• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Irresponsible Assembly.

Big Les said:
In my school at least, 15-20 years ago, you most certainly would be pulled up for not being seen to sing during hymns, and bow your head and close your eyes during prayers. As long as Christianity is a) your state religion and b) the majority faith (with atheists in the minority also), I can't possibly object to such rituals being observed. But as you say, there's no way anyone should be compelled to do more than be in the same room, and frankly aside from logistical reasons (what do you do with the opt-outs at the same time) I don't see why anyone should have to take part at all. But hey, this is school, not the real world, and children quite simply don't have the same luxury of choice. Perhaps they should, but given the other problems in the typical "western" education system, I think making what is presently a minority feel marginally more comfortable rather than just letting them studiously ignore the hymn lyrics and the head-bowing etc, is over the top cosseting.



Agreed. I may not like it personally, but I can't really argue with that. Compulsion to actively take part, I will protest though.
Click to expand...

I admit, my viewpoint is from the U.S. We have never had a state established religion. The very idea is anathema to what the United States is supposed to be about, so the very idea is sort of alien to me. But on the other hand, it seems to be sort of a petty thing to spend your time and ire over. I have a chronically ill small child that constantly gives us fears of imminent death. And that is just my own small child in my own small family in my own small town. Trust me, there are bigger things in the world to worry about. People who spend inordinate amounts of time fretting over whether their children might be exposed to a Christmas carol in public school just make me sigh and laugh. It simply points out to me that most Americans have no idea of what life and death are truly about. Oh...and they have way too much free time.
 
John Bentley said:
I admit, my viewpoint is from the U.S. We have never had a state established religion. The very idea is anathema to what the United States is supposed to be about, so the very idea is sort of alien to me. But on the other hand, it seems to be sort of a petty thing to spend your time and ire over. I have a chronically ill small child that constantly gives us fears of imminent death. And that is just my own small child in my own small family in my own small town. Trust me, there are bigger things in the world to worry about. People who spend inordinate amounts of time fretting over whether their children might be exposed to a Christmas carol in public school just make me sigh and laugh. It simply points out to me that most Americans have no idea of what life and death are truly about. Oh...and they have way too much free time.
Click to expand...


Well said.

And I agree. I've never been faced with anything like what you are going through and can't even imagine how terrible it has to be.

I wish you and your family the best.

Tokie
 
It is important to learn at an early age that religious people have no respect for anyone outside of their religion, or any respect for religious freedom for anyone but themselves.
 
With respect John, and I admire anyone dealing with what you describe, what bearing does your very unfortunate personal situation have on other people's priorities and chosen courses of action? If all of us were so afflicted, or our nations were on a true war footing (for example), you would have a point, but sadly, such hardships are borne by a minority in today's society. Just about everything starts to seem insignificant when life is genuinely hard (and I agree that this issue doesn't even appear on the "dangerous" radar), but why should the rest of us stop worrying about everything else? Not everyone can be a charity worker or a member of the emergency services, or do anything comparably important in their spare time. So the rest of us acknowledge that our jobs or hobbies are relatively insignificant, and our personal lives relatively trouble-free, but feel able to pursue such interests nonetheless, and it's right that this should be the case. From "our" perspective, we are trying to improve a small area of life as we see fit, and in a way

Not that I do anything more than pontificate on the internet and with friends about such things. I'm no activist. And as I've said, I really don't think this issue is worth worrying about, unless children are being compelled to actively take part. Even that isn't the end of the world, of course it isn't. But why not aspire to something better (from one's own perspective at least)?
 
JoeEllison said:
It is important to learn at an early age that religious people have no respect for anyone outside of their religion, or any respect for religious freedom for anyone but themselves.
Click to expand...

And that all black people love watermelon.

