Editorial abashes, outrages CSU alum
As a graduate of Colorado State University, I am embarrassed and outraged with my alma mater’s newspaper, the Collegian, in choosing the bold headline, “Taser This ... F--- BUSH,” for their editorial.
Now liberals, like radio talk-show host Jay Marvin, are trying to control the damage by spinning the incident into a free-speech issue.
The backlash this student newspaper is drawing over its headline has to do with professionalism and decency. Nothing more. If the Rocky Mountain News or The Denver Post had spelled out the F-word in the same way, the editor responsible would have been fired immediately, as should J. David McSwane of the Collegian.
And what does George Bush have to do with the Tasering incident at a John Kerry event anyway? Apparently, every controversy reported in the news seems to tie in with the president, according to lefties like McSwane and Marvin.
I suppose if roosters stopped crowing every morning, then he would be blamed for that too!
Rich Colwell, Parker
what do expect from out unversities, the faculty are all tenured professors from the radical 60s and 70s who main goal is to destroy the minds of their students. just look at cu and churchill
Posted by on September 29, 2007 04:52 AMI found out yesterday that Fort Collins is on a list of cities in Colorado that is considered a sanctuary city for illegal aliens. Now my family and I will avoid spending money in Boulder AND Fort Collins. Unfortunate and sad.
Go Air Force Falcons!
Posted by Time to take back our nation on September 29, 2007 06:29 AMjust think how marvin would be crying if that was said about clinton and as free speech.
what the libs at colleges teach is you do what you want if it bashes a conservitative and it is ok as free speech does not require any responsibility on your part.
cu csu both should be reviewed and see how they really stack up for an institution of higher learning compared to the money they get and this type of trash coming out of these schools.
Once again you see that cetain groups of people want to throw around their rights under the Constitution. All the while they forget that responsibility goes hand in hand with these rights.
Posted by TheFew,TheProud,Marines on September 29, 2007 08:15 AMThere are a number of crazy people.
One crazy is the editor who went way over the line with that toilet headline and who, in my opinion, should have been fired.
The other crazies are the posters who want to make this into some kind of case against liberals in general, or against illegal immigrants or against Boulder and Fort Collins.
Posted by Truth on September 29, 2007 08:36 AMRich - stop hyperventilating - it's just some kids being stupid. Get over it.
Posted by Liam on September 29, 2007 08:37 AMLiam those "kids that are being stupid" are going to be running this country someday, and I personally would prefer it if they'd attempt to grow up a little before they did, and also be ALOT more unbiased in their reporting as ALL MEDIA is supposed to be!
Posted by Heather on September 29, 2007 08:46 AMOnce, I was a young and stupid college student who exhibited extremely poor judgment.
There is even a word for this type of behavior.
Sophomoric: Exhibiting great immaturity and lack of judgment.
If the words, “Taser This ... F--- BUSH,” were the headline on a thought provoking editorial, I would, perhaps, cut the kid some slack.
From my understanding the entire editorial consisted of only those four words.
This was sophomoric.
It contributes to the yelling match of current public discourse. We no longer have intelligent conversations with those whom we disagree. Today we just shout and whomever exhibits the most outrage wins.
The student in question knew printing this would anger people. It did and he should probably be removed from his position.
Now, before anyone gets the wrong impression I am so far to the left I make Roosevelt look like Reagan.
Hey Heather, that type of journalism can get them a job on Fox News if they use it against Democrats and liberals. They are just doing what Cal Thomas, or Bill O'reilly or Ann Coulter would do in a lot less words.
Posted by D on September 29, 2007 09:09 AMHeather - No worries. When these punks get out into the real world and get real jobs with real responsibilities, have kids, pay taxes, own property, and all that comes with adulthood, most of them will become Republicans and conservatives. Some may even go to church and find 'God' in their lives. This has become a 'tempest in a teacup', just like those high school punks in Boulder with their Pledge of Allegiance protest. This is the time in one's life when you can be stupid and unaccountable. They will grow up. It is inevitable.
Posted by Michael on September 29, 2007 09:25 AMKerry was involved in the taser incident. It had nothing to do with Bush.
The editor of the CSU paper is a idiot.
Fox news does not call liberals names unless it is warranted.Pinhead is not a harsh word.So Fox News has no place in this debate.Again people are comparing apples to oranges to make it okay for a student editor to print something innappropiate.
This is about an editor of a college newspaper using extremely poor judgement to go after Bush in a profane way.
Jay Marvin is a Bi-polar nut case.If people actually take him seriously in a serios debate as this,we as a nation are in trouble.
The secular progressives in this country are ruining this country.People with values and morals should rise up and stop this movement towards chaos.
He should be fired.The news in this country is getting more and more far left wing day by day.
If our universities don't stop this downward spiral into liberlism chaos, where will our children go to get a real education?
There is a great deal to worry about. One can say "F--- Bush" and wished he'd used a euphemism instead such as "Screw;" however, Jesus Christ says if you use the word "fool" as in "that fool Bush" the penalty is permanent in his lake of fire called "Hell." It is just a word that means copulate and God Jehovah, aka Jesus the Christ, both war gods, mandates copulate to populate: "Go forth and multiply." I use the word as an intellectual expression.
Posted by Richard Grimes, Deicide r22037@yahoo [Freethought Today is free at ffrf.org] on September 29, 2007 10:43 AMCalling all adults. Please surface. We need you.
Posted by truthy on September 29, 2007 10:57 AMAnon 10:43
What does anyhing in this letter or thread have to do with Secularism?
Answer: Nothing.
But you just had to introduce that favorite O'Reillyism from Faux Noise to make some kind of point
Posted by Repugnants ar Liars on September 29, 2007 11:07 AMAnon 10:43
What does anyhing in this letter or thread have to do with Secularism?
Answer: Nothing.
But you just had to introduce that favorite O'Reillyism from Faux Noise to make some kind of point. Are you outraged that your boy Billo can't eat at a Harlem soul food restaurant without marvelling that the patrons don't pepper their orders with "m-f-er"?
Posted by Repugnants ar Liars on September 29, 2007 11:09 AMI don’t think it’s necessarily bad that sometimes it boils to the surface from the left’s cesspool of what the liberal trash is truly thinking, in raw format. That it originated in a place jokingly called “higher education” speaks volumes.
It’s time for people to re-evaluate just what kind of education these kids receive at taxpayer expense, on all levels. Making excuses like “it's just some kids being stupid. Get over it.” - is no longer acceptable. We have find out how they got that stupid, and do something about it. It’s time to start firing these so called “professors” and teachers.
Only liberal trash would elevate and equate obscenity with “thinking”. I’m not surprised one bit.
Posted by Uno on September 29, 2007 12:20 PMthose "kids that are being stupid" are going to be running this country someday
BTW - 'someday' is today (and the past 6 years)
Posted by on September 29, 2007 12:21 PM"Worse yet! Someone is THINKING! And he's daring to dare others to THINK too!
Oh! Horror of horrors!"
It doesn't take to much of a thought process to come up with a statement like F**** Bush....
Posted by Heather on September 29, 2007 12:36 PMHeather,
Considering the majority of postings here, it certainly ranks above them in challenge, anyway.
But then, only "liberal trash" - as Uno puts it - would even begin to see that. The rest is just that old blind faithful sheep-like bleating of reaction to anything and everything that might disturb the complacency and placidity of the true believers.
So, I'll stick with calling it, "thinking"; something which a University at least should be attempting to inculcate and support, despite the blather of the dolts and drones who fear it so vigorously and vociferously.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 29, 2007 01:27 PMUno said:
"Only liberal trash would elevate and equate obscenity with “thinking”. I’m not surprised one bit."
