Religion in grade school class

[RuntheDamnBall]

So are you saying that America itself or just the idea of American "moralism" is a fraud?

 

More tripe from the "Blame America First" Mindset. And they wonder why people call them Anti-American.

157969[/snapback]

If you read anything I say there and get "Blame America First" out of it, you've got better eyes than I do.

 

My point is, if you want to base America today on the shining examples of our ancestors, it ain't all lily-white virtue. I am much more interested in learning from the past and yes, I do think American "moralism" is a fraud, to assume that our country is based and was founded on morals and not in ethics and law. The morals may have been had in mind, but this is not a theocracy and, again, what you call morals are not independent to the Judeo-Christian tradition. And the right seems to have an awful lot of what it decides are morals without one iota of Christian humility.

 

Blame self-righteous people from the dominant cultural order first. I know it's not an easy soundbite for you, but work on it.

[Mickey]

So are you saying that America itself or just the idea of American "moralism" is a fraud?

 

More tripe from the "Blame America First" Mindset. And they wonder why people call them Anti-American.

157969[/snapback]

Just so I know for future reference, what is more American, pretending we have never, ever done anything wrong, ever or being secure enough in what America is now that one is able to acknowledge its past mistakes as well as honor its past glories? I just want to know so I can get a head start on developing amnesia when it comes to Native Americans, slavery and Jim Crow. I want to be a good student of history and understand the past so as to have a better perspective on the present but Lord knows I don't want to do that at the risk of being called "Anti-American" or being part of the "Blame America First Crowd" so help me out. That is a lot of history to start forgetting so I want to get a jump on it. Obviously, there is no way a person can love their country, study its achievments and understand its faults all at the same time. I want to be like you, I want to be able to bark like a seal and poke out "Yankee Doodle" on a set of bicycle horns with my nose and slap my fins together in exchange for the dead fish that is nationalism inspired historical ignorance. Teach me, I am ready to learn.

[RuntheDamnBall]

OK. Laugh at me. I've posted before where that was wrong, as for all the atrocities we committed. I'm also personally responsible for none of it. All the more reason to have absolutely no morals or scruples now. Two wrongs after all, will always make a right. We had slavery, we screwed the Indians. That gives me every right to be a dick now, in 2004.

157931[/snapback]

No, but it still gives you the out of calling out an Other who has no morals, instead of calling for an ethic that is inclusive.

 

I understand completely that you are not personally responsible for any of the atrocities committed under the banner of an American morality (and not under the ideals of America, let me get that straight before the echo-chamber prepares another "Blame America First" for me). However, to look at some of the situations present today (broken African American families, American Indian communites) and not understand that they are rooted in the atrocities of the past is to deny a certain worth and depth that is necessary to correcting the problems. And to say that everything is alright with America while we deny that worth is to deny our past and to deny the betterment of this country.

[Mickey]

If you read anything I say there and get "Blame America First" out of it, you've got better eyes than I do.

 

My point is, if you want to base America today on the shining examples of our ancestors, it ain't all lily-white virtue.  I am much more interested in learning from the past and yes, I do think American "moralism" is a fraud, to assume that our country is based and was founded on morals and not in ethics and law.  The morals may have been had in mind, but this is not a theocracy and, again, what you call morals are not independent to the Judeo-Christian tradition.  And the right seems to have an awful lot of what it decides are morals without one iota of Christian humility.

 

Blame self-righteous people from the dominant cultural order first.  I know it's not an easy soundbite for you, but work on it.

158189[/snapback]

No, no, no, no, no. Don't you get it? America is either 100% pure, unblemished, solid gold good or it is an evil empire. You either love America and deny its every fault, no matter how small or you are an America hating swine. You either acknowledge your homeland's divine perfection or you are an anti-American, acid dropping sodomite.

 

Here is how the jingometer works:

 

You say: "It is too bad that we gave Native Americans blankets from a TB asylum leading to an epidemic that killed thousands."

 

The Jingometer tranlates that to: "Death to America"

 

You say: "Slavery was bad, I wish we got rid of it sooner."

The Jingometer translates that to: "I hate America."

 

You say: "I'm glad Jim Crow went down in the 1960's."

The Jingometer translates: "I want to overthrow America."