(sitting back, waiting for the warning)

Tokie
 
Big Les said:
With respect John, and I admire anyone dealing with what you describe, what bearing does your very unfortunate personal situation have on other people's priorities and chosen courses of action? If all of us were so afflicted, or our nations were on a true war footing (for example), you would have a point, but sadly, such hardships are borne by a minority in today's society. Just about everything starts to seem insignificant when life is genuinely hard (and I agree that this issue doesn't even appear on the "dangerous" radar), but why should the rest of us stop worrying about everything else? Not everyone can be a charity worker or a member of the emergency services, or do anything comparably important in their spare time. So the rest of us acknowledge that our jobs or hobbies are relatively insignificant, and our personal lives relatively trouble-free, but feel able to pursue such interests nonetheless, and it's right that this should be the case. From "our" perspective, we are trying to improve a small area of life as we see fit, and in a way

Not that I do anything more than pontificate on the internet and with friends about such things. I'm no activist. And as I've said, I really don't think this issue is worth worrying about, unless children are being compelled to actively take part. Even that isn't the end of the world, of course it isn't. But why not aspire to something better (from one's own perspective at least)?
Click to expand...

Just so. Most of us in Western culture have really never known any real hardship. Even our poor live like kings compared to the TRULY poor in places like Africa.

I know a family that spends every Halloween hiding in their basement reading the Bible by candlelight.

This is an extreme, to be sure, but it should tell you something about the way some people percieve the world. And, by the way, it's not just rightwing evangelical fundy nutjobs who percieve it this way. It's not evangelicals who are leading the charge to rid the public square of any mention of Christmas, Colombus Day and now even Thanksgiving. It's the PC left.

Tokie
 
I realize that my response was a bit strident. I should clarify that none of the respondents or the OP fall into my category of spending inordinate amounts of time obsessing over this topic. I was speaking more about the people who actually bog down the court system sueing their school system for singing Christmas carols, or similar silly actions in my opinion. I'm not asking for pity for my kid, I just mentioned it to illustrate that facing death on a very personal level, even when it is essentially insignificant in the grand history of the cosmos, tends to lift the blinders. There is so much death and destruction in the world and so many ways that every one of us could make a real difference in the impact of these calamities that obsessing about one religious phrase in a children's song just seems silly to me now. I guess I disagree a little with you about not everyone being able to do something helpful in these areas. You only have to look as far as the end of your nose to find a way to truly help.

As for intolerance from the religious, as JoeEllison describes, I don't think that is limited to religion. For instance, here in the U.S., the anti-smoking crowd is so incredibly intolerant, that they want to regulate whether or not you can smoke in your own house. That's the first example that comes to my mind, I'm sure I could come up with others. I think intolerance to accept other people's point of view has gotten worse lately in the U.S. People seem to think they have a right to never hear or be exposed to anything they consider offensive or inappropriate. I say, your life has to be incredibly "Brady Bunch" free of problems to worry about some of this stuff.
 
Tokenconservative said:
I like to know where a person sits before listening to them quack at me about where it is they stand.
Click to expand...
This could be your biggest problem. It should not be important to know "where a person sits". Doing so is blatant prejudice, and calling them out for it is Argumentum ad Hominem.

You should learn to argue the arguments, not the person.

You might find you can actually "fight" against the "libs" more effectively, when you learn to debate more effectively.
 
JoeEllison said:
It is important to learn at an early age that religious people have no respect for anyone outside of their religion, or any respect for religious freedom for anyone but themselves.
Click to expand...
Yikes. It's a contest to see who can make the grossest generalizations, my friends!

~~ Paul
 
The rush to generalizations I'm seeing in this thread is highly characteristic of a cognitive phenomenon called the "availability heuristic" (I'd post a wiki link if I had the post count to do so...). Basically, we base our perception of a group on those examples of the group that come to mind most readily. With groups of people, this means that the most vocal (and thus often the most extreme) are those we take as representative of the average member of the group. Every viewpoint has those who will take it too far, and those are often the most vocal and/or most covered by the media. To assume that the Westboro Baptist Church is representative of Christianity, or that Michael Moore is typical of liberals, is a major cognitive error.

Back on topic, I find it slightly distasteful to have children assembled to sing a religous song in a public school, as this does imply that the school (and, by extension, the government it's attached to) endorses that particular religion. Far better would be teaching about a variety of religious (and non-religious) belief systems, without any implicit or explicit statement about their veracity, though this would be best left for Social Studies class, not the science class.
 
Wow, good post Leicontis. I certainly do that all the time, try as I might not to. I suppose that phenomenon served us well when we lived in small insular communities - the examples of "different" people you met really would have been representative. I guess our brains just haven't caught up with the fact that we can now very readily converse with people of all sorts from all over the world. Our primitive coping mechanisms just aren't up to it.