Uno you're among the least self-aware people I've run across on this board.
If I were to call you a conservative piece of garbage amid a complaint about your lack of civility would that make me sophisticated and respectable like you?
Is that how to act sophisticated?
Posted by on September 29, 2007 01:51 PMAnonymous 01:51, obviously it struck a nerve with you, as it was intended. That you can’t tell the difference between obscene and degrading is a personal issue you have to work out.
Posted by Uno on September 29, 2007 02:29 PMAnother intellectual expression comes to mind when I'm at the chess table kicking ass and when the shoe falls on me I resort to a synonym I use to describe the game: "F--- up," he who f---- up first loses.
I can use the word "f---" intellectually because it it like using a period improperly and knowing that I have used the period improperly makes it proper for me to use. As long as you are aware of your error, there is no error.
As in chess: If you make an illegal move and your opponent does not see it, it becomes legal.
Judge Santo tells me: Expect to lose on every motion you file; therefore, expecting to lose, I have rehearsed a strategy to counter my loss.
Wherefore, I pray not to f--- up lest I be called in on the carpet by those who put so much value on their opinion they are willing to kill on account of it. "They" do love to declare opinion heresy except for theirs.
Deicide Corner: “We recognise no authority competent to dictate to us. Each must believe what he considers to be true and act up to his belief, granting the same right to everyone else.” -- Robert Stout
Posted by Richard Grimes, Deicide r22037@yahoo [Freethought Today is free at ffrf.org] on September 29, 2007 02:39 PMOG, you keep falling into the same hole you dug for your self. If a university paper finds it necessary to print obscene headlines to make a point (without even further explanation), that only tells me that they are not thinking. That you promote this headline and try to explain it as some sort of goal the university should aim for regularly, does speaks volumes on it’s own. One thing it doesn’t do is to make you look smart, or make the university look respectable.
Posted by Uno on September 29, 2007 02:46 PMAn excellent point!
Posted by Brian Stuckey on September 29, 2007 02:49 PMBesides that Charles B, why don't you sign your posts?
Posted by Uno on September 29, 2007 02:56 PMShall we play a little game?
Let's all sit down and pretend we are going to follow directions. Here are some questions. There are no right, or wrong, answers; and there will be no test, or grades, involved. But, the object of the game is to be as honest as possible in answering the questions FOR OURSELVES.
Let's begin with the 4 letter word, "f---". Write it down on a piece of paper - you may add the word, "Bush", after it, if you will.
Now, we begin:
1. Does this word, or phrase affect Mr. Bush in any way? a) Does it actually increase or diminish HIM - not an image, or idea of his standing or office? b) If so, how? c) If not, why am I responding on his behalf?
2. Does this word, or phrase affect ME in any way? a) Does it actually increase or diminish ME? b) If so, how? c) If not, why am I responding as if I were affected by it?
3. Does this word, or phrase affect education in any way? a) Does it actually increase or diminish the nature of EDUCATION? b) If so, how? c) If not, why am I responding to it as if it did?
4. Does this word affect society as a whole in any way? a) Does it actually increase or diminish the complex structure of society/culture as such? b) If so, how? c) If not, why am I responding as if it did.
5. If I have answered that the word, or phrase, has an actual affect on any one, or all, the above, what affect does my criticism of the matter have. a) Does it change the reality in any way? b) If so, how? c) If not, why then am I making such a fuss about it?
6. If I have answered that the word, or phrase, has no actual affect on any one or all the above, again, why am I making such a fuss about it?
If you have taken this test - and were I a betting man, I would give long odds that I could name those who won't - you will have been engaged in THINKING. You will have been challenged to evaluate, and put in perspective, something that has otherwise only provoked reaction, and additional derogatory response.
Surprise! Surprise! That is what EDUCATION is all about, i.e., the challenge to THINK!
Who knows, you might even find it fun to continue, as you read along through postings on this website.
And, one last question:
8. What real difference, is there between applying what one person calls "obscenity" and what is called "derogatory" when presenting opinion and/or position? a) Does either enhance the nature of the opinion or position? b) If so, in what way? c) If not, why use either of them?
Posted by Old Grouch on September 29, 2007 03:12 PMThe kid was doing what kids always do, push the envelope against adults.
This is how they learn. If kids start acting like little adults, afraid to muddy the waters, then they really are sheeple.
What, are you all asking this kid to be politically correct?
Isn`t that a term you hate?
It means fornication under Charles the king.
F U C K...
Proud old English term from our friends the brits. Of course he could have said "Shag Bush".
Posted by Sharon B. on September 29, 2007 03:31 PMHe should be fired simply due to the fact that he proves he's inarticulate by his foul mouth and undignified statement. If you're an editor, aren't you expected to have a better command of language and rhetoric?
Posted by Gail K on September 29, 2007 03:43 PMIt's too bad that there are people in society, such as the young editor in question, who are unable to express themselves, nor address a perceived problem (lack of free and open speech) without resorting to street level language generally regarded as profanity.
Apparently he was unable to articulate his position through normal discourse and could only draw attention to his perceived social problem through "shock and awe" tactics.
Rather than condemn him for his childish choice of words, I'm more concerned about the quality of education he has received thus far that has left him unable to communicate his thoughts on an adult level.
Posted by carl on September 29, 2007 04:02 PMWell, Sharon, “The kid was doing what kids always do, push the envelope against adults.
This is how they learn.” – so if you get robbed, or worse, by one of these kids, please don’t run around and complain, they just “pushing the envelop and learning”. Be understanding. If you don’t think its going on just read the news. Juvenile crime is at all time high, thanks in part to teachers like Old Grouch. Keep up the good work.
Let’s see, just yesterday 2 cops injured in Greeley,
“The other officers were in the area of 10th Avenue and 15th Street where they saw a man, later identified as 19-year-old Bryant Aaron Martinez of Greeley, assault another man.” 19 year old, in high speed chase. Yup.
Another 2 days ago,
“BOULDER (AP) - Police say a University of Colorado student was sexually assaulted in a dorm room by a naked man who apparently took LSD before shedding his clothes and running around the campus.
Male residents on the floor intervened and restrained the man until officers arrived.
A second man, believed to be the suspect's roommate, was also reported to be running naked on the campus Thursday night.
Both men were taken to the hospital and treated for suspected drug overdoses and 20-year-old Chandler Ross Wyatt was arrested on suspicion of sexual assault.”
Yup, liberal teachings are good for everyone.
Hmm, look here:
“DENVER – A 19-year-old man with an extensive criminal history was arrested Friday night, accused of shooting a store owner in the head during a robbery.
Denver Police say Patrick Perez was arrested around 8:15 p.m. on Friday after a tip led them to a home where he was staying near 14th Avenue and Winona Court. The tip came after police canvassed the neighborhood around the Third Avenue Market earlier on Friday, looking for Perez.”
Another 19 year old just learning, this time in Denver.
Uno, if you equate what he did with those crimes you listed, then not only have you missed the point entirely, but I seriously wonder about your ability to think.
How do kids push the envelope, they wear odd clothing, look funny, march in protests, challenge the system to work for them or change laws. They go to the South to help register voters.
I have never said that criminal behavior, is "pushing the envelope"
This criminal behavior is not liberal teachings. they are crimes. Period.
That last post of yours, dripping in agenda pretty much says it all about your mind.
You compare apples and orangutans here.
Don`t you see what you just did?