 

You see, it is not what you say that matters, what they hear is filtered first through the jingometer which knows what you really mean no matter how much you deny it.

[Mickey]

No, but it still gives you the out of calling out an Other who has no morals, instead of calling for an ethic that is inclusive.

 

I understand completely that you are not personally responsible for any of the atrocities committed under the banner of an American morality (and not under the ideals of America, let me get that straight before the echo-chamber prepares another "Blame America First" for me).  However, to look at some of the situations present today (broken African American families, American Indian communites) and not understand that they are rooted in the atrocities of the past is to deny a certain worth and depth that is necessary to correcting the problems.  And to say that everything is alright with America while we deny that worth is to deny our past and to deny the betterment of this country.

158218[/snapback]

When I lived down south, I learned pretty quickly that down there the Civil War was still a "recent" memory. It was like it happened yesterday. I couldn't go more than 2 or 3 days without it coming up. Up north, besides history classes and the occasional TV broadcast of Gone With The Wind, it never came up.

 

Slavery and Jim Crow is that way for African Americans. It is more of a "recent" memory, a living, breathing thing, the effects of which are still all around them. For whites, it is all ancient history, something that is over and done with long ago. I imagine Jews feel the same about the holocaust. For them, it was yesterday. That doesn't mean that others don't appreciate these events but it does mean that people have sensitive spots when it comes to their history.

[RkFast]

If you read anything I say there and get "Blame America First" out of it, you've got better eyes than I do.

 

My point is, if you want to base America today on the shining examples of our ancestors, it ain't all lily-white virtue. I am much more interested in learning from the past and yes, I do think American "moralism" is a fraud, to assume that our country is based and was founded on morals and not in ethics and law. The morals may have been had in mind, but this is not a theocracy and, again, what you call morals are not independent to the Judeo-Christian tradition. And the right seems to have an awful lot of what it decides are morals without one iota of Christian humility.

 

Blame self-righteous people from the dominant cultural order first. I know it's not an easy soundbite for you, but work on it.

 

What that last comment really necessary, !@#$? Way to keep the discussion flowing along. Excuse f-ing me for (GASP!) asking for clarification. Sorry Im not as smart as you and never having met you made the inexcusable crime on a message board of asking for clarification and perhaps misinterpreting your point.

 

Funny.....I wasnt talking about self-righteousness....Im talking strictly about the fact that you and yours look to always...slowly here.....BLAME....AMERICA....FIRST.

 

Get it?

 

 

:I starred in Brokeback Mountain: :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: :I starred in Brokeback Mountain:

[Mickey]

What that last comment really necessary, !@#$? Way to keep the discussion flowing along. Excuse f-ing me for (GASP!) asking for clarification. Sorry Im not as smart as you and never having met you made the inexcusable crime on a message board of asking for clarification and perhaps misinterpreting your point.

 

Funny.....I wasnt talking about self-righteousness....Im talking strictly about the fact that you and yours look to always...slowly here.....BLAME....AMERICA....FIRST.

 

Get it?

:I starred in Brokeback Mountain:  :I starred in Brokeback Mountain:  :I starred in Brokeback Mountain:

158493[/snapback]

Lets see, you respond to his comment with "tripe", "Blame America First" and "Anti-American" and you are surprised you received an aggressive response?

If you are going to dish it, take it.

[RkFast]

Lets see, you respond to his comment with "tripe", "Blame America First" and "Anti-American" and you are surprised you received an aggressive response?

If you are going to dish it, take it.

158534[/snapback]

 

Yeah, er...but Im RIGHT, he's wrong and Im MUCH better looking than him.

 

[Mickey]

Yeah, er...but Im RIGHT, he's wrong and Im MUCH better looking than him.

 

 

158601[/snapback]

Good enough for me.

[Mickey]

Yeah, er...but Im RIGHT, he's wrong and Im MUCH better looking than him.

 

 

158601[/snapback]

Good enough for me.

[_BiB_]

OK, this, as usual drifted a bit.

 

Why is it, one "should" not be allowed to discuss the influence of Christianity in the formation of this country. How can one discuss Al Qaida, without discussing the role of Islam? How can anyone discuss European history, without mention of the Catholic Church? And the list goes on. In spite of what has been legislated, one can not remove and separate the existence of religion from the existence of the state and still maintain an accurate historical perspective.