And yes, in my ideal world, schools wouldn't push any religion above another, nor above atheism, just teach about all of these positions. Back in the real world, that's just not feasible for the foreseeable future. The majority in the UK and US at least, are Christian, and it's my country's official religion. It'll have to come, if it comes at all, as the result of a gradual process of social change.
 
Wowbagger said:
This could be your biggest problem. It should not be important to know "where a person sits". Doing so is blatant prejudice, and calling them out for it is Argumentum ad Hominem.

You should learn to argue the arguments, not the person.

You might find you can actually "fight" against the "libs" more effectively, when you learn to debate more effectively.
Click to expand...


LOL!

Well, I wish you luck in that battle, but tell me: using this approach has permitted success how many time for you?

Look, I am not attempting to convince or convert any lefties. That's not something I can do regardless of how logical I might be (and believe me, there was once a time I followed your very youthful and inexperienced advice myself!). In fact, once you get a few more years of dealing with libs under your belt, you may come to the same realization I did about oh, 6-7 years ago: those few who are not antilogical are at minimum alogical.

By the way, for your continuing education: identifying someone for what they are ideologically is no more an ad hom argument than is pointing out that they have a big zit on their nose, so long as they DO have a zit on their nose.

Your youth and inexperience apparently have not led you to understand either that a modern American lib's first line of defense is to DENY his/her/other own liberal-ness. They are not a liberal! They are a "centrist", a "moderate" at most a "progressive", an "anarchist" (LOL!) or my personal favorite after someone pelts me with a virtual index of permissible lefty stances "I have no particular political views!!!"

Oh...um, in case you have not figured it out yet, along with lacking any ability to think or certainly emply logic, libs are hypocrites.

Tokie
 
Leicontis said:
The rush to generalizations I'm seeing in this thread is highly characteristic of a cognitive phenomenon called the "availability heuristic" (I'd post a wiki link if I had the post count to do so...). Basically, we base our perception of a group on those examples of the group that come to mind most readily. With groups of people, this means that the most vocal (and thus often the most extreme) are those we take as representative of the average member of the group. Every viewpoint has those who will take it too far, and those are often the most vocal and/or most covered by the media. To assume that the Westboro Baptist Church is representative of Christianity, or that Michael Moore is typical of liberals, is a major cognitive error.
Click to expand...

Indeed.

But can you NAME a prominent "moderate liberal" in American politics...I mean, one that was not assassinated in Texas in the early 1960s?

This phenomenon is well-known among conservatives who've studied the enemy and come to a better understanding of that enemy,

In this forum, for example, the "definition" most posters hold (though they may not admit to it and most assuredly will not put it to um..screen) of "conservative" runs along these lines: stupid, ignorant, backward-looking, racist, sexist, homo'phobic', xeno'phobic', backwoods, warmongering chickenhawk hater.

They ENTER all ideological and political discussions with this "definition" burned in their minds and so any conservative wishing to engage a lib in any sort of discussion must be aware of this GOING IN, or said conservative will quickly find him/herself in a state of utter puzzlement by his/her enemy's statements and arguments. To wit: conservatives only want secure borders becasue the hate people with brown skin. WMD were not found in Iraq (not true, but beside the point) ergo, conservatives are warmongering haters. The IPCC (a political body and part of a UN that is determined to destroy the US) has found that the US is causing Global Warming; only conservatives deny this, because they are ignorant. Etc., etc.

Conservatives who enter discussions with libs who do NOT understand this hardwired "definition" often end up chasing their own tails. It's like a heart surgeon opening up an abdomen and wondering why the heart is this enormous liver-colored thing that isn't beating. If you don't know, or in a milquetoast conservative way continue to believe "they are just like us, only with slightly differing views on a few things," you end up giving a heart patient a new liver.

You have to understand that liberals are not "just like us." They are and have been working very, very hard to destroy not only America but indeed all of Western culture for a very long time now.

The bad news (to loyal Americans) is they have been very successful in these endeavors.

Tokie
 
Big Les said:
Wow, good post Leicontis. I certainly do that all the time, try as I might not to. I suppose that phenomenon served us well when we lived in small insular communities - the examples of "different" people you met really would have been representative. I guess our brains just haven't caught up with the fact that we can now very readily converse with people of all sorts from all over the world. Our primitive coping mechanisms just aren't up to it.
Click to expand...