Posted by Sharon B. on September 29, 2007 04:17 PMSharon, I don’t expect you to understand the whole picture, with some people who basically can’t tell right from wrong it’s always comparing apples with orangutans.
“This criminal behavior is not liberal teachings. they are crimes. Period.” – so, when a Boulder high school panel tells kids that it’s ok to experiment with illegal drugs, it has nothing to do with crime? Please. And if there was even one conservative on that panel, I’d like to find out who it was. As it stands, it was all left wing liberals. And when I read about the Wyatts in Boulder, it’s really not that hard to make a connection. That you chose not to, and question the intelligence of those who do sure does sounds like a personal problem.
Yes, I have an agenda, against a system, which created these little monsters to begin with.
You asked “Isn`t that a term you hate?” – why did you ask, is that a term you love next to your name?
Hi Sharon,
If I were a betting man, I would ask: "Wanna bet that Uno never even read the little test, much less made the slightest effort to answer a question in it?"
He, together with "AnAmerican", the little man whose name when posted by me drops the posting into the hands of the blog owner, where it disappears, "Hank", and the other principal spokes-perons for Republicanism/"conservatism", are so caught up in their own intense need to blame someone - anyone - for their sad position of being "all alone and sore afraid in a world they never made", that they have lost any ability whatsoever to distinguish between their own fears and the persons of those who disagree with, or contradict, them in any way.
It's sad, of course; but, it is perfectly representative of the Republican/"conservative" mindset, as well as of the paralysis that form of mindset imposes on every area of constructive response to the reality of change, growth, or challenge - most particularly that of change.
They parrot Limbaugh, Coulter, O'Reilly, and such, without reflection or even the glimmer of attempt to evaluate, or provide a perspective. And they do so, simply because they have no ability to question, or engage in attempt at self-reflection, since self-reflection only agravates the massive amount of amorphous fear that surrounds them, engulfs them, and holds them in thrall. The voices, on the radio, tell them what is wrong, why it is wrong, and who to hate because they have done them wrong. And, like connected sets of speakers on the computer, they merely pass through the noises they themselves are hearing.
It does, however, make for fun at times. Their rant becomes such absurd hyperbole that it provokes a good belly laugh. I've been called a few names along the way; and now, I'm "responsible" for the street crimes around as well. Would you say that was "coming up in their world"? Or . . . ?
Anyway, I'm off to dinner. Have a good weekend.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 29, 2007 05:10 PM
Carl at 4:02 >>>"Rather than condemn him for his childish choice of words, I'm more concerned about the quality of education he has received thus far that has left him unable to communicate his thoughts on an adult level."
Right! How'd he get into a college the caliber of CSU?
"Right! How'd he get into a college the caliber of CSU?'
Easy if the caliber of CSU has been compromised due to the lower abilities of graduating high school students. CSU is just perpetuating the dumbing down of modern students.
Plus you have a big difference between book smarts and maturity and common sense. Discipline in thought and personal responsibility are no longer taught or enforced in schools today. So he may have been able to pass an academic entrance test but obviously fell short in a common sense test.
Uno, now you are trying to reach out for other examples of what you think is liberal teaching, much the same as if I quoted something from the extreme right, such as the kkk, small caps to show hatred.
Go back to the original idea that what this kid did is a normal part of life: kids challenging adult authority and ideas and norms.
He did not commit a crime. The panel at Boulder spoke for themselves, they were not elected by liberals to talk for us, any more than David Duke speaks for you.
This is a very basic idea of growing up, kids will test the limits of society, in non-violent, non-criminal ways.
If to encourage this is liberal, then fine, I am a liberal all the way.
The man is not a monster.
Stop looking for criminal acts to link to this.
Get back to the point.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 29, 2007 05:38 PMno name at 5:36 >>>"big difference between book smarts and maturity and common sense."
I think public schools encourage immaturity (ie the kids in Boulder and the pledge of allegiance).
I think public schools encourage immaturity..."
AMEN, SISTER, AMEN!Posted by on September 29, 2007 06:14 PM
I like the new pledge. There is nothing the school can do on this, kids will pledge or not, or say "one nation under dog" if they want.
I do not think the public school system encourages immaturity.
The new pledge is god free and sensible. Hope it catches on. This is one I would say.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 29, 2007 06:48 PMSharon, with what, some 80+% of Americans declaring faith in God, you think we should throw him out of the pledge?
Posted by Gail K on September 29, 2007 06:52 PM"...some 80+% of Americans declaring faith in God, you think we should throw him out of the pledge..."
When Sharon B passes from this temporal life and find herself before the Judgment Throne of God, Sharon will try to throw Him/Her out of heaven. She is one determined anti God advocate.
Posted by on September 29, 2007 07:10 PMYes, we should throw her out of the pledge. Since pledges are meaningless anyway. Why not?
Posted by Sharon B. on September 29, 2007 07:16 PMSharon, I too think the pledge really is meaningless to Him.
Posted by Gail K on September 29, 2007 07:34 PMProfanity is a language mechanism designed to confer emphasis through shock value in speech. Other than during consensual sex, when such dialogue can conceivably add to the excitement, people use profanity when they attempt to emphasize certain thoughts - such as affirmation, surprise, indifference, indignation, frustration, and anger - in terms other than universally acceptable verbage according to the majority of the population. This can be due to a lack of options in vocabulary, a habit produced by constant exposure to foul language in a contained environment (including upbringing), or it can be a conscious choice made in an effort to either irritate or impress a particular audience. The latter is by far the more common circumstance.
The primary problem with the use of profanity in public conversation is that it conveys a distinct disregard for anyone listening who may be offended by it - whether they are being specifically addressed, or they happen to overhear it indirectly. It is this implied lack of consideration for others that creates a hostile situation, as much or even more than what the word itself may be.
J. David McSwane made the simple mistake of failing to consider the total audience that he would be addressing when he made his editorial comment. Or, at least, that scenario would be preferable to the possibilty that he, as the editor of a respected college campus publication, just wasn't smart enough to express himself any other way.
"I do not think the public school system encourages immaturity."
They don't promote maturity nor personal responsibility. Discipline, both administered for anti social behavior and for developing one's own thought and subsequent actions, is non existent - therefore, they encourage immaturity.
Posted by on September 29, 2007 07:39 PMAnon 7;39 the schools my kids went to did. Sorry yours didn`t.
Posted by on September 29, 2007 08:36 PMAnon man at 7:10. If in Saudi Arabia, the people voted 100% for Allah, what does that tell you?
Mr. McSwane made a point. To some this may be nothing more then an adult temper tantrum. To others it is a chance to show off their views of profanity.
To rational adults, this, like a kiddy tantrum, is best ignored.
But he hit the mark, got the attention he wanted and spooked a lot of people.
Gail, the Earth Goddess is century's older then the old man thought up in the middle east 4000 years ago.
EG doesn`t sit on a throne. She is down there by the river and the trail, sitting on a rock, humming.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 29, 2007 08:58 PMSharon,
Your EG is in only one place? Some creator.
I always enjoy hearing how a later modified version of something has become, somehow, more "worshipful" than the original. Let's take the Pledge of Allegiance for instance.
I grew up, and had my education, in the public schools. We recited the Pledge of Allegiance, daily. That Pledge of Allegiance, the original, was as follows: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; One Nation, indivisable, with liberty and justice for all."
You may, perhaps, note that there was no mention of "god" there. And there continued to be no mention of "god" until a group of Roman Religious fanatics - the Knights of Columbus - began a campaign to "put 'god' into . . .(everything)". Their "god", of course.