[Adam]

The original precepts included some form of moral compass along with stressing tolerance. Separation of Church and State is a fabrication, legislated from the bench-not through the people. What was laid as groundwork was the concept that the United States would not have a state mandated or sponsored central religion. A great many of the original settlers to the US came to escape religious persecution elsewhere, and this was taken into account. The basic "laws" be it may generated from the founding of this nation are based heavily in the Judeo-Christian ethic. How many laws are spawned by something as simple as the 10 Commandments?

 

This nation has lost it's moral compass. The emphasis in no longer on what's right for a society, it is now on what is right for the individual, basically on an individual basis. Virtually every vocal minority can now attack and succeed in tearing down institutions and ideals practiced for centuries in the name of "Civil Liberty"and "Progress". We now live in a land where as far as many people are concerned, technology and entertainment are God, and they worship little more than themselves. They appear to be in the minority, but they also get the airtime and the press. Eventually, more people will be indoctrinated that this is the way that things ought to be and we will will suffer for it. We're suffering for it already.

156541[/snapback]

 

I completely agree with that last statement- and I'm all for changing it- I am 100% willing to surrender my constitutional rights for the good of the country- I wonder how many others are.

[RuntheDamnBall]

What that last comment really necessary, !@#$? Way to keep the discussion flowing along. Excuse f-ing me for (GASP!) asking for clarification. Sorry Im not as smart as you and never having met you made the inexcusable crime on a message board of asking for clarification and perhaps misinterpreting your point.

 

Funny.....I wasnt talking about self-righteousness....Im talking strictly about the fact that you and yours look to always...slowly here.....BLAME....AMERICA....FIRST.

 

Get it?

:I starred in Brokeback Mountain:  :I starred in Brokeback Mountain:  :I starred in Brokeback Mountain:

158493[/snapback]

Well, it is certainly ironic that someone asking if a (sure, slightly combative) remark is necessary somehow finds :fyous: necessary. I gave you clarification. You gave me a label, and it's much easier to put that label on me than address my post. I don't think you're not as smart as me, I've never met you. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt enough that you're a swell enough guy. You and I can at least root for the same team. But somehow you have to question my patriotism just because I practice it differently and, I would argue, in a more complex way that actually advances progress more than the blind love you're asking for.

 

I don't blame this country first. Those who don't think it could be made better, and those don't think that trying to make it better is a mission worth taking it on, have a severe failure of the imagination to say the least.

 

Utah Phillips makes a beautiful statement: "Loyalty to your country always. Loyalty to the leaders when they deserve it." And that goes for people 250 years ago as much as it does today.

[RuntheDamnBall]

What that last comment really necessary, !@#$? Way to keep the discussion flowing along. Excuse f-ing me for (GASP!) asking for clarification. Sorry Im not as smart as you and never having met you made the inexcusable crime on a message board of asking for clarification and perhaps misinterpreting your point.

 

Funny.....I wasnt talking about self-righteousness....Im talking strictly about the fact that you and yours look to always...slowly here.....BLAME....AMERICA....FIRST.

 

Get it?

:I starred in Brokeback Mountain:  :I starred in Brokeback Mountain:  :I starred in Brokeback Mountain:

158493[/snapback]

Well, it is certainly ironic that someone asking if a (sure, slightly combative) remark is necessary somehow finds :fyous: necessary. I gave you clarification. You gave me a label, and it's much easier to put that label on me than address my post. I don't think you're not as smart as me, I've never met you. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt enough that you're a swell enough guy. You and I can at least root for the same team. But somehow you have to question my patriotism just because I practice it differently and, I would argue, in a more complex way that actually advances progress more than the blind love you're asking for.

 

I don't blame this country first. Those who don't think it could be made better, and those don't think that trying to make it better is a mission worth taking it on, have a severe failure of the imagination to say the least.

 

Utah Phillips makes a beautiful statement: "Loyalty to your country always. Loyalty to the leaders when they deserve it." And that goes for people 250 years ago as much as it does today.

[RuntheDamnBall]

OK, this, as usual drifted a bit.

 

Why is it, one "should" not be allowed to discuss the influence of Christianity in the formation of this country. How can one discuss Al Qaida, without discussing the role of Islam? How can anyone discuss European history, without mention of the Catholic Church? And the list goes on. In spite of what has been legislated, one can not remove and separate the existence of religion from the existence of the state and still maintain an accurate historical perspective.

