Student among the ‘select pompous’
It’s great that Erica Corder has such strong convictions about Jesus Christ and feels empowered enough to rise above the rules to spread her message (“Reprimanded for invoking God in ’06, valedictorian sues,” Aug. 31). I wonder how many people in the crowd had other beliefs, or no beliefs.
As much as I love my Christian family and friends, I’m sick of the select pompous among us who “know” their faith is above other ways of thinking, and take every opportunity to share that message. She did nothing more than give a pep rally to her fellow Christians in the crowd, and anger the rest who didn’t show up to find Jesus, but celebrate graduation.
I’d bet everyone in the crowd is already well aware of Jesus. The reality is that this world will never unite under one belief system.
I’m all for freedom of speech and religion, but in a tolerant society, there is a time and a place for it.
Vince Rozmiarek, Indian Hills
So when someone forces you to keep your mouth shut so they are not offended and you are denied your beliefs it's a good thing? When will you stand up and speak whats on your mind? When will you feel it is right to follow your beliefs? In the privacy and solitude of your own house? Will you hide your belief and opinion like the plague as not to offend anyone? Why is it that the feeling of another is greater than your belef or opinion? A tolrent society should infer that a person can say or believe as they want and if you don't agree, you don;t have to, you ignore them and go about your business. A tolerent society does NOT staple a persons mouth shut just because of convenience. It is NOT Farenheight 451 or George Orwells 1984. A person should be able to say what they want, believe the way they want or not. They should also be human enough to ignore it if it is not what they believe without acting like an animal and attacking the offender. Or is that too much to ask?
Posted by Nick on September 13, 2007 12:29 AMHi, Vince!
Let me see if I can help you out: See, she was the "VALADICTORIAN."
The reson she gets to make a speech is because SHE EARNED IT.
Just to clear things up, let me point out that you were NOT THE VALADICTORIAN. So, really, that moment was sort of about HER, not YOU.
That help you to understand better?
Good. I'm happy I got the chance to help you out here.
I mean who really cares what she said anyway. did any of you really care what the valadictorian said at your graduation or were you all think about the graduation party later that night.
so unless she said something like " convert or die " about her religeon, then get OVER IT!
Posted by Fresh on September 13, 2007 02:13 AMVince,
Tolerance is when you refrain from complaining about something with which you disapprove.
Class valadictorians typically give a speech and explain what is important in their life, or how it is that they came to be the valadictorian. That's the point of the speech.
If, as in this case, God is central to the valadictorian's life and, in her view, played a large role in her accomplishment then she has the right to say so.
Requiring the valadictorian to ignore her own beliefs and stick to a secular script because some of the audience disapprove of religion would not be an act of tolerance.
If speech on disapproved of topics is forbidden, then we are in fact an intolerant society.
Posted by James Jones on September 13, 2007 04:58 AMI guess this is just another case of having to be PC about everything we do. bow down to the minority and dont make them feel bad.
I happen to agree with fresh, more thought was on the parties than what she said.
this is really a non issue so get over it, grow up and get a life.
Posted by on September 13, 2007 05:59 AMThe point is not what she believes or how that does or does not effect anyone. The point, in my opinion, is the appropriateness of adding the proselyizing words, -----and I hope you learn how much he has sacrificed for you ( this may not be exact, but in has the meaning she expressed). This is not just stating her belief , it is an entreaty to adopt the same belief she has. I have no problem with that either, per se.
The question I have is, was it appropriate to the graduation exercise? I think not, because a graduation ceremony is not a religious event, it is a secular event at which Christian religious entreaties are not apropriate nor are they germane to the occasion.
Posted by Allen Campbell on September 13, 2007 05:59 AMGood grief! What's the big problem? I'm guessing that she probably spoke about her faith for less than 60 seconds out of what, maybe a ten or fifteen minute speech?
It's customary for valedictorians to acknowledge loved ones who helped them attain their goals. Would you complain if she gave anyone other than Jesus the credit? Sheesh people. You've got a lot of insecurity if this bugs you so much. Get a grip.
Posted by Gail K on September 13, 2007 08:18 AMSo, it would have been okay if she had stood up and claimed that she owed everything that she achieved to Paris Hilton! She could have said what a great role model Paris had been to her and how she starts each day thinking, "what would Paris do?" She could have stated how we can all learn from Paris and her shining example of a life.....and that would have been okay. But to say God and Jesus had an impact on her life...that is out of line!?!?! There is something horribly wrong with that. It was HER speech and she can say what SHE wants.
Posted by idk on September 13, 2007 08:20 AMHey, "idk," we seem to think alike!
Posted by Gail K on September 13, 2007 08:27 AMAllen Campbell,
I do agree as well, that it's better for a different setting. But how often do you hear speeches go off topic for a few minutes? They still get applause. Nobody tells the speaker, "For that momentary diversion from your orignal plan, we won't pay you/give you your diploma, etc."
Posted by Gail K on September 13, 2007 08:37 AMthis little focus-on-the-family patsy knew exactly what she was doing.
1. she knowingly kept her remarks from the principal, who was to approve ALL 15 VALEDICTORIAN speeches. She was extremely deceitful in this matter.
2. A simple "thank you jesus for helping me and giving me strength" would have been fine. Instead, she turned the podium into her pulpit.
3. Seriously, do you think her focus-on-the-family employed daddy dearest didn't put her up to this?
4. My sons church has a special celebration each year for graduating students. It is a wonderful presentation and ceremony which celebrates the role god has in their success. This is where preaching belongs.
Personally, I prefer not to be preached to. Therefore, I avoid places where I expect preaching. If poster-gal wants to preach, there are plenty of places and thousands of people who want to hear it. However, there is a time and place.
A publich high school graduation is neither the time nor the place for this.
But, sue away, sweetie. I sympathize with how difficult it is to be a christian these days.
Posted by joanna on September 13, 2007 08:50 AMOne more thing....with everything I've read and learned about this Jesus guy, I really, truly think he would be appalled!!!!
Posted by joanna on September 13, 2007 08:52 AMI think the principal was totally wrong to make the diploma a conditon of anything. She earned it, it was not a perk of going to school that could be withdrawn on condition of anything.
MY comments were about what is appropriate or not. I think that consideration has flown out the widow with many other tenets of social behavior like respect, courtesy and manners all in the name of political correctness.
Posted by Allen Campbell on September 13, 2007 08:53 AMGreat post, Joanna - why these people can't pray & carry on about their religion on their own time - or in church where it belongs, I just don't know. Another deceitful God botherer - what a surprise!
Posted by drew on September 13, 2007 09:00 AMA lot of athletes and entertainers thank God and/or Jesus when receiving an award or winning a big game,so I don't have a problem with a student doing the same. As long as she doesn't go on and on about it, which crosses the line into proselytizing. I would hope that Muslims and Native Americans would also feel free to say "Praise Allah" or "Thank you, Great Spirit" when receiving their diplomas.
Posted by jimi99 on September 13, 2007 09:04 AMOne more thing....with everything I've read and learned about this Jesus guy, I really, truly think he would be appalled!!!!
Posted by joanna on September 13, 2007 08:52 AM
Really? We are fortunate to have you around.
What do you think God really does care about?
Posted by James Jones on September 13, 2007 09:21 AMWhy is it ok to take freedom of speech away from someone, just because they invoke the name Jesus. If you don't believe it is not going to change you. You have your right to believe but so does she. The 'non-believers' feel that their right should take precedence over anyone else. Well guess what, your secularism has no more rights than another persons religionism. Get over it. She had the right to make the coments she did. The principle was wrong.
Posted by Mickey on September 13, 2007 09:25 AMErica took advantage of a captive audience at a public event to try to force her own religious views on others. Those who are praising her now would be forming a lynch mob had she been a Muslim trying to convert her fellow students to Islam.
Posted by Romulus on September 13, 2007 09:33 AMdrew - Spot on! Keep this stuff where it belongs. Gays too. Quit talking about it all the time. I don't care to know your sexual preference so keep it in the bedroom hidden away since I don't share in your beliefs.