In spite of the fact that this Nation is not, and never has been, a "christian" Nation; everyone today is expected to pledge allegiance NOT to our Flag and Country as an American, patriot, and citizen; but to a fiction of a piece of an ancient Empire overseas, as being "under 'god'".
I am an American. I pledge my allegiance to my Flag and Country, as I have done for over 70 years. It doesn't take some kind of Court action, or rebellion. All it takes is to recite the Original Pledge of Allegiance. If you insist on including your "god" as part of your Civil acknowledgement, that's up to you.
There is no Law requiring such. And, it is high time we took "god" OUT of government; and kept "god" OUT of government, as our Forefathers did to make this great Nation what it is today, the home of "Liberty and Justice for ALL", not just those who blather about their superstitions.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 29, 2007 09:25 PMMcSwaney speaks truth to power and should be accommodated for his courageousness. He is but one of todays brilliant young critical thinking progressive minds this country is lucky enough to have.He understands true freedom of speech and the importance of questioning authority, even if you dont know the question.It is your right.Thanks to really smart teachers like Old Grouch who understand the concept of "thinking out of the box" and were able to challenge reality , we now have another generation ready to identify and take the fight to the real enemy,not innocent religious freedom fighters but ChimpyMcHitlerBush911burton , the U.S. military , and Red America.
THE ENEMY OF MY ENEMY IS MY FRIEND
Posted by on September 29, 2007 09:54 PMOG,
The pledge doesn't say "Jesus." Why are you so worried about Christians? There are lots of other faiths who believe in God, and the pledge has served them all well, since it started to include God. Somebody just gets their skirt blown up by something that doesn't offend the majority of Americans.
When my son was about three years old he threw his arms around my neck and kissed me and said, "I love you mommy," and without taking a breath he continued, "Did you kniow that only cowboys drink beer?"
While disjointed, unrelated comments such as this are so... very sweet in a three year old child it isn't in a 20 year-old "know it all," and demonstrates the level of maturity that is being taught on college campuses today. If I were the CSU board that will determine his discipline I would fire him and then fire his faculty advisor/editor-in-chief on the grounds of child abuse/neglect. These kids left to their own will destroy not only themselves but others around them. If they decide otherwise they will have to babysit this guy.
Maturity isn`t taught. It is learned. And sometimes, learned the hard way.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 29, 2007 11:54 PMGail K,
In simple principle, the matter of First Amendment freedom is a two way cutting sword, as is freedom at all times and in all ways.
What do YOU mean by the inserttion of, "under 'god'" in your Pledge of Allegiance to the Nation? Do YOU include the concepts of Buddhism, Bhramanism, Juddism, the Native Americans, Wicca, or the host of other forms of thought concerning deity? Which "god" ? Whose "god"? What "god" is ensuring that "liberty and justice for ALL?
Or are you, as with a great number of "christians", mererly parroting the idea that YOUR priest's, or preacher's, "god" is sort of tolerating the beliefs and practices of all these other American Citizens, until such time as that "god" can be made into the Nation's own singular tribal idol? That was the purpose behind inserting the phrase in the first place - an indication of "superiority" of a particular "god" - as the continuing campaigns of "christians" to put "god" into everything show today.
The claims of being a "majority of Americans" are, themselves, blown far out of proportion to reality, when the "god" people present themselves. Vide the so called, "Moral Majority", which ain't neither and never was.
Oh, yes! And how about those for whom a book is actually their "god"? Those who take little pieces and parts of millenia of mythology and insist that they should be inserted into the Constitution, both of the Nation and of its States, as "definitions"? Those who use those little pieces and parts of millenia of mythology as if they were some kind of present "war club" to beat everyone else into submission to their own benighted, decayed, and swinish ignorance and stupidity? Is this YOUR "god"? Is it the "god" who preserves "liberty and justice for ALL"?
Get "god" OUT of government! Keep "god" OUT of government!
Posted by Old Grouch on September 30, 2007 08:51 AMOld Grouch,
I interpret that the first ammendment is a protection for the people. It''s intent was to assure that the state shall never dictate what we must believe, nor how to practice a religion.
The first ammendment gives us the right to pray, practice and preach our faith (the right to preach is in partnership with free speech, but with civil limitations). The first ammendment doesn't mean NOBODY shall pray, practice or preach religion.
I do a concern that my freedom to pray and practice my faith will be, some time within the next few decades, restricted even in this good ol' free USA. I don't think it will be restricted directly by radical anti-Christians. No, it will likely be restricted by radical Islamists who will be allowed to take over our constitution from outside our own borders because of the misguided "tolerance" preached by radical anti-Christians.
Gail K,
And here we find the crux of our basic disagreement. The First Amendment is not based on "tolerance". It is based upon the premise of building a "wall of separation between church and state". This phrase was used by Thomas Jefferson, who authored the Virginia Freedom of Religion Act, before the drafting of the Constitution; and it can be found in one of the first Cases brought before the United States Supreme Court on the subject. Vide: "Cases on Church and State", a Harvard Casebook, which I have cited before for those who care to apprise themselves concerning the facts, rather than take the word of a TV-entertainer/clown/preacher concerning the matter.
Freedom OF religion is one side of the "coin". And that is an absolute guarantee. The other side of that same "coin" is freedom FROM religion. This is what our Founding Fathers intended when they adopted the Amendment in the first place.
Your observations concerning "radical anti-Christians" are extraneous. Those of us who hold to absolute separation of church and state are NOT RADICAL. Nor are we "anti-Christian". We are, however, fully cognizant of the meaning of the First Amendment, which, simply, is NOT "anti" anything in and of itself. Rather it is a clear and distinct statement that there is a place for ALL forms of religion, and a guarantee of their right to not only exist but fully practice, preach, and express their beliefs. That place is in the RELIGIOUS location- including the street corner, and public square - so long as there be no incitement to riot, or other violation of civil law.
However, that place IS NOT IN GOVERNMENT!
And, conversely, the functions of government DO NOT HAVE place, or exercise, in the religious location.
Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Jew, Wiccan, etc., etc., ALL religions enjoy the guarantee of freedom FROM government interfefence - which is not "tolerance". In turn, the Civil Government, and the citizens living under that Civil Government, religious or non-religious, without distinction, enjoy the equal guarantee of freedom FROM religious interference by imposition of ANY form of religion upon the Citizens through governmental action of establishment.
It's just that simple.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 30, 2007 11:34 AMOld Grouch @ 11:34 AM
Thank you for that simple, but concise explanation of the First Amendment clause;
"...shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
The point of this clause in the First Amendment is to keep the government both neutral and devoid of influence derived from either embracing or denying a religious preference.
Only a secularly based government, founded on a secular structured constitution and subsequent legal system, can insure such neutrality which allows for people of many diverse religious beliefs to embrace and celebrate their respective beliefs with freedom and impunity.
Any theologically based government will either restrict, or prohibit, the practice of religions other than their own. One only has to look at countries such as Iran to see such limitations in place.
While our "wall of separation between church and state" is constantly being pushed and pulled by various special interests to see just how much can be crammed into that phrase (or, conversely, excluded from inclusion), it does provide us with a fundamental guideline to measure both religious freedom and religious influence.
Posted by darfor on September 30, 2007 12:03 PMOld Grouch >>>>>>>>>"Freedom OF religion is one side of the "coin". And that is an absolute guarantee. The other side of that same "coin" is freedom FROM religion. This is what our Founding Fathers intended when they adopted the Amendment in the first place."
_______________________
Well, I disagree with you. The intended separation is to keep the government out of people's personal religious preferences. It is to potect us from our government!