158923[/snapback]

As long as religion is taught as "a religion" rather than "the religion" and it is done in relatively equal, historical terms, I have no problem with it. I grew up with it. And you're right, it cannot be divorced from history. It's when we get to the latter method that issues arise.

[RuntheDamnBall]

Yeah, er...but Im RIGHT, he's wrong and Im MUCH better looking than him.

 

 

158601[/snapback]

It's alright, I got a sweet lady to take care of me who thinks I look just fine I'm glad I don't have to worry about what some dude thinks about how I look. Then I'd be worried.

 

And as for your being right, well, we can agree to disagree.

[_BiB_]

I completely agree with that last statement- and I'm all for changing it- I am 100% willing to surrender my constitutional rights for the good of the country- I wonder how many others are.

159082[/snapback]

 

The sad thing is, no one would really be sacrificing their rights. The problem lies in the broad interpretations of what those rights are. As many of you know, I work in National Defense. I have more than a cursory knowledge of Homeland Defense issues. It continually baffles me how some fairly harmless, simple things get spun into the government trying to use security to steal everyones rights away. I'm sorry folks, but unless you are part of the Islamic Jihad, or an element supporting them, no one is going to waste the time tapping your phone or checking your library reading list.

 

Besides, if your not doing anything wrong, don't have anything to hide, why would you even care?

[RuntheDamnBall]

The sad thing is, no one would really be sacrificing their rights. The problem lies in the broad interpretations of what those rights are. As many of you know, I work in National Defense. I have more than a cursory knowledge of Homeland Defense issues. It continually baffles me how some fairly harmless, simple things get spun into the government trying to use security to steal everyones rights away. I'm sorry folks, but unless you are part of the Islamic Jihad, or an element supporting them, no one is going to waste the time tapping your phone or checking your library reading list.

 

Besides, if your not doing anything wrong, don't have anything to hide, why would you even care?

159165[/snapback]

Because depending on who is in power, what is defined as "not doing anything wrong" would be malleable. I understand your point, but it's just not constitutional. And sacrificing rights would be to the detriment of the country, not for the good of it.

[_BiB_]

Because depending on who is in power, what is defined as "not doing anything wrong" would be malleable.  I understand your point, but it's just not constitutional.  And sacrificing rights would be to the detriment of the country, not for the good of it.

159216[/snapback]

 

Somewhere, somehow we've gone from a collection of basic rights supposedly guaranteed to all (subject to another debate) to an attitude of "Whatever it is, if I want to do it, it's my right". Once again using a National Defense example, First Ammendment issues. Soldiers in combat situations have been compromised and even killed for the right of a reporter to air a story. Counter terror operations have had to be adjusted or changed because of information published in the media, just so that one network or paper could outscoop someone else. Our enemies, on occassion, have escaped our grasp because they were forwarned by the likes of FOX and CNN. A ridiculous amount of information on our critical infrastructure is available on the Web, in many cases directly against the wishes of those charged with protecting it, the people's "right to know" being valued over their security with disclosure mandated by law. I work with a lot of classified programs and materials. Often, they are classified because of being grouped together a certain way in one spot. Very often, the individual elements can be found open source using Google. Can I see a show of hands of those who don't think the bad guys are using this stuff? The organization I work with gets several hundred internet hits per month from IP's located in the Middle East, Africa, North Korea and who knows where else. Now we have an administration that at least semi-understands this problem, and it has been politicized and spun in the press as the removal of peoples rights.

 

And that entire diatribe covers only one small sliver of one right.

 

where is the line drawn between a right to publish-right to know, and posting too much simply because some people think they should have the right to own it-whether they even understand it or not?

[_BiB_]

As long as religion is taught as "a religion" rather than "the religion" and it is done in relatively equal, historical terms, I have no problem with it.  I grew up with it.  And you're right, it cannot be divorced from history.  It's when we get to the latter method that issues arise.

159125[/snapback]

 

But, as Islam and Saladin are aligned in history, Christianity and the roots of independance in the US are too. In this case, Christianity is "The" religion. The directional foundations of this country were not based on the teachings of Shintoism or Budhism.