their outrage of this assault to remove each and every "God" word from the public sphere.

I do not think that ALL liberals support this assault, but as posted earlier, the foundation for the assault and the removal of God from the public, began with the French Left wing who was anti-clerical, which was morphed by the Russian Bolsheviks intent to eradicate christianity and we find ourselves today with even the word God in a Lee Greenwood song as offensive in a Massachucettes elementary school.

I mean - come on. This kind of persnickety action only enflames conservatives.
 04/05/2012 10:37:11 AM · #53
Flash I couldn't agree more. The seperation between church and state was designed by our for-fathers because the govmt should not be able to tell an individual what religon they should be. This country was founded on religous freedom. This is the right to practice what ever religon you want. If you don't believe...then be an athiest, if you want to be catholic that is ok...etc.

If you are offended by someone that believes something that you don't believe, you are really in the wrong countr. This is a melting pot of all religons, races, and beliefs. This political correctness really has gone way too far.
04/05/2012 10:55:00 AM · #54
Sadly, one of the main purposes of schools in this country is indoctrination of new citizens into a safe conformity. This includes God and country. Personally, I would remove "God" and "U.S.A." from the song. And any mentions of football. Then I would tell the kids if they want to sing they should start a glee club and sing whatever lyrics they want, God, Satan, whatever.
 04/05/2012 11:53:11 AM · #55
Originally posted by Flash:
Good to know you have room for believers.

An example from my side would be an article (conservative source) that relates a Massachucettes elementary school that decided to remove the word God from a Lee Greenwood song. This nth degree of removing God from every item in the public square is just overboard. Those of us who are right of center just shake our heads at this continuing attack on anything with the word God in it.

I am missing any reference in Article 1 that prohibits the use of the word God in any public setting. Further I sense that the 1st Amendment provision restricting a STATE SPONSORED religion is far different than the politically correct application that adherants are using to assault anything religious/christian, and personally find it absurd. Yes there are those on the left like Rev Jesse, and Rev Al and Rev Jeremiah that clearly are both liberal and claim to Christian - but I'm not reading their outrage of this assault to remove each and every "God" word from the public sphere.

I do not think that ALL liberals support this assault, but as posted earlier, the foundation for the assault and the removal of God from the public, began with the French Left wing who was anti-clerical, which was morphed by the Russian Bolsheviks intent to eradicate christianity and we find ourselves today with even the word God in a Lee Greenwood song as offensive in a Massachucettes elementary school.

I mean - come on. This kind of persnickety action only enflames conservatives.


I just don't agree with your perception of the "public square." I live in a small, very conservative, very religious town in upstate New York, and I am bombarded with religious messages as soon as I step outside my front door. For a town with a population of 1,500, there is almost literally a church on every corner (9 churches altogether). The only places here where there isn't a religious message of some kind on display is the tiny town hall building and the post office, although even in those buildings the bulletin boards are bursting with announcements and posters about one or another religious event. During Christmas the whole town is one big Christmas tree. I don't know what's going on in the school because I don't go there. But, I mean, I think your perception of reality has to be seriously impaired if you think the public square is devoid of religious messages. Maybe it's more a matter of your attention being directed to those instances like the Massachusetts school example that you cited, and the conservative talking heads interpreting their significance way out of proportion to how meaningful they really are.
 04/05/2012 01:14:55 PM · #56
Originally posted by Flash:
An example from my side would be an article (conservative source) that relates a Massachucettes elementary school that decided to remove the word God from a Lee Greenwood song.

Of COURSE it's from a conservative source. You don't see the same outrage when a school changes the words to "I Gotta Feeling" (very common). The First Amendment requires schools and other public forums from promoting a religion, and the same people throwing hissy fits over this would go freakin' nuts if the school chorus belted out a song with Allah blessing America. There is no reference to God, Jesus, Creator or Lord (except as a common-language reference to the date) in the Constitution or any of the Amendments for that specific reason, and common references to a deity such as "In God We Trust," "God Bless America" and the Pledge of Allegiance were recent (typically McCarthy era) additions with a checkered constitutional history. Ironically, the Pledge of Allegiance was written by a Baptist minister who championed what conservatives now decry as 'redistribution of wealth,' and he did not include any mention of God in it– that bit was added in 1954. The Pledge has actually been ruled unconstitutional more than once in Federal courts due to the "under God" part, but others have allowed the overall Pledge on patriotic or non-religious grounds. The Supreme Court has never ruled on it, and House Republicans tried to pass a bill several years ago to prevent them from doing so given the apparent likelihood that it would be struck down.
 04/05/2012 01:45:04 PM · #57
Shannon's interpretation is the most strict possible. Most school districts take a much more balanced approach. Three years ago at my daughter's school talent show she sang Jesus, Lamb of God (her choice) and nobody had a problem (we cleared it ahead of time). A sikh sang a song in Hindi, and there were other songs of a religious nature. I hardly think the district was violating constitutional principles by doing so. They were not sponsoring a particular religion but were happy to allow for their expression. THIS, I think, is the reasonable way to go about things and I applaud the district for doing so (recalling that Eugene is among the most liberal towns in America).
 04/05/2012 02:14:37 PM · #58
The problem is, where individual expression of religious beliefs in the schools is permitted, and where the student body is overwhelmingly of a particular religion, bad things can and do happen to those who are outside that homogeneous group. It's a very difficult thing to deal with.

R.
 04/05/2012 02:19:06 PM · #59
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Shannon's interpretation is the most strict possible.

You could just as well argue that some liberal community segregates minorities in schools and that it's reasonable and generally accepted. Our schools feature songs like that all the time, and I don't have any problem with it nor do I take offense by Christmas trees in front of Town Hall, however favoring any particular religion in government-related activity is simply not constitutional regardless of whether the community is OK with it.
 04/05/2012 02:24:20 PM · #60
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Shannon's interpretation is the most strict possible.

You could just as well argue that some liberal community segregates minorities in schools and that it's reasonable and generally accepted. Our schools feature songs like that all the time, and I don't have any problem with it nor do I take offense by Christmas trees in front of Town Hall, however favoring any particular religion in government-related activity is simply not constitutional regardless of whether the community is OK with it.


You must not have gotten the memo...they want us to call them holiday trees
 04/05/2012 02:39:38 PM · #61
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
You must not have gotten the memo...they want us to call them holiday trees

Pretty silly anyway since evergreen trees with glass ornaments made in China have absolutely nothing to do with a Middle Eastern religious figure whose birth was not mentioned by any of his contemporaries or the earliest gospel, and whose actual birthdate (even the year) is unknown.
 04/05/2012 02:44:46 PM · #62
Originally posted by scalvert:
..however favoring any particular religion in government-related activity is simply not constitutional regardless of whether the community is OK with it.


I agree with this, but I don't agree that the solution is to prohibit all religious expression in the effort to not endorse one. That approach is draconian and usually comes about from people with an axe to grind or a borderline phobia about religion.
 04/05/2012 03:00:08 PM · #63
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
You must not have gotten the memo...they want us to call them holiday trees

Pretty silly anyway since evergreen trees with glass ornaments made in China have absolutely nothing to do with a Middle Eastern religious figure whose birth was not mentioned by any of his contemporaries or the earliest gospel, and whose actual birthdate (even the year) is unknown.


Them trees is a German pagan thing. But the Easter bunny is straight from the gospel.
 04/05/2012 05:41:14 PM · #64
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
You must not have gotten the memo...they want us to call them holiday trees


Are you referring to this false rumor?
 04/05/2012 09:34:24 PM · #65
They were previously called Yule Trees.
 04/06/2012 06:27:39 AM · #66
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Flash I couldn't agree more. The seperation between church and state was designed by our for-fathers because the govmt should not be able to tell an individual what religon they should be. This country was founded on religous freedom. This is the right to practice what ever religon you want. If you don't believe...then be an athiest, if you want to be catholic that is ok...etc.

If you are offended by someone that believes something that you don't believe, you are really in the wrong countr. This is a melting pot of all religons, races, and beliefs. This political correctness really has gone way too far.


Yes indeed...tolerance all around, and that is why there was such a a kerfuffle in NYC about the possibility of a mosque being erected a few blocks from ground zero and why the mosque in Columbia, Tennessee was burned down in 2008.

Not quite as tolerant as you would have us believe huh?

Ray

04/06/2012 06:47:05 AM · #67
Even though I had my comment deleted (I reported it for profanity) - I was right about this thread.

The DrAchoo & Scalvert show rides again.
 04/06/2012 03:28:25 PM · #68
Originally posted by Flash:
An example would simply be the numerous posts in religious slanted threads here on DPC and the zeal to which "believers" are crucified for having the ingnorance and audacity to believe in such "fairy tales" and "myths".

Believers are not crucified for having their beliefs......what happens is the friction when believers try to explain away genuine, tangible occurrences with something like "God's will", and are then called on it. It's kind of hard to justify a point of view with no facts logic, or reason. So you can't very well get upset when someone who doesn't share your beliefs says "Prove your point.".

04/06/2012 05:45:03 PM · #69
Originally posted by Simms:
Even though I had my comment deleted (I reported it for profanity) - I was right about this thread.

The DrAchoo & Scalvert show rides again.


I find it sad that your comment was deleted as I would have loved to read it. I may not necessarily have agreed with it, but I do enjoy seeing how others perceive issues and react to them.

It is not too late... do share your views on the matter.

Ray
 04/06/2012 06:05:30 PM · #70
I've only posted four times in 69 posts. This thread wasn't too exciting in my view...
 04/14/2012 02:56:57 AM · #71
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Shannon's interpretation is the most strict possible. Most school districts take a much more balanced approach. Three years ago at my daughter's school talent show she sang Jesus, Lamb of God (her choice) and nobody had a problem (we cleared it ahead of time). A sikh sang a song in Hindi, and there were other songs of a religious nature. I hardly think the district was violating constitutional principles by doing so. They were not sponsoring a particular religion but were happy to allow for their expression. THIS, I think, is the reasonable way to go about things and I applaud the district for doing so (recalling that Eugene is among the most liberal towns in America).


There is a difference between a child choosing their own song for a talent show, and a teacher or school choosing a song that all children are to sing together. Your example doesn't fly.

I had to sing a huge amount of Christian songs in chorus, in a public high school (and some in middle school) and we even performed a few times in Epcot's Christmas show. So the idea that there is somehow this removal of all things religious from all public schools is so nonsensical to me. You can't take a couple isolated incidences of lyric changes and cry "war on religion!" any more than you can showcase a couple murders and cry "pandemonium and anarchy!"

It's hard to see how things are unfair when you're the one in the majority. Yea I sucked it up and kept my mouth shut and tried to enjoy the music when I had to sing "Hallelujah" and "Amen" LITERALLY hundreds of times.

Could you do the same if the lyrics for your children were "There is no god!" or "Our God is a false God!"?
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/26/2025 04:52:18 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/26/2025 04:52:18 PM EDT.