I agree that the church isn't an appropriate place for a candidate to stump, nor a particlar political platform to be promoted - EXCEPT, individuals ARE free to speak to others personally in church about their preferences. I don't often hear people talk politics at church, but they can if they like, if they aren't doing so from the lecturn. Likewise, political figures should not (but they probably do) when given the platform, preach, intimidate or proseletyze the assembly. individually, they can exchange ideas about anything they want to.
Posted by Gail K on September 30, 2007 12:16 PMGail
If you don't mind I would like to intercede and ask you a question regarding your answer to Old Grouch.
"The intended separation is to keep the government out of people's personal religious preferences. It is to potect us from our government!"
How does the explanation provided by Old Grouch provide for any type of interference in your practicing your Christian Faith?
As you agreed it expressly prohibits restrictions or interference with your faith (
"...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."), and prohibits any other religious elements from taking over the government ("...shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...") which could limit your practice of your religion, as expressed in your fear posted at 10:30PM ("...restricted by radical Islamists who will be allowed to take over our constitution from outside..").
Where the constitution does provide a barrier to direct Christian influence in government, it also protects Christianity by barring similar influence from other religions, i.e., Islam.
Candidates are free to speak, proselytize, criticize, or pontificate on any topic they desire while campaigning. The law only provides the guarantees of freedom for and from religion after an individual becomes a legal official. And then, it only covers his official acts, not his personal positions.
The reason political debate is prohibited from the pulpit is due to IRS laws (enacted by Congress). Churches are tax exempt under the concept of freedom of religion. By turning the pulpit into a position of political advocacy a church would be crossing the line from being a religious to a political entity.
But, like you pointed out, members are more than free to discuss, away from the pulpit, any political or social topic they desire without violating the IRS codes.
Posted by darfor on September 30, 2007 12:44 PMWhile Christians worry about losing their rights to express themselves, here is a partial list of the places where they have complete freedom.
Churches
Homes
Businesses
Church schools
Personal property
Church or religious property
Bumper stickers
religious clothing and jewelry
Church owned television stations
Adds in yellow pages
Bill boards on their businesses
Tattoos on their bodies
Public property and public schools are not included.
Stop being afraid.
F--- Bush morphs into f--- god if you insert him into the Pledge of Allegiance reminding me of a "jew" baby born in a manger of a house that morphs into a "christian" god called transmogrification: Back to the subject matter:
G------! It is just a word. G------ is permitted on television and radio. It is permitted in print. It is okay to damn god but not okay to f--- Bush.
How about coitus Bush? Or, copulate Bush, or fornicate Bush, or as Sharon says, "shag" Bush. Laura Bush does all the screwing and family values Senator Larry Craig will take over the mantle if Laura cuts him off.
Having achieved an 8th grade education I was plenty smart. I even joined the navy; I being a good Catholic, knowing everyone but us Catholics was going to hell, I deplored the use of the word "f---."
At age 32 I enrolled in high school, went on to Metro State and D.U. law school. Now I find I was smarter with an 8th grade education with one exception: I could now employ the word "f---" in my vocabulary. What am I trying to say?
It is only a word, g------ it, it is only a word.
For those incapable of reading between the lines, such as “christians” and “muslims” and their Taliban buddies, find herein that the less education you have it is more likely you are smarter, wiser, more sagacious you purport yourself to be and more likely to take offense at a mere word: G------ it. I do take offense of “under God” since such expression violates constitutional mandate to bar superstitious nonsense from the public arena. For those taking offense to a mere word: Go f--- yourselves which I suppose morphs into masturbation: the only orgasm I get now adays is a mental one at the chess table. My "hunt" for ---- is over says J.
Deicide Corner: “The most important struggle in the history of the church is that of woman for liberty of thought and the right to give that thought to the world.” -- Matilda Joslyn Gage
"Go f--- yourselves which I suppose morphs into masturbation: the only orgasm I get now adays is a mental one at the chess table. My "hunt" for ---- is over says J."
Some people hold different concepts of decorum and and civility, with or without a religiously defined vocabulary as it's basis.And, some people need to use gutter words and general profanity to get across a rather weak position.
A weak mind falls to profanity to justify a position when there are so many other, more meaningful words, that could relay the message much more effectively.
Posted by on September 30, 2007 02:05 PMRichard Grimes:--
"At age 32 I enrolled in high school..."
Had a rough time with elementary and middle school, did we?
Posted by CA on September 30, 2007 02:09 PMGail K,
Ever looked at it this way? Since you are a voting citizen, YOU ARE, at root, the Government. This is a Democracy, in the form known generally as a Republic.
Thus, the Amendment is there to protect ME from YOU, and vice versa. When YOUR group manages to constitute a voting majority, YOU can no more impose YOUR idea of religion on ME - or on the people around you - than I can, should MY group become the larger number of voters.
YOU and YOUR group - Christian or whatever - has no more right to legislation favoring YOUR particular superstitions - such as a "definition of marriage" embedded in the Constitution of the United States, and of the individual States - than I, or MY GROUP - whatever that may be - have to legislation favoring the invoking of the Flying Spaghetti Monster at opening of school programs and athletic events.
Those who call themselves, "christians", ARE NOT "special", or privileged exempt, under the First Amendment..
And, again, it's just that simple.
darfor,
Thank you for bringing the legal reasoning in. After some 50+ years walking a tightrope while dealing with IRS, on the subject of exempt organizations, I tend to forget that there are those "religious leaders" out there who either just don't care, or are actually daring the Government - IRS, or whomever - to do something about their mis-use of the pulpit for political purposes.
And also, there are altogether too many of the followers of these individuals - who, seeing the leader get away with flouting not only IRS but also the whole idea of separation - seem to think that such an outcome is not only desirable but also more or less inevitable, when they get enough votes to make themselves into the "established religion", faut de mieux.
Add in the Bushite "Faith Based" raid on tax monies; and . . . !!!
I am very happy you have joined us; and I am also grateful for your insightful explanations. Thank you again.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 30, 2007 02:31 PMdarfur:--
Have you ever worked on a religious freedom case by either persecuting or defending a faith, most interested in Christian since you seem to be against it in you answer to Gail.
Posted by CA on September 30, 2007 06:02 PMCA:
I don't see darfor's post to Gail K as being anti any particular, or collective, religion. He discussed how the constitution expresses neutrality in respect to religion; granting neither favorable or unfavorable status to any.
Posted by carl on September 30, 2007 08:00 PMRichard Grimes,
"G------!; ...It is okay to damn god but not okay to f--- Bush." - and, "...find herein that the less education you have it is more likely you are smarter, wiser, more sagacious you purport yourself to be and more likely to take offense at a mere word."
Well, first, the term "G------" isn't an epithet damning God; it's an admonition for God to damn something or someone to Hell. It would give your arguments more credibility if you'd employ accurate interpretation.
Second, it would also help your arguments to be better interpreted by others if you'd pay more attention to nomenclature, punctuation, and syntax.
Third, the verbal posture in your last post is a fairly accurate example of the level of social grace demonstrated by the vast majority of people who prefer to communicate with commonly recognized vulgarity. As I stated in my earlier post, the main reason people use profanity is to either irritate or impress a particular audience. You obviously went out of your way to do one or both.
Here's a word that you should contemplate sometime: "Polite". ...I'd say that the anonymous writer at 2:05 P.M. hit the nail on the head.
Having said that, now, don't get me wrong - I'm not a prude; due to some employment that I've had and a couple of other activities that I've been involved with over the years, I'm not a stranger to foul language by any means. I'd simply suggest that there's an appropriate time and place for most things - including profanity, for those who can't express themselves effectively otherwise. But an openly distributed publication that represents a body of impressionable students striving for higher education (including women - and maybe even some real men - who might frown on someone who would call a woman a "----") probably isn't one of them.
Hale, we cut RG a lot of slack here.
Posted by Sharon B. on October 1, 2007 12:10 AMHale Hilsabeck,
"Politeness", and/or "political correctness",, etc., can - and does, all too often - become a matter of stifling disagreement, dissent, and counter proposals. Also, throughout history, "politeness" has been used as nothing more than snobbish way of dismissing those thoughts - as well as those people - that folks hold to be, somehow, "inferior" to their own "superior" levels.
"You may express yourself, so long as you remain polite", is, simply, a way of ignoring many of the facts of reality; among them the reality of change that always accompanies the development of any new generation's outlook on, and approach to, the world. In point of fact, however, neither the status quo nor the "good old days" - which exist only in the imaginations of the individual memory - were themselves bastions of "politeness". And only those who have become fossilized in their need to control everything in their surroundings are concerned with maintaining an artificial veneer of pretended perfection of their own positions.
I would make a comparrison here. Back in the days of Viet Nam, the students at Kent State were being "polite". They were - as the Constitution of this Nation provides and guarantees - assembled peacefully to seek redress of their grievances. They were shot down in cold blood, their "politeness" notwithstanding. And, this cold blooded murder was highly praised, and upheld as proper, by the Authorities of the day.
The young editor at CSU was startlingly impolite. But, he did manage to get attention, without loss of life in the process. That the Authorities want to punish him, the faculty at the University, and anyone and everyone else who supports him, or his position, is only to be expected from the reactionary, repressive, and regressive Authorities of today. On the other hand, so far at least, even these have avoided bloodshed and cold blooded murder as their methods of maintaining their "superiority".
For myself, I much prefer the latter approach.
Posted by Old Grouch on October 1, 2007 07:28 AMSharon, 1:22 Sept 30 >>>>"Stop being afraid."
Thanks. It's good to know you will stand up for Christians (and Jews) and maybe hide us in your attic when the radical Islamists come after us with their dull axes.
Old Grouch,
My discussion with you began about God being in the pledge (Sept 29 9:54pm). If it doesn't bother the majority of Americans, why change it back now?
I don't care to repeat myself regarding all your other grumblings about faith, superstitions, whatever.
Posted by Gail K on October 1, 2007 08:44 AMGale K,
You have given the best possible reason: Just because - as you say - "it doesn't bother the majority of Americans".
It should!
Posted by Old Grouch on October 1, 2007 09:20 AMDon't should on us OG!
Posted by Gail K on October 1, 2007 09:29 AMGail K
I agree with you in that I believe there is nothing wrong with leaving the phrase "under God" in the pledge. It can be invoked or ignored by option of the pledger.
Such action does not fall under the freedom for or freedom from provisions of the First Amendment as it's use is neither restricted nor mandated.
All it takes is tolerance by individuals to allow their fellow citizens to exercise their beliefs in public. Unfortunately, on both sides of the argument we seem to be running a short supply of tolerance and respect for others.
Posted by darfor on October 1, 2007 09:38 AMdarfor >>> "Unfortunately, on both sides of the argument we seem to be running a short supply of tolerance and respect for others."
Fortunately, I haven't personally been restricted from practicing my religion.
For instance, I can still wear jewelry which displays my faith without consequence, as I know others have had to go to court to enforce their rights.
Posted by Gail K on October 1, 2007 09:46 AMSunday night's episode on Ken Burn's War Ch. 6 PBS: "Situation normal all f----- up; "F----- up beyond all recognition." with acronyms attached so I ask the Christian Taliban if they will be going after Ken Burns and PBS?
Today's Show features the non-f------ Jenna Bush whose book on children in foreign countries is generating funds to help the children whereas in America the f------ W. Bush curtails funds to help America's children preferring to empty America's treasury into a deep hole called Iraq.
Get it? Jenna has not been shagged by her fiancé while Bush has been "shagged;” therefore, one is non-f------ and one is f------. (Whereas some non-f------ or f------ believer will ask: “How do you know Jenna has not been shagged?”) It is just a g------ word.
You f------ and f------ and non … create grist for this subject matter. I ask you to attempt immersion of Annie Besant’s judgment into your f------ brains recognizing that heretics were simply those who held a personal opinion that the f------ and non-f------ “Christians” didn’t approve. Elvis Presley was targeted as profanity in action by the holier than thou. Ends lest I fail to make my long story short, you g------ superstitious shaggers (a word that doesn’t show up in English usage but may be considered derogatory herein). And, leave the g------ god out of Belamy (sp) Pledge of Allegiance, you shagging thieves.
Deicide Corner: “I rejoice that I played my part in that educating of England which has made impossible for evermore the crude superstitions of the past, and the repetition of the cruelties and injustices under which preceding heretics suffered.” -- Annie Besant
It appears that "tolerance" is something that others expect as being, somehow, obligatory when anyone dissents or disagrees with them. However, when THEY see fit to critique someone else's position, teachings, or presentation, with personal insults, even slander and invective, that's just perfectly O.K.
Or, perhaps, because THEY lay claim to a large percentage as "majority"; that gives THEM rights, and/or advantages, others do not have.
In any forum - even in the media, such as a college newspaper - hyperbole has both a place and a use. Sometimes, it may be used to illustrate the inconsistency of the other side in claims; claims such as its own percentage of "majority" status. Or, it may be used to illustrate the absurdity and incongruity of either side's demand that the other be less passionate, or emphatic, in presentation.
Thus, "tolerance" is merely a way of saying: "Your side is of little or no worth, or value; but, we'll generously and beneficently allow you a few words to present it." I don't see that as being much of a virtue, or having much principle in it.
The words usually ascribed to Voltaire are the best way I can express it: "I disagree with everything you say; but, I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Or perhaps, I just happen to view "tolerance" with more of a jaundiced eye than many, having seen it in action over nearly 8 decades.
As to the Pledge, I support any and all who seek to restore it to its rightful status, the Citizen's declaration of allegiance to the Country; as well as any and all who reject the idea that such allegiance is "under - or to - (any form of) 'god'" as well.
darfor,
Please do not take this amiss; but I would ask how "tolerant" you might be towards the argument presented by the opposition in a case. Perhaps I am wrong; but I do tend to view a forum such as this as having some equivalance to a trial; a trial of ideas in a way.
Posted by Old Grouch on October 1, 2007 10:31 AMOld Grouch
I have a lot of tolerance during the presentation of oral arguments before the courts. I search the opposing presentation for weaknesses that can be exposed and exploited to my benefit. But, I never mock nor demean either the overall presentation nor the individual delivering it. I accept their presentation as their belief in the matter at hand and seek to trump said position with superior argument of Constitutional authority to the contrary.
You do view "tolerance' with a somewhat jaundiced eye - you equate it to perpetuating an adversarial position rather than as a tool to dismantling the adversarial position.
I submit that if people in general would be more tolerant -- assume a true live and let live attitude -- toward one another and their beliefs; which by nature mandates not forcing one's own beliefs on another, appellate attorneys would not be in such high demand to argue, essentially, common sense issues.
As a society we have become hardened to opposing beliefs, and the demonstration of said beliefs, to the point it appears we can only find solace in grinding the opposition into the ground. We can no longer find a common ground of all being Americans and allowing each other latitude in beliefs and actions.
This has happened due to the convergence of many factions seeking dominance in governing principles for our nation. You have the interests espoused by the "historical Judeo-Christian" adherents, Constitutional secularists and many varying belief systems in between all seeking to assert "their superior" authority as the correct one.
My transportation just arrived (I'm sitting in an airport waiting to go to my hotel), so I have to cut this short in explanation (but probably better for the reader as legal beagles do tend to be long winded!).
I'll be out of pocket the next couple of weeks as I have to put final touches on an oral I'm to present next week. I'm sorry I'm going to miss this Constitutional thread - hopefully, we'll have another similar one in the near future when I have a little more time.
Posted by darfor on October 1, 2007 11:18 AMStifle yourselves counsel and you will if you recall Justice Kirshbaum's words: "Tell the judge the topic and he will tell you how it will turn out and evidence has nothing to do with it," as I've discovered over and over. The final arbiter will utter the final conclusion. With W. Bush, his final arbiter believes that a "jew' baby is god and that is his qualification for the Bench. Intelligence and legal acumen has nothing to do with a Bush appointment. Decade and a half ago Bush Sr. appointed Thomas to the high bench and he recently favored Bush Jr. on demolishing the Wall that keeps separate America’s Siamese twins: Church and State, and the Founders are jostled in their graves.
Posted by Richard Grimes, Deicide [Free cassette of blasphemous songs: me on piano] on October 1, 2007 12:33 PMRG, nobody can beat you in waxing poetic nonsense.
Posted by on October 1, 2007 01:12 PMPoetic nonsense at dictionary.com:
The mountain glittered like a ranglow,
Its forest beard lay at the Snish,
Its mouth was a black gaping Hogloo,
Its knowing eyes held something of mystery,
As it lay in wait of the tragedy ahead.
You must fear the Dreikloid my Imogen,
He has the look of ice,
And the touch of a chill,
You must always carry a florch,
And shine it into his eyes.
And on one icy day,
Imogen sat below the silknut,
A shadow was cast over her face,
It's the Dreikloid
Love at first sight
Imogen's father was mad,
He did not think this was alright.
She found him the safety of a Hogloo,
And made him a bed of snow,
She looked into his eyes of a cat,
And touched his head of blue flame.
When she returned in the morning,
The blue flames had gone out,
And his hands were no longer cold,
Her father had shone the florch in his eyes,
And his soul had left him alone.
Imogen wept, And the mountains glittered,
Its forest beard lay at the Snish,
Its knowing eyes held something of mystery,
As it moved on from the tragic past. Dictionary.com
When the meaning of a word is beyond my knowledge, I look it up; thus, it is my recommendation that all shaggers avail themselves of dictionary.com ~~ Richard Grimes born in Monte Vista Colorado but not in a log cabin; however, when my parents were able to afford one, we moved into one, but still contained no indoor plumbing with only a coal stove. It was as cold as hell is hot, signifying that some American have been everywhere since such is hell’s description by the shaggers excluding me.
Unlike all the gibberish above, the editorial was concise and accurate.
Posted by on October 1, 2007 03:02 PMGail, I also would help any and all religious people have places of worship, money for ceremonies, say for Native Americans etc.
I think we could just drop the pledge and be as patriotic as ever.
When I was a kid fighting with my parents about God, they could always point to two things to "prove" that I should be a good conforming believer: God in the pledge and on the coins.
See, everyone in America agrees. Even at 14 or so I knew that couldn`t be right. I had to get older and learn about coercion by the majority before I understood.
For many, Christianity is the default religion, that they give lip service to, but have never examined. When they do examine religion, many dump the whole concept.
All those things and places I listed are not enough. Some want their religion, the religion of the day, on public places and things. Tomorrow, this could be an Islamic nation, if enough convert or are born here. Then and only then will Christians be persecuted, and then they will be just like us.
Having to say "One Nation Under Allah" because they become the majority and they change the pledge again.
Or the Mormon church could explode in membership and children and have us pledge to their golden angel.
Dump the pledge, take God off the money, beat them to the punch.
I know that I am talking to the wind here.
Posted by Sharon B. on October 1, 2007 04:36 PMI just read the suggestion that I received from Sharon B. regarding "RG", and the response from Old Grouch to my suggestion that RG investigate the word "polite". I don't expect that I'll get much more accomplished now than I did before, but there are a couple of points that deserve some clarification.
First, Sharon B.: I wasn't aware that RG is a special case that needs "slack" - but I guess I can understand; I had a student a long time ago who was a Tourette patient, and he often needed a considerable amount of compassion in order to deal with his inappropriate outbursts. Thanks for the heads-up.
Now, as far as the comment from Old Grouch is concerned: Before anything else, I'd suggest that you visit the Wikipedia website that describes the chronology of the Kent State tragedy. The National Guardsmen were, of course, wrong to open fire on the students as they did; the whole situation, however, did not begin with a "polite" or peaceful demonstration. Rather than explain the details here, though, I advise anyone who may be interested to visit the aforementioned website and research the facts on your own.
Aside from that, I'm not sure how you connect the concept of being polite with being "politically correct" or "snobbish", or "needing to control everything with pretended perfection" - but since you don't like the word "polite", let's try "civil", "considerate", and "honorable". And then I'll suggest that, while each succesive generation may want to exercise a new "outlook on" or "approach to" the world, it would probably be a good idea to maintain the basic principles of civility, consideration and honor. Those, I'd say, are the properties that separate any society from barbarity.
If you still think it's better to be profane and blunt, though, why don't you explain exactly at what point in life it would be good to start encouraging such behavior? In pre-school? 2nd Grade? Should we teach 8, 10 or even 12 year-olds that it's a good idea to let a few expletives rip when they're passionate about something? How about a junior high-school drama class? Do you think it would be a constructive plan to have our tweens doing R-rated stage productions? Or is being vulgar just a "grown-up" privilege when it's important to get a point across?
Tell you what; I assume that you'd admit there's a cultural use for due process in a free society - so if, for some reason, you should ever find yourself in a court of law and are asked to testify toward some cause that you feel strongly about, why don't you drop a few f-bombs along the way for the judge and then let me know how that works out for you.
Civil respect isn't a fad of the times. In my humble opinion, it's the primary concept that our Constitution was based on to begin with.
Sharon B,
I don't know if you're still checking in on this thread, but I have an opportunity to respond to your latest post to me.
SB >>>>"For many, Christianity is the default religion, that they give lip service to, but have never examined."
I've observed that all my adult life. There are multitudes who claim to be Christian who have no idea what it's all about. Then there are those who have learned what it is, yet attempt to alter certain aspects of the faith to better suit them.
SB >>>"Tomorrow, this could be an Islamic nation, if enough convert or are born here. Then and only then will Christians be persecuted...
It's close now. Bin Laden reportedly told the US in a recent video to convert if we want peace. Persecuted? No, Christians will be tortured and killed.
Taking God off the money and out of the pledge now won't matter to the new American Islamist regime of the future. They'll change it if they want. Our constitution won't be worth a hill of beans to them.
Posted by Gail K on October 2, 2007 08:19 AMBeing polite does not generate a fraction of the response as a "Taser This F--- Bush" did so in compliance with the editorial, it and I are pilloried by those practicing civility. To the morphed subject matter:
The g------ shaggers in congress goaded by the g------ Christians, mainly g------ Catholics, persuaded Congressional shaggers to steal Belamy's Pledge of Allegiance twice.
First they stole his pledge by changing his word "my" flag to "the" flag. Next the g------- shaggers augmented his brain baby by adding the words "under God" -- I detest the g------ thieves; whereas, evidenced by the approved word, "g------" I'll go through life p----- at the shaggers who approve of this theft evidenced in this forum and nationwide; these g------ shaggers are as culpable as the aforementioned.