And there it is.

Here, a lib has decided that what the heuristic in question means is: we hate anyone who does not look like us.

This is a perspective that is hardwired into the liberal mind (a liberal who either does not have this or somehow rewires him/her/otherself, instantly becomes an non-liberal, one of the very "others" about which Les believes he is speaking).

Today, in America, the most bigoted, prejudiced and hateful institution with any power has to be identified as the "liberal movement." Does that mean every person who is say, a registered Democrat is one of these?

No. But every person of POWER on the left is. The individual liberal can seperate from the hate, bigotry, etc. of his movement to some degree, but not openly/ publicaly.

Of course, every lib reading this is now blowing snot all over his/her/other keyboard as they fume over the revalation of this truth (something else liberal ideology cannot stand).

But no lib reading this can name a national, liberal figure who is in favor of our efforts in Iraq.

And of course, the argument is: well of course not! Only a mad fool would be in favor!!!

And if you do not understand what the last two paras/lines here portend for ration discourse, you are either truly blind or...a liberal.

Tokie
 
Last edited:
Leicontis said:
The rush to generalizations I'm seeing in this thread is highly characteristic of a cognitive phenomenon called the "availability heuristic"
Click to expand...

Oh...and my "generalizing" is hardly rushed.

I've been engaging in political discourse of this nature since before there was a real Internet to do it on (anybody remember "bulletin boards?").

Tell me, Leo, is there a similar name/phenomenon for those who assume "rushing" when the opposite is true?

Tokie
 
I have come to the conclusion that Tokie is, in fact, a Berkeley student that is simply faking his opinions. If he were for real, he would be unable to operate a computer.

Howdy, Tokie. I'm a conservative. The descendant of a long line of soldiers, dating back to the French and Indian War. I'm of the opinion that Roosevelt ruined the country with his social programs, and everything after that has been a consequence.

Sir, you are what is wrong with America. Your blindness, your faith-based politics... and I'm not talking religion, I'm talking about your view of the world. You see, there's one view of the world, where you look at the evidence and make up your mind based on your moral standards. There's another one where you skip looking at the evidence and just make up your mind based on what you feel in your heart to be true.
That second one is impossible to argue against, because it has no connection to reality. And that, sir, is how you operate. You pick a conclusion and then search for evidence to prove it.

snip
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LibraryLady


Liberals who favor Iraq? Dennis Miller. Ed Koch. Happy, now?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tokenconservative said:
And there it is.

Here, a lib has decided that what the heuristic in question means is: we hate anyone who does not look like us.
Click to expand...

Er, no. What I was saying was that we all tend to go approach people with certain assumptions and prejudices, and that we need to be aware of that phenomenon in order to be fair and not make decisions on the basis of this first impression. And that goes for what people say and do, not just how they look. I was just wondering if that was originally a useful way to think, but that in today's admittedly liberal society, it's not appropriate.

How you get "we hate anyone who does not look like us" from what I wrote, I really don't know.

You don't know me, and I'd sooner you didn't do exactly what I was talking about and pigeonhole me as some Eurowussie bedwetting pinko. By American standards, yes, I am liberal. However, I am not a Liberal as such. I am pro-military, given half a chance I would be pro-gun, would demand a scientific argument for the restriction of hunting, and by UK standards I would be seen as conservative in some ways, a Liberal in others. The political situation here is not nearly so neatly divided as it appears your own country is. All things considered, if I lived in the US, I'd probably be seen as some kind of Libertarian, but I take relatively little interest in politics to be quite honest, and am certainly not politically active. I can't stand any of our three political parties, and will be spoiling my paper at our next election.

Much as I do dislike the ideology of the far right, I equally despise that of the far left. It's pretty clear that whoever gets the upper hand and ceases being the plucky underdog trying to bring down an "oppressive" orthodoxy, once given a sniff of power simply tries to institute their own new orthodoxy, in the case of the left, probably to include new, more numerous and restrictive laws, and an imposed secular morality that is no less onerous than that of the religious right.

You're not dealing with one of your cookie-cutter sandal-wearing stereotypes here, so do you think you could step off the soapbox for just one moment?
 
A note: The snip in my post above was made because I reported my own post. I wasn't sure if I went too personal in the matter or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom