»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
It's a Wonderful Life?
| The Alley |
|
It's a Wonderful Life? |
|
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan 
|
We’ve all seen the movie which originally came out in 1947. Let’s update it for modern times. For one thing, if any teacher tells her student that every time a bell rings an angel gets his wings that teacher and the school system are going to have a court date with the ACLU. |
||
| © Copyright 2004 John Pawlik - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
nakdthoughts Member Laureate
since 2000-10-29
Posts 19200Between the Lines |
~smiling~ watched it last evening M |
||
|
Susan Caldwell Member Rara Avis
since 2002-12-27
Posts 8348Florida |
no movie in modern time. No banks are owned by the small businessman today... But Trump does own a city. *shrugs* "cast me gently into the morning, for the night has been unkind" |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
If the ACLU had it's way, Christopher would be spelled Opher. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
*laughing @ Ali* But actually, you might be surprised, John. My daughter's journal was confiscated by a teacher last year, and yep, I was called in for a conference. After being informed that my daughter needed a psychlogical evaluation, I asked the counselor if she had a degree in psychology. Um, no. She didn't. She then pointed out some drawings of pentacles and such, and suggested that perhaps my daughter would benefit from religious training. *smiling wide* You should have seen the look on her face when I informed that perhaps it hadn't occurred to her that what she was viewing was the result of religious instruction as I happen to be a practicing witch. But yes, that is when I stopped laughing and informed her that if I discovered that my daughter suffered any prejudicial treatment in a public school, they would hear from my attorney. (Okay, so I don't happen to have an attorney, but she got the idea.) And that was just the summation of my speech. (My kids always behaved at school out of self-preservation--they do not want me talking to the staff.)  |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Hmmm, if the teacher actually believed that (based on a movie), does anybody believe he or she actually should teach? |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
What does bitching about the ACLU have to do with that movie? BTW Karen- good for you. |
||
|
ESP Member Elite
since 2000-01-25
Posts 2556Floating gently on a cloud.... |
what is ACLU? |
||
|
ice Member Elite
since 2003-05-17
Posts 3404Pennsylvania |
ESP I am taking your question seriously, hoping your query is not sarcasm. ACLU stands for American Civil Liberties Union... A group of about 400,000 people (many of them attorneys) who are concerned about your civil liberties.. Their quest in a nut shell is... To raise the consciousness of the general public about the civil liberties guaranteed you by the Bill of Rights, and the United States Constitution... They monitor the behavior of federal, state, and local governments, and discourage civil liberty violations. They are a hated group, especially by those on the far right of the political spectrum..(something I cannot understand?) I believe they have good purpose because they bring to light the flaws in our constitution, I believe in part to push for changes in governmental laws by congress and local authorities..unlike the supreme court, who cannot make recommendation of law changes, even under their breath. I believe that the media likes when the AClU is bashed, it is good press, and sells their product...this is unfortunate, but it is common that only the seeming bad news about a person or organization is pronounced with vigor in most news medias. __________ice ><> |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
There are times when I like and loathe the ACLU, depending one what their leadership is doing and how they are steering that organization. When going after hate groups, discriminatory college groups, and voter intimidation by any party, I really like them. When they single-mindedly focus on removing all traces of religion from which this country was founded in part, I loathe them. For the longest time, I thought the ACLU would defend you in court, irregardless of how heinous your alleged crimes were, so long as you were not a Christian or a Jew. That was based on observation. Like most organizations, they started with very good intent. Nowadays, they are many times when they seem to lose focus, somehow believing this Republic is a Democracy, where the rights of the few always outweigh the rights of the many, instead of vice-versa. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Really wasn’t the intention; still if that’s where you want to go: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,139932,00.html http://www.snopes.com/language/document/newpray.htm |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Well, seeings how that poem is just terribly offensive, I'm glad parents complained. 'And anytime my head I bow Becomes a Federal matter now.' Nobody ever said students aren't allowed to individually pray, on their own time. What's wrong is a school presenting religious material (which is what this principle did) in a preaching manner, in any manner not solely designed to educate unbiasedly. I studies the Bible in high school- from a literature standpoint, though- not as scripture. 'We're allowed to cuss and dress like freaks, And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks.' Freaks? I personally would have had words with any adult who condones the use of that word in conjunction with students. It's just entirely innappropriate. So if anybody's whining that this trash isn't allowed in schools- I say good riddance. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Today I hear the ACLU is going to take a school system to court because it asked a student to take off or wear inside out a shirt that said “I’m Gay”. In New Jersey, a school has decided to prohibit the singing of all Christmas carols. There is a movement to prohibit even the music without words. [This message has been edited by Huan Yi (11-30-2004 09:19 PM).] |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Why shouldn't a student be able to wear a shirt that says "I'm gay?" I'm not sure how I feel about the Christmas carol thing- I don't necessarily think it's appropriate for public schools to sing the ones about Christ being our savior, et al. I personally don't see how the secualar, santa-claus ones are really a problem, but I guss I can see why a Jew or a Muslim might be offended at their kid going to a school that is having its students participate in a holiday they don't celebrate... |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Hush, ‘Why shouldn't a student be able to wear a shirt that says "I'm gay?"’ Why shouldn’t all the other students be able to wear a shirt that says “I’m Straight”? |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
And in some areas of the country, for their cultural holiday parades, they include every group but the Protestant/Catholic faiths. Who's to say Christianity isn't a culture, when gay/lesbian, ethnic, social, and political ones are? After all, for some, it's a methodology for living. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Can you really divorce Christmas from its Christian significance? What then do you have instead, Wal-Mart Day? |
||
Nightshade 
since 2001-08-31
Posts 13962just out of reach |
I wanna live in Bedford Falls and meet an angel named Clarence.  |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
I'm sure in certain parts of this country (part of that 'one nation under God' which the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals wanted to do away with), the kids are now taught 'Season's Greetings' and Kwanzaa instead of Christmas or Candlemass. If this trend continues, the matter will be moot in a generation or two, when the ACLU and its supporters wipe out 4 centuries of Christian holidays in this country in the sacred name of Separation of Church and State. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
"Why shouldn’t all the other students be able to wear a shirt that says “I’m Straight”?" They should be able to. I didn't know they couldn't. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I doubt many want to wipe out any religious holidays, Ali. Some of us just think they should be observed in the home and church instead of state buildings. Religion is just one of those rare things that can't be equitably dictated by majority rule, and the preponderance of Christians in our country shouldn't make it an official religion. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Well, let's see. I'm pretty sure we all know that the holiday wasn't Christian in origin, right? We all know that the 'under God' phrase was added in the fifties, right? We all know that what we're talking about is the separation of Church and State, not the end of Christianity (and we talk about this when America is going through something along the lines of a Great Revival?), right? But let me get this straight, John believes that when a bell rings, an angel gets wings is something that should be taught in school? Ali thinks that other holidays for different faiths shouldn't even be mentioned? I don't have any problems with religion in school, but you have to teach it, not insinuate that homosexuality is the result of no prayer in school. I'm pretty sure I've mentioned this before, but a teacher from my old school district was picketed and insulted because he taught the Bible as literature, not as sacred text. What seems to happen, and I don't really understand why, is that differences are always sharpened to the point where you have Christians denying Christianity to different Christians. But let's at least get out of the silliness that ACLU wants to ban Christianity (Unless you've discovered some document called the Secret Protocols of the Order of Liberalism?). There is nothing in the writings of that organization that would lead to that conclusion unless you believe that religious freedom and pluralism are best served under a theocratic state. Now, if somebody here would be willing to say that, that would be interesting. |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
My thoughts on 'traditional' holiday music vanishing in a generation or two is a reference to children being taught and instructed that it's not Christmas, but Season's Greetings and Gift Giving Day, abounding in Holiday Cheer. Never mind that holiday is a contraction of holy day. But I digress. Christian faith based music being banned from being played in schools, performed at schools, or performed by school students in public venues. The reason I did not mention other religions is quite simple: they aren't nearly as targeted as are Christian holiday themes. I wasn't raised Christian, but still enjoyed the music during this time of year as a child. My dad is as far from Christian as you can get, but loves Christian-themed holiday music. He can't stand the more secular (non-religious) themed ones. We used to go to school pageants, the county courthouse's gazebo, public library, and other public/state places, and simply listen to the pure beauty of the music, irregardless of if it was a cappella, instrumental, or a mix. Such things are becoming a rarity now with the adamant 'Separation of Church and State' viewpoint that some have. By the by, I don't hold with theocracies. And like it or not, Catholic/Protestantism has been part of this country since the Spanish Missions of the 1500's. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Ali, Are you telling you don't like "Santa Clause is Coming to Town" or "Rudolph" (not Rudolph) or "Jingle Bells"? 1500's? |
||
|
Kaoru
since 2003-06-07
Posts 3892where the wild flowers grow |
Well, let's not forget that a big majority of public schools allow a group called "Prayer around the Flag". This group holds prayers around the American flag every morning before the first bell (the flag being on school grounds, of course). Not only that, but they are allowed to post flyers on their lockers for all to see. If you want to join, you can, the flyer tells you when and where to meet. I understand that religious freedom is important, but we have seperation of church and state for a reason. Some people are easily offended. I for one, believe that if I had some sort of Satanic prayer group in my highschool, that I wouldn't be granted the same freedoms. Satanism wouldn't be considered a religion, even though it is. Huh... But hey, that's the way things are...could be worse. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,140545,00.html Is it still allowed to put crosses at sites of fatal accidents near the highways? Kaoru, “Some people are easily offended” Some people define and feel an empowerment of themselves by being easily offended, or simply take pleasure in it. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Wow, we agree on that, John. I call them Republicans. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
"that pesky line between church and state" Yeah, that pesky Bill of Rights just keeps biting us in the ass, huh? But Fox News will conveniently remember the Bill of Rights when it comes to gun ownership... *sigh* you know, that pesky right to own a dangerous weapon for which the intended use is killing or maiming another human being... I exaggerate, and I digress... I think Kaoru has a good point. I personally am not offended by optional prayer groups- you know, stuff that people only hear if they actively seek to hear it, as opposed to a God-fearing bible-thumping poem read over a PA system... I don't think it violates anyone's rights to have that option available. But Karen's kid better be able to go to a wiccan service, Kaoru better be able to "Hail Satan" till she's blue in the face, and dammit, if I wanted to wear a shirt that says "It's okay to be gay" I should have been allowed to. The people who think it's about repression have it wrong. It's about a respect for diversity, not just a respect for the diversity of the majority. |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
Somehow I find it somewhat illogical to state: "I personally am not offended by optional prayer groups- you know, stuff that people only hear if they actively seek to hear it" I suppose my response to be, that is very tolerant of you, to say to the overwhelming majority of those who profess a Christian belief, that you can practice your faith as long as you don't do it in public and actively seek it out in some non-public setting. then turn around and argue that "But Karen's kid better be able to go to a wiccan service, Kaoru better be able to "Hail Satan" till she's blue in the face, and dammit, if I wanted to wear a shirt that says "It's okay to be gay" I should have been allowed to." Some believe one of those other silly amendments to the Bill of Rights also applies to the majority, the majority that also happens to be Christian, "Freedom of Speech." If all references to Christianity are to be removed from public view, ie Christmas, under God, A.D.-B.C.(which I find to be particularly ludicrous) the bill of rights, the first thanksgiving, and you name it, then say, but diversity requires we allow any other view to be unrestricted in its application, then I do miss the logic, but then is why we have the 9th Circuit. Perhaps we ought to rename the days of the week and months of the year, heaven knows...(ack delete reference to heaven) what god each of those was named after. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
"Yeah, that pesky Bill of Rights just keeps biting us in the ass" What was the intent of their authors? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Tim, there's a huge difference between in public and in publicly funded, publicly sanctioned settings. Build a church, rent a hall, get a permit for a revival, but please keep your religion out of MY schools and government buildings. We often hear, "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." There have to be limitations, and I submit that our government institutions, and especially our schools, is where everyone's nose begins. Even then, that's not so much a limitation on the right to worship as it is a protection of that right. When any one religion is allowed to hold sway in our government institutions, and especially in our schools, all other religions necessarily suffer. |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
There is a difference Ron between a government sponsored or sanctioned religion and the freedom to exercise your religion; between having the constitutional right to not only practice but to speak of your religion and having to avoid all mention of your religion in public. When the mention of one's religion is forbidden and history has to be rewritten to excise mention of only a certain religion, then perhaps a problem exists. Tolerance goes both ways on the spectrum. There should be no mention of the Christian religion in a school or public setting? Does that apply to Wiccan or any other religion? Just an off comment, it seems a bit contrary to the intellectual ideal of learning to say you can hear or learn about any subject, unless it happens to be contrary to the views of the minority. (some would argue that situation already exists in our institutions of higher learning) [This message has been edited by Tim (12-08-2004 08:44 AM).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: You are right, Tim. Please name the law that does what you say it does. There is silliness out there, I don't deny it. But should we have prayer in school and should people be forced to hear it? I'm all for it, personally. Let the pain begin! |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
The law would be the Constitution and the Bill of Rights contained therein. Who ever said anything about requiring or having prayer in school? I am talking about equal rights for a Christian as in relation to any other religion, agnostic or atheist. Perhaps an admission Western Civilization does have a few roots and ties with Judiasm and Christianity. I did have to chuckle at the pain comment. Sheesh, the pain numerous professors inflicted upon me over the years, maybe a little payback would be in order. (a joke) |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Tim, I would have no problem at all with a student or member of the public praying in a public building, and short of depriving someone of consciousness, wouldn't know how to stop them any way. I have a great deal of trouble with a teacher or professor or mayor leading a group in such a prayer. The same distinction apply to virtually every other religious activity, as well. quote: We have fairly deep roots in the Roman Empire, too, but I wouldn't expect "In Caesar we trust" to be printed on our money. We have even closer ties to Britain, of course, but no longer let respect for royalty overtly influence our government. Even more importantly, I think, our roots are very much twined in religious persecution, the kind that is virtually inevitable when state and church crawl into the same bed together. I believe the only sure way to protect our right to worship a Christian God, not just for today but for the centuries to come, is to protect all religions. I don't want the majority dictating, or even unduly influencing, my relationship with God. |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
"I have a great deal of trouble with a teacher or professor or mayor leading a group in such a prayer." And the point? "I don't want the majority dictating, or even unduly influencing, my relationship with God." change minority for majority, and this is my point. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
The point, Tim, is called separation of state and church. That way, you don't need to change minority for majority, because neither can hold authoritarian sway. |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
No one disputes or disagrees with the your point Ron. My point, and what I believe a number of others are suggesting is that separation of church and state does not require the obliteration of the mention of Christianity in society. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
But they do disagree, that's the whole point. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: And my point, Tim, is that agreement with your point depends entirely on who you see doing the mentioning. |
||
|
Ladycat
since 1999-07-05
Posts 782At the edge and a doorway,TX |
ACLU/FCC. Let's just stop speaking, breathing and thinking freely. The life that they want us to have would void us of living. Plain and simple. I'm so ashamed. Love, Ladycat "Everything changes, everything stays the same."-Bill Austin |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Looking at the quarter in my hand I realize not only would the government have to strike off “ In God We Trust”, but the date as well, for 2004 is measured from . . . Then it must go to all those military cemeteries and change the dating to something similar to what the French tried; year 1 being the first year of the revolution. And all those school history books. We’ve got some work cut out for us. |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
"But they do disagree, that's the whole point." Depends on what level with which you are dealing. As far as the basic principle involved, there is no disagreement. The disagreement deals with implementation of the principle. Brad indicates he feels prayer in school would inflict pain on those forced to hear such prayer. Ignoring the fact no one suggested school led prayer, the individuals who file the lawsuits most generally indicate they are offended (not pained) by references to Christianity. It would be a bit incongruous for them to argue they feel their will might be overcome and they will become Christian against their will. I suppose they could attempt to argue those weaker than themselves upon hearing the word God spoken will lose their ability of rational thought, but I suspect it as most say, they are offended by the mention of Christianity because it offends their "intellect." This in no way refers to anyone in this forum, and I wish to make that clear. It has been my limited life experience that no one believes they are intolerant or bigoted. However, those who profess the loudest their tolerance are prone to being the most intolerant. I am sorry some are offended by the mention of Christianity. I am sorry some Christians are offended by the mere mention of the Wiccan, Jewish (place your faith). I do feel relative certain that whether you be in the majority or minority, when someone indicates you should not be allowed to mention your faith in public that you will feel offended. So is there a disagreement on the point there should be separation of church or state; or should there be toleration? Not really, the disagreement is as to who or what beliefs you are willing to tolerate, whether it be the majority or minority view. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Tim, you keep using the term "in public," and I honestly have to question whether you're using it the way it sounds to me. Isn't this discussion about God being conducted in public? Do you believe the ACLU or anyone else would take legal issue with our discussion? Do you think they potentially have realistic recourse to stop us? I don't think the issue is what beliefs we are willing to tolerate, Tim, so much as it is where we're willing to tolerate them. And I think in public is a little too murky a definition of that "where" to be useful. We're talking about a separation of church and state, after all, not a separation of public and private. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Tim- I don't see what the problem is? What I'm saying is that I'm fine with student-organized prayer groups, such as the one we had around the flagpole every so often at my school. What I'm not fine with is a school-wide prayer session. I'm not fine with a principal reciting a poem to the entire school about how we should believe in God rather than dressing like freaks and getting knocked up. And I'm not fine with Christian prayer groups being recognized while Karen's kid apparently needs "spiritual guidance" for having a different religion. What's the problem? What's illogical about my opinion? I never once said that people shouldn't be able to talk about God in public. I don't think most other people, aside from some very radicals who may just hate God so much as to want him excised from American memory, are saying that. Then again, I don't believe the words "under God" belong in our Pledge, (at least not the version schoolchildren ahve to recite) so maybe I'm one of those nuts too. John- ""Yeah, that pesky Bill of Rights just keeps biting us in the ass" What was the intent of their authors?" I think the intent was that people should be able to worship religion as they chose without government interference. Admittedly, they probably meant this in a Christian context. But let me ask you a return question: What did these slave owning men mean by "All men are created equal?" If we boil everything down to original intent, you might as well strip me of the right to vote, take away my job, and get me nice and pregnant here at home. And my black neighbor better shuffle hisself back to them fields, massa, because he's not even considered human- he's property. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
hush, First you call on the Bill of Rights then you discount it. Also as regards the slavery issue, that was a case of the majority forcing its view on a minority, (at the expense of 500,000 lives), which I assume you would agree was never the less good. [This message has been edited by Huan Yi (12-10-2004 07:19 PM).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
What about the original intent to make it an evolving document? We often forget that the FF's were far from united and that the constitution was a document of compromise. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: No, I think pain will be inflicted on those who disagree with an authority sanctioned prayer by those who think difference is something to be destroyed. In my junior high school, there was a daily moment of silence. At the time, I thought it was a decent enough idea to promote reading. Of course, it was a way for prayer to be allowed in school. If that's all you want, I'm all for it. But again I don't know of any ACLU suits that go against this type of sanction. Are there? The argument, as far as I can tell, is always about authorities leading prayer and since that authority (principal, teacher, etc.) is supposed to have authority over all students, you create problems. What do you think the stereotypical football player (not all of them of course) will do to the skinny kid who believes he has the right not to attend prayer session if he so chooses? Pain is a real issue here, but it's not about a pain in the ears or a pain in the arse, it's quite physical. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
“What do you think the stereotypical football player (not all of them of course) will do to the skinny kid who believes he has the right not to attend prayer session if he so chooses?” Depends on the school. If it’s on the South side, where I grew up, not much . . . |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Well, now I'm really confused. John- "First you call on the Bill of Rights then you discount it." No, I didn't discount it- I was playing devil's advocate. If you say that since the founding fathers intended relgious freedom to encompass Judeo-Christian worldviews, I'm saying they meant for equality to encompass white landowning men. It's cool- we're both right. That's the beauty of the constitution- read Brad's comment directly after your comment that I'm quoteing from (gee, that was a mouthful...) "Also as regards the slavery issue, that was a case of the majority forcing its view on a minority, (at the expense of 500,000 lives), which I assume you would agree was never the less good." Please explain to me how you came to the conclusion that I would say this is good? And... um... please explain to me how you came to the conclusion that I think the majority forcing its view on the minority is good? |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