I am in accord with our imperial president W. Bush who says the Constitution is a "g------ piece of paper" because it is the common sense (bias and prejudice) of the final arbiter that tells us what the Constitution says.
I am p----- as General Patton was in last night's episode on War Ch. 6 when he said: "I've always wanted to p--- in the Rhine River," so he took it out in front of his men and p-----. Ok. You g------- shaggers who support theft of Belamy's pledge, sue Ch. 6 for impoliteness. It is hard to be polite when you are p----- off, but I try, so give me some slack.
Posted by Richard Grimes, Deicide r22037@yahoo.com [Free: Blasphemous songs on cassette: Me on piano.] on October 2, 2007 10:22 AMHale Hilsabeck,
Well, of course, the students were protesting a war - which was totally "impolite" in the eyes of those for whom War is wonderful, and should be engaged in every Administration or so. I don't generally use the "do-it-yourself-encyclopedia" as a source. But the newspaper pictures the next day do tend to stick in my mind; as does some of the TV footage from the evening news that day. The students, a few with the usual posters on sticks, and many with nothing more than empty hands, being shot down by military rifles, even as they try to leave, or get away, is just a bit more than sort of 'wrong", to be "polite" about it.
I am very familiar with the due process of the Courts; and with the protocol there. That is a very different matter than the use of hyperbole - even profane hyperbole - elsewhere; and even there, the use of profanity is not always totally excluded, depending upon the nature both of the testimony and the character of the witness.
I don't believe there is any need to "teach" children, who are usually much more up to date in many areas than most adults want to give them credit for. Indeed, most youngsters are much more aware of the hypocricy of various kinds of "censorship" - in speech and in reading material - than adults want to admit. For instance, my 7th & 8th graders were fully well aware that the Old South of Mark Twain's day used the now taboo "n-word", both pejoratively and as an expression bordering on affection - no other word being at the time in general use. Thus, when the "polite" adults got all fussed up about passages from Huckleberry Finn, for instance, the youngsters simply enjoyed the story; and sometimes even dared to remark about adult foolishness - always, of course, in a "polite" way.
As to "R-rated" productions, I find the idea that Shakespeare, for instance, should be "edited", or "bowdlerized", because the adults are fussed up over words to be ridiculous beyond belief. Do you really believe that your Dojo students are so completely naive, or so completely "innocent", that they don't already know, and understand, much that you would "shelter" them from?
You have given excellent illustration of just exactly what I mean when I make the equaion between "polite" and "snobbish", and/or "politically correct". Your entire presentation is one of talking down to offer correction - by way of questions designed to belitle - rather than an attempt to meet the idea that hyperbole - even profane hyperbole - has a place in the world. And, while I thank you for your condesencion, O Sensei Sama, I also find you rather amusing as well.
That which "separates any society from barbarity" is a matter far more complex than the use of profanity - whether restricted to "grown ups", or approached in the natural course of development at any age.
But, in the end, it really boils down to something very simple. The Editor in question DID get you attention. Just as he managed to get the attention of so very many others, as well. And, perhaps, that was his intention and purpose in the first place. To see just how many of the usually somnolent and blind followers of this Administration's fatal foolishness might wake up, for once anyway.
Posted by Old Grouch on October 2, 2007 12:31 PMHale, you presume way too much sugar. No one said RG gets special treatment because of a flaw, defect or failing.
He is always a gentleman and truly brightens many a dull thread.
When you can do the same, an anything is possible, you will understand.
Gail "It`s close now"? About as close as the Rapture, or in my case the Raptor.
saying 'under God" is a small form of prayer. Hard to see but not invisible.
Making someone say it is meaningless, even more so than saying it. And not physically possible unless someone can read lips.
Setting up a situation where a kid can be seen not saying it will lead to bullying.
It may be a very small point but so is the tip of a claymore sword.
Posted by Sharon B. on October 2, 2007 03:45 PMSharon B,
>>>"It`s close now"? About as close as the Rapture, ..
Yeah, maybe so, except I don't completely agree with the newer thinking Christians regarding rapture. I follow the older, more orthodox theology rather than what you read in novels these days.
Sharon, Did I say to make kids say something? Maybe you read that from someone else.
Posted by Gail K on October 2, 2007 04:15 PMSharon, I know you're referring to the pledge of allegiance. I have no problems with kids and recitation. As they grow, the begin to learn what it means. Memorizing things is not a bad thing. Mom told me she had to memorize whole lengthy poems as a girl in the 30's. I kind of admire that. I've memorized more than some people, yet not as much as some others. When people reach an age of questioning themeaning, they'll be able to decide whether or not it "meaningless."
Posted by Gail K on October 2, 2007 04:31 PMOld Grouch,
"...posters on sticks" and "empty handed".
You must have missed the part about the fires, vandalism, and rock-throwing attacks leading up to the Kent tragedy. The killings were inexcusably wrong, if you need to have the term qualified in context for it to make sense to you; but the protesters created a situation considered dangerous enough to the community in general that the Guard was called because the local police could not quell the violence. - And you think that was the best way for them to be heard?
As far as the suggestion to try using foul language in court is concerned, I'm aware that profanity may be necessarily included when it's pertinent to the testimony related to the facts of a case. I was thinking more along the lines of your attempting to be a potty-mouth when addressing a judge on your own behalf - like, for instance, asking for a continuance in a minor traffic violation. I'm not sure that the judge would appreciate your efforts at "hyperbole" under those circumstances, do you?
The point was - and is - that there's a time and place for everything, and J. David McSwane chose, at the very least, the wrong place to try to be edgy in a comment about the president. You said that he got my attention, and you're right. He did. But not for the reason that he supposedly intended. I just thought it was immature - and disrespectful to the college that he represented as the editor of its newspaper - to sink to the verbal gutter in order to make a statement about anything at all.
Now, about children: You're right if what you meant is that there's no need to teach them about how to "talk dirty". They can figure that kind of thing out all by themselves. But the words they hear these days don't come from Mark Twain and Huckleberry finn; they come from derogatory music; explicit movies, video games and websites; abusive homes; bullies, and drug dealers.
Back in the 80's, I worked with a city-funded alternative activities/anti-gang unit called StreetSmart down on Five Points. Most of the kids we had didn't get into too much trouble, but I'd occasionally sit and watch as 7 or 8 year-olds would work as runners and do deals in the gas station parking lot across the street from where we were. Every now and then, a few of them would come by the StreetSmart house when they'd get bored. Most of them were constant truants who hardly knew their fathers, and their mothers couldn't keep track of them. Eventually. I made friends with one of them in particular.
He was only 8 years old and really pretty shy - but he was already becoming hardened by the things that he saw and did every day. I won't say any more about him except for this: He told me that the reason he liked me was because I was the only one who never cussed at him.
You know, you're right about some kids being a lot smarter than most people give them credit for. He got it. You don't.
Just one last thing. You said that I gave an "excellent illustration" of the "equation between polite and snobbish" - and that I amuse you. I guess if thinking that it's better to avoid being rude and crude in the way I communicate with people makes me snobbish, then I'll have to take the blame. I will say this, though; I'd rather be politely snobbish than have to call someone names in order to support a position. - Or have to hide behind a fake name on an opinion website.
P.S. to Sharon B., whoever you are:
Why don't you petition for Mr. Grimes to give, say, the opening ceremony speech at the next Olympics; maybe they'd appreciate his ability to brighten things up too.
Now I'M amused.
Posted by Hale Hilsabeck on October 3, 2007 02:44 AM