(/sarcasm)
Mickey:
Of course she had the right to say what she said but, was it appropriate to a Graduation Ceremony to go over the line into entreating all others to consider her religion? No it is not. If she had just said smoething like--- I give Jesus credit for my graduating and leave it at that, I don't think anyone would care. But she went over the line in her zeal about her religion and, that was the mistake.
Posted by Allen Campbell on September 13, 2007 09:39 AMThat said, I can't see where anybody's rights were violated.
Posted by Allen Campbell on September 13, 2007 09:42 AMI wasn't there, but from I understand, she wasn't "preaching." She made a remark that took her about a minute. Preaching is generally thirty minutes, give or take.
That single minute has been given more ink, dollars and hours than it should have. Enough of my time. Have fun squabbling over it, simpletons.
Posted by Gail K on September 13, 2007 09:44 AMTypical Christians, "Hey, it's our right, no our DUTY, to conform everyone to our belief." The student in question broke the rules, it's pretty much that simple. She is paying the price. Unfortunately, too many Christians don't feel that the rules apply to them. And the argument that she had the "right" to talk about anything she wanted, it's ludicrous. These same "Christians" would be railing up and down the pulpit had she gone up to the podium and thanked Satan and encouraged everyone to get to know him better. Or, better yet, had she said, she used drugs daily and thanked her pot supplier for her success.
By the way, no "right" to free speech was denied this student. In fact, the Supreme Court has already determined that students don't share the same right of freedom of speech that adults enjoy. Also, no one was attempting to take away her right to believe in God, or Jesus, or Allah or Buddah or any other myth. What the school was doing was simply attempting to keep a student from preaching to a captive audience at a function paid for by taxpayer dollars. I see nothing wrong in what the principal did.
You see, christians, like most religious folks, don't care about the rights of others. Had this not been a student preaching to a captive audience at a publicly funded forum, I would have had no problem. Her few words won't change my mind, and likely didn't change the mind of anyone else at the event. However, rules are rules and they must be obeyed, at least that's what christians would tell you as long as their religion gets to make the rules, the rest of the non-believers be damned.
Too bad she didn't just thank Jesus and get on with it. Now we get to waste our tax money in a useless, frivolous lawsuit.
As usual. The Je$u$ Bu$ine$$ kooks, cranks, freaks, and weirdos loudly cry , snivel, and whine about having their "freedoms trampled on", whenever THEY bring up the Constitutional matter of freedom OF religion.
Never mind the fact that they want to trample all over the equal right of freedom FROM their religious damnfoolery that belongs to all the rest of us as Americans.
Get religion OUT of government! Keep religion OUT of government, and tax paid for public services and events!
Posted by Old Grouch on September 13, 2007 10:30 AMJesus stated in the sixth chapter of matthew to be wary of those who pray in the public square for all to see. He also added that they have received their reward on earth by their spectacle while the righteous pray in private and humbly go about their lives.
Posted by geo on September 13, 2007 11:37 AMO.G.
I have wondered as I read these boards why you lapse into anti-Christian vitriol and start painting all Christians with the same negative broad brush every time the topic comes up. Generally, I find your posts intelligent and well thought out. Rants like the one above lend nothing to your credibility.
Not all Christians are out to convert the world, not all of us think we have all the answers and not all of us are judging those who do not share our beliefs. There are those Christians out there who believe in love thy neighbor and who try very hard to do good things in the world.
Posted by A casual disinterested observer on September 13, 2007 12:27 PMOne more thing....with everything I've read and learned about this Jesus guy, I really, truly think he would be appalled!!!!
Posted by joanna on September 13, 2007 08:52 AM
Really? We are fortunate to have you around.
What do you think God really does care about?
Posted by James Jones on September 13, 2007 09:21 AM
I thought you knew all his desires Jesus Jones.
She was certainly within her first amendment rights to say what she did, thought she likely violated school policy, and definitely was deceitful about how she did it.
Posted by James Jones is a glow in the dark bitch on September 13, 2007 12:37 PMWhat does god care about? That one I struggle with.
Posted by joanna on September 13, 2007 09:42 AM
I don't see much evidence of a struggle there. you seem to have things down pat.
Whenever innocent people suffer, that is evidence that God is indifferent. Seems pretty simple.
It is not clear however why you think God cares who wins the Super Bowl or about who your cousin loves.
What evidence do you have of that?
Posted by James Jones on September 13, 2007 12:43 PMMost do not realize that if one person is allowed to preach their flavor of religion, unchallenged, then the next time someone else thinks, “Well she did it and got away with it, so I can and will do the same.
Now I do not think she should locked up and throw away the key, but some sort of meaningful discipline is needed to discourage copy cats. Being a non-Christian, I am not against others beliefs, but I do not want my kids being bombarded with subtle peer pressure to convert at every chance others get. It is my right to raise my kids as I see fit, and that includes their school time being free of any religious pressures. I will take care of their religious training at home and that is both my right and duty. School is for teaching, church is for preaching!
Posted by My 2 cents on September 13, 2007 12:54 PMGrouch,
Allowing a young woman to openly declare in her valadictorian speech that her success in school is attributable in some part to her faith is not an attempt to esatblish a relgion simply becasue she is speaking in a school.
She can say the same things in the Halls of Congress if invited.
In fact, the Constitution protects her right to speak freely.
Your fears are irrational.
Posted by James Jones on September 13, 2007 12:59 PMI posted this on an earlier letter, but I think it bears repeating.
don’t understand why this is a controversy, it was not a matter of religion or free speech, but of contractual breech.
Students speaking at school events agree ahead of time to rules for the speeches, and there are usually consequences outlined ahead of time as well for breaking those rules. Generally, these rules include no use of profanity, no crude comments or behavior, adhering to a dress code, abstaining from active politicking and abstaining from making personal religious comments. There is no free speech issue here, because the woman in question agreed to a set of rules (a contract) and consequences beforehand. In this case, the school also required her to use a speech that they had previously approved. She was punished because she broke the agreed upon rules. Because the school made no attempt to keep her from speaking her views at other venues (for example she could have gotten a permit to speak on public property outside the graduation before and after), there is no free speech issue here.
This is a normal occurrence in day to day life. To place it in a different context, if I were to have used her same words, in an email at my workplace, I could potentially be fired, because when I accepted employment, I agreed not to use the work email for non-business purposes. I entered into a contract with my employer about all kinds of conduct, I adhere to a dress code, I do not use profanity, I do not discuss politics or religion at work. Yet my freedom of speech has not been curtailed, because I am free to curse and politic all I want to outside of work. If my company attempted to legislate my religious or political speech outside of work, then there would be a free speech issue.
This woman broke the rules, and the school district enforced the consequences for those actions. I’m sure they would have done the same had she stood on the stage and repeated four letter words for her speech, or gave a speech endorsing a candidate, or even decided to just read from the dictionary the whole time.
From KW
drew - Spot on! Keep this stuff where it belongs. Gays too. Quit talking about it all the time. I don't care to know your sexual preference so keep it in the bedroom hidden away since I don't share in your beliefs.
(/sarcasm)
I also think it should be kept where it belongs, KW. But I thought this post was about religion? - Are you fixated on gays? Who's talking about it all the time? Not Sen Craig, surely, since he's too busy cruising men's restrooms. No need to explain, KW.
Posted by drew on September 13, 2007 01:18 PMI actually want to thank the girl. She has stirred the pot once again and everyone is taking up sides and flinging opinions at each other.
Joanna, when you post sarcasm, as in God cares who wins the Super Bowl, you need to put the word sarcasm in brackets. (sarcasm). That way you will not be asked to defend your remarks.
I think her Earthly father put her up to this, and she is glorying in the moment.
Now that she is in college, she will soon learn that she was duped into this by adults who cared not for her, since someone could have booed her or shouted her down or even attacked her. No, it was more important for the adults in her life to press on with their agenda.
Some loving parents she has.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 13, 2007 01:21 PMShe mentioned the J-man for a second or too. Big deal. This country is easily labeled a Christian country, whether you like it or not.
The words to describe the "stink" , is bigotry against Christians. This bigotry is cultivated by a minority with their own "religion" they are trying to force on Christians.
Posted by Political Correctness is Cancer on September 13, 2007 02:15 PMPolitical Correctness, et al... how many of you would be defending this girl if she said "Allah Ikbar" (sp?). You wouldn't be defending her. You would be calling her names, and you know it. To deny this, would be a lie.
Posted by Sheila on September 13, 2007 02:36 PMSarcasm, drew my boy.
Just pointing out the humurous side of saying religion needs to be kept out of the public arena because you don't agree with it. If that's the way we are to live I can give you a list a mile long of things other people won't want to see in public, including breast feeding. But as you can see, trying to control the actions of others isn't what a free society is all about.
Same with My 2 Cents comment saying:
"I do not want my kids being bombarded with subtle peer pressure to convert at every chance others get. It is my right to raise my kids as I see fit, and that includes their school time being free of any religious pressures."
Unless the school itself is doing the preaching, it would be unconstitutional to forbid individuals from discussing religion simply because they are on school property.
I'd like to see kids free from many peer pressures at school, but the least of which I worry about is someone trying to turn a kid on to Jesus.
Drugs, sex, etc... are much greater concerns yet these problems exist at a much higher rate of frequency and are more deserving of attention.
Posted by KW on September 13, 2007 02:39 PMYou know, I don't care if you stand on a street corner, in city center park, the 16th street mall, or any other open area and do your preaching.
I do care if you ignore school rules and policies to advance your (or in this case, possibly her parents) agenda, whatever that agenda may be. I'd have the same sentiments if an atheist stood up there and encourages those in attendance to turn away from their personal beliefs. In those instances, punishment is warranted.
Christians these days give christians a bad name. The behaviour of many who claim to be christians is simply incredible. The "oh, poor me, woe is me" is getting old. If you think you're persecuted, you don't know the meanning of the word.
BTW, here it is:
persecuted
adj : wrongfully subjugated and oppressed
How exactly are we christians oppressed in this country? We have churches everywhere, our pledge says under god, our money says in god we trust, our legislative sessions, despite the constitution, are opened with prayers. Churches don't pay taxes.
Oh, us poor, poor children. The burdens we must bear.
I think it might have been ghandi who said that she liked our jesus, but didn't care too much for his fans.
I just know that out there in high school land, some trouble maker is setting up to make a speech about Allah, Satan or Flying Spaghetti Monster, now that they know religious preaching, and yes, this was preaching, although very short, is allowed.
My favorite comment on this is the one that "This was not preaching, because preaching is about 30 minutes or so" .
Posted by Sharon B. on September 13, 2007 03:11 PMWell, I just think that its a wonderful coincidence that this poor girl raised by a Focus on the Family employee and brainwashed since birth still managed to make her own choice with no outside influence to embrace Jesus. It's as amazing as all them Muslims having Muslim kiddies. Yep, true faith...
Posted by on September 13, 2007 04:07 PMNo Blinders,
you poor fool
I don't back down either
here's a suggestion for you. PRAY. every minute of every day that god finally sees me for what I am, a godless heathen, and smites me. Maybe he'll strike me with lightening, maybe he'll find some xian to smack into my car, maybe he'll burn down my house and seal me inside so I can feel the fires of hell.
Pray away, dear little man. Focus all of your energy on getting us unworthy ones out of YOUR christian nation, so you can enforce biblical law.
Pretty soon, the guys in the middle east will smarten up, come over here, kill our leader, and get us out from under christian oppression. Just as we are doing in Iraq.
Posted by Joanna on September 13, 2007 04:12 PMGrouch,
I agree it is a problem of people who believe they are exempt from the rules. I do not see that as a Christian vs. no Christian issue, but a pervasive issue of what I call “entitlement” parenting. It stems from raising kids with the idea that they are above the rules, and should not have to bear personal responsibility for their actions. Now, if one wanted to look at this woman’s actions from the most sympathetic standpoint, they could say she was committing an act of civil disobedience. However, even that perspective falls short, because part of the act of civil disobedience is also accepting the consequences for the action and further calling attention to the issue. When Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, wrote from the Birmingham jail about the topic, he used both his actions, and the consequences (being arrested) to draw attention to an unjust situation. In the case of the valedictorian, she can’t even comfortably claim it was an act of civil disobedience, and then sue.
Also, those who are attempting to claim that limiting speech inside a school is unconstitutional because schools are government funded, need to research constitutional/supreme court law a bit further. The courts have ruled on a number of occasions schools (particularly k-12) can limit all kinds of speech that can not be limited in the general public sphere. Courts can as well, just try preaching or politicking in the middle of traffic court. The judge can cite you for contempt or remove you from the building. Free speech is also limited by the government during elections when a candidate cannot campaign within a certain number of feet of the polling places. These limitations are not unconstitutional because other arenas of speech are not closed to you.
I gather from your flip response you aren't interested in rational discourse when it comes to the subject of religion. No harm, no foul and best of luck to you.
Posted by A casual disinterested observer on September 13, 2007 05:01 PMWe have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power.
Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence.
What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage.
We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.
Posted by Pastafarian on September 13, 2007 06:29 PMThis particular debate impels me to top the Jesus-freak valedictorian. For whatever success I had in high school, I would like at this time to humbly acknowledge Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. Jesus Martinez, who did my homework for me; Mary Schwarz, who went with me (all the way!) to the prom; and Joey Markham, who showed me how to cheat on the SATs.
Posted by Hans Christian Brando on September 13, 2007 06:38 PMA casual, disinterested, etc.,
We had one of those a while back here. Or at least what was supposed to be one. I will say it again, as I have said it many times already: A belief-system - religion - is NOT debatable. It is not a postulate open to discourse, comparison, discussion, and resolution/conclusion.
Rather, it is, in and of itself, a conclusion. The end result of the other processes. It can be accepted or rejected, it can be praised, or criticized and condemned. But, it cannot be debated. It is a statement, not a proposition, or theory. And, in the end, the only possible response is one of either agreement, or disagreement, neither of which contributes to further development of the statement as such.
Some other topic, perhaps. Thanks for your presentation, and for your closing expression. May you enjoy the same as well.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 13, 2007 09:19 PMOld Grouch, No we can`t really debate believe but we can question it, and boy some of the answers we get are precious.
Like why Adam and Eve had navals. Or nipples, for that matter.
The mental manipulations necessary to answer those questions are tough stuff.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 13, 2007 09:40 PMDoes she drink milk, I wonder.
I know KW and Jimmy do.
Posted by Bango Skank on September 13, 2007 11:02 PMWould Jesus call his opponents pussies?
Posted by James Jesus Jones is a glow in the dark bitch on September 14, 2007 07:23 AMI believe in the gospel of prosperity. How prosperous are you? Everyone knows that the more money you have, the more god loves you (because he's showered you with material things).
I don't know how god feels, I am just listening to the most revered preachers and prophets of today.
Given that, I think that Jesus, despite what your good book says, loved those who take such pleasure in deriding others.
Why does the bible hold such lies?
Walk the walk
Talk the talk
James Jones - Bango is a very troubled person. A lot of deep seeded anger festers inside this poor sole. This brit can only find comfort by lashing out at others and dillusionally feeling superior for it.
It's a real sad case.
Besides, I like a good ol' glass of 1% every now and then.
Posted by KW on September 14, 2007 09:19 AMJoanna,
"I believe in the gospel of prosperity. How prosperous are you? "
I'm pretty prosperous thanks for asking.
"Everyone knows that the more money you have, the more god loves you (because he's showered you with material things)."
I'm not so sure about that. You are the only one to make the case so far. You should not assume that everyone knows that Religion is materially based. Actually, you may be one of the few who intrepret it that way.
First you said
One more thing....with everything I've read and learned about this Jesus guy, I really, truly think he would be appalled!!!!
Posted by joanna on September 13, 2007 08:52 AM
Which is interesting because, unless I've missed a post somewhere, you are the only one in this thread that has invoked Jesus to support your own judgement.
Now you tell us:
I don't know how god feels, I am just listening to the most revered preachers and prophets of today.
Posted by Joanna on September 14, 2007 09:04 AM
What gives? Is what you think based on what you are reading or do you only know what you've been told?
Now comes:
"Given that, I think that Jesus, despite what your good book says, loved those who take such pleasure in deriding others."
Well actually the Good Book says Jesus loves everybody including deriders (like me) and the charitable (like you except when you're deriding Christians).
What in the world do you think it says? I mean, are you going by what you think you've read or are you going by what you think you've been told.
Then the real puzzler:
Why does the bible hold such lies?
What lies are you asking about? Maybe the Good Book is actually telling the truth and you're just not getting it. It sure sounds that way.
kw,
I don't think you should be so hard on him. Making your way in a foreign country as a towel boy in a Turkish bath can't be easy.
Posted by James Jones on September 14, 2007 10:00 AMBango, what is the milk reference? Is that a take off on the old "Got Milk" that morphed into "Got Jesus"?
There was a church near me that had an 800 number to call God. I am serious about this. My daughter and had many a good laugh over the possibilities here.
Call God and get put on hold.
Press 1 for St. Peter, press 2 for St. Joseph
Your call is important to us, please stay on the line and the next available angel will answer you.
Graduation is no time for calling people to get to know ( insert your God here).
This reduces belief to burlesque as the responses are not too kind.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 14, 2007 02:53 PMKW,
Well, I don't know about Bango Skank, but I do know that if someone else had a "lot of deep seeded anger (festering) inside (his) poor sole", he ought either go to the shoe store and get a new pair, or the shoemaker and get some new soles - and maybe even some new heels, to make him feel better.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 14, 2007 08:14 PMSharon asked ”Bango, what is the milk reference? Is that a take off on the old "Got Milk" that morphed into "Got Jesus"?”
Actually more mundane, it’s a biblical reference.
Heb 5:13 “For every one that useth milk [is] unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.”
I find it a very funny insult.
KW aware of some kind of insult but not sure what it was, said ”Bango is a very troubled person. A lot of deep seeded anger festers inside this poor sole. This brit can only find comfort by lashing out at others and dillusionally feeling superior for it.”
Ok, so that would be deep seated anger perhaps, and it would presumably be in my soul rather than in my fish, and of course I am not a “brit” even if I were to be delusional about something.
All in all an improvement on what KW normally posts.
”Besides, I like a good ol' glass of 1% every now and then.”
snicker, snicker, snicker.
Jimmy tried with ”I don't think you should be so hard on him. Making your way in a foreign country as a towel boy in a Turkish bath can't be easy.”
More homoerotic stuff Jimbo? I knew you were a few berries short of a bake, but had not figured you had a thing for boys. I suppose you follow the Foley doctrine more than Haggard’s then.
You guys just make my day, honest to betsy, so you do.
I am working my tail off here in the middle of Asia, and you two just round my day out nicely.
Soap opera? I don’t need no damned TV, I got me the K-Dubya & Jimmy-Jeezus show!
Bango Skank
I am working my tail off here in the middle of Asia,
I'm quite certain that I have spoken to you before about whinning on the page.
Your presence here typically coarsens the discourse. Your typical post consists of nothing more than some supercilious, ad hominem attack with the aim of silencing the dissent the an honest man requires to have his own positions challenged.
While that is the case you can expect to reap what you sew.
Posted by James Jones on September 15, 2007 07:50 AMSorry Bango, deep "seeded" is the correct term here. As in deeply implanted or embedded.
OG - Spot on as usual. Sole vs. soul??? I must have had way too much work on my mind when I typed that. I'll have to do something about that so work doesn't interfere with my blogging. (/sarcasm)
I think I like the "sole" reference better though. I often think of Bango as a floundering fish, being so far away from his/her real home and all as well as being clueless on direction.
I mean, why would someone leave a perfectly good socialist leaning country like the UK to come here, pay taxes you don't agreee with, and then complain endlessly about our hard earned freedoms all the time?
Seems staying home would have made a lot more sense. Unless, of course, you're no longer welcome at home.
Posted by KW on September 15, 2007 10:40 AMGuys, I have re-read this and some other postings by Bango, and I can not find examples of his complaining about the freedoms we have here.
What have I missed?
Posted by Sharon B. on September 15, 2007 07:06 PM"While that is the case you can expect to reap what you sew."
They just keep flowing, don't they?
Usually one doesn't reap millenary products Jimbo.
Thanks for the laugh though.
Jimmy then complained ”Your presence here typically coarsens the discourse. Your typical post consists of nothing more than some supercilious, ad hominem attack with the aim of silencing the dissent the an honest man requires to have his own positions challenged.”
Memory troubles Jimbo?
I warned you that you may start having more neurological trouble.
Here’s the thing Jimmy boy, a while back we had this long discussion and you exhausted yourself of rational things to try and then, as I remarked at the time, there was nothing left but the process of trading amusing insults.
Since you have failed to recover any semblance of measure or rationality, I reckon we are still in the insult-trading mode.
When you show some signs of joining in reasoned discourse again, I am happy to do likewise with you.
KW admitted a while back that he is only here to poke fun and amuse himself, so I feel he becomes fair game too.
He likes to sabotage discussion and I like insulting him - doesn’t that just make us both the “self-maximizers” that is so beloved of Conservative economic theory?
btw. Love the country, really do
Posted by Bango Skank on September 16, 2007 02:56 AMBango Skank,
Logic and reason? Judgment and discussion? And you're looking for these with Jones? Well, sir, all I can say is, Good Luck!
Lately it seems as if anything on the website that anyone else is debating - or offering opinion or answer to question - has become a matter of his personal feelings about the matter; and his subsequest postings are long sermons vilifying the character of whomever has managed to excite his imagination. He reads into their posts his own problems and the most hyperbolic of his fantasies; and then excoriates them for these being their faults and failings.
I got it in the neck when I dared to compare Pavarotti and the preacher, Kennedy. And it has almost come to the point at which one hesitates to write anywhere one sees his signature on a posting in the line. However . . . !
At least with "KW" one can more or less "share the joke". And, as seen above, he has the grace to go along with the line, without just heaving hyperbolic insults. And he does come up with both ideas and sound thoughts - even when one has to agree to disagree on them.
The forum is still fun. And you are an enjoyment to have here. There is a tendency for us in the US to take for granted that the rest of the world "ought to" - anything and everything - the way we do. As Kipling once pointed out in an autobiographical sketch. A view from the outside is often very refreshing; and I hope to see many more from you as we go along.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 16, 2007 08:49 AMMartin Luther claimed a fart would scare away the devil. When god appears in the public sector, his holy flatulence is equivalent to a thousand skunks raising their tail. I have a Right to be free of this stench. Keep the stench in your abode, your church, or your psyche. Let us pray the moderator lets this opinion, this bias and prejudice, this common sense pass muster.
Posted by RG r22037yahoo on September 16, 2007 01:28 PMGrouch, thanks for the kind words.
I mostly agree with what you say about KW and Jimbo.
KW just needs guidance on research skills and he would be good to go.
Jimmy-Jeezus is way too far down the road of self-deception.
I was only half joking about him starting to show physical signs of neurological deficits.
Bango Skank,
I've been out most of the day; so I've missed much of the fun. But, it appears that others have taken up the matter on the posting about "Anti-Religious Bias"; and some new facts have come to light that make the posting for which Jones excoriated me through reams and reams seem very mild indeed now. Mild coming from me, that is.
I hesitate to diagnose by "long distance"; but I do have to agree that some of his last works have been way over the top. The ever increasing tendency to personally internalize any and all material, and reply from the standpoint of "injured party", in a combative, offensive, and abusively personal way, certainly does not bode well. Bit of a "God complex" manifesting itself, I'd say.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 16, 2007 08:21 PM