The Republican candidates in an Iowa debate stated that their major political influence was Jesus Christ. This is bull fecal matter! That is a violation of the seperation of church and state.
Likewise, Christmas and Easter being federal holidays is as well.
Feel free to flame me with your flames of hell!
I know First of Two is on my side :-)
------------------
"Sell the kids for food" - Kurt Cobain
In Bloom, Nirvana
------------------
"I've never seen anything this beautiful in the entire galaxy. Alright, give me the bomb" -Ultra Magnus, Fight or Flee
In former times, the church was the state. If I and my conquering horde rode into town and conquered your people, one of the first items on the agenda (right after raping, pillaging, and burning) would be to either tear down your temple and carry off your "gods" (idols, statues, whatever) into captivity, or the destruction of said gods and the installation of our own gods in your temple.
Until relatively recently in Britain, you had to be a member of the Anglican church to hold public office or practice law. In some cultures, failing to worship the approved deity (or pantheon) in the prescribed method could get you killed. At the very best, not adhering to the "official" religion meant you were not allowed to vote, might not be allowed to own property, and would be restricted from associating with certain people.
The First Amendment reads as follows:
Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Congress can't declare any religion to be the "official" religion of the U.S. It can't prevent you from joining any religion you want, and it can't force you to join one either. They can't stop you from expressing your religion as your conscience dictates, either (the free exercise thereof). At the time, this idea was (quite literally) revolutionary.
In conclusion, if a bunch of people want to elect a person to public office based on the supposition that since he says he's one of them, he'll do things they like, there's no law against it. Even when religion is not an issue, that's the way people vote.
The law exists so when Joe Ultra-Fundamentalist is elected, he can't pass any law making Ultra-Fundamentalism the official religion, and you can't get certain jobs without being an official member. If he tries to anyway, the Supreme court will rule the law unconstitutional.
--Baloo
------------------
When only the police have guns, it's called a police state.
-- Bumper Sticker
http://members.tripod.com/~Bob_Baloo/index.htm
[This message has been edited by Baloo (edited December 23, 1999).]
------------------
Mephistopheles's Repossessions and Furnace Works
C/O
Mephistopheles, Cain, Brutus, Medici, Torquemada, Richelieu,
Metternich, Tweed, Rasputin & Daley, Attorneys-at-Law
1 Perdition-on-the-Styx Plaza
Dis, The Nether Regions
"A Hell of a Law Firm"
2.) I suspect the whole thing to be merely a case of pathetic pandering to the Religious Right (ooh, nice alliteration!) for political purposes.
For the record, I count among my philosophical influences: Robert Heinlein, Carl Sagan, Cheryl Carter-Kern, Bob Farquhar, Socrates, Gary Larson, and Mark Twain.
------------------
Calvin: "No efficiency, no accountability... I tell you, Hobbes, it's a lousy way to run a Universe." -- Bill Watterson
Second point, though. Why does no one say this about Al and Bill when they mention their claimed Christianity? Or complain when Hilary lies about Jesus by saying he was homeless?
As for mine, Jesus, Rush Limbaugh, and Ronald Regan.
------------------
Mephistopheles's Repossessions and Furnace Works
C/O
Mephistopheles, Cain, Brutus, Medici, Torquemada, Richelieu,
Metternich, Tweed, Rasputin & Daley, Attorneys-at-Law
1 Perdition-on-the-Styx Plaza
Dis, The Nether Regions
"A Hell of a Law Firm"
I take it you mean to say, my problem with "Christianity" as such and as it is and has been...
Do you really want a list?
Shall I start with the corruption of the original Christian doctrines amid the scrabbling of the petty factions vying for power in the early centuries after Jesus's death?
Shall I enumerate everything from the murder of Hypatia and the destruction of history's greatest repository of learning, the Library at Alexandria, at the exhortation of a man who is now canonized a saint, down through the Crusades and the Inquisition and the European and American witch hunts, to the present day smarmy hypocracy of the televangelist and the pathetic apathy of those who do NOT oppose them?
Or shall I go scriptural, and describe the many ways in which out-and-out murder is permissible, according to the Bible, even AFTER the advent of Christianity? Shall I let everyone know what Jepthah, biblical hero, did to his daughter? And for what? Shall I argue over the merits of the "divine mercy" shown to Job's children, or the apparently obvious mindset of a God who gives a near-omnipotent evil being free reign over His creations? ("Here's my masterpiece. Go on, SMASH IT!")
Shall I go personal, and admit that I used to be like you, untill I finally had accumulated enough experiences of senseless pain and death and suffering to realize that NOBODY was looking after us?
Do you REALLY want to go there?
------------------
Calvin: "No efficiency, no accountability... I tell you, Hobbes, it's a lousy way to run a Universe." -- Bill Watterson
All the atrocities mentioned were not commited by people following the teachings of Christ. They just claimed the name. Like the televangelists. There are always wolves in sheep's clothing. False prophits, as it were.
"many ways in which out-and-out murder is permissible, according to the Bible, even AFTER the advent of Christianity?"
Can't think of a single one. Enlighten me.
As for Job, more like "Here's my masterpiece. Go ahead and try to smash it. You will fail." And all the stuff that happened to Job was no different than the things that happen every day everywhere. God let it happen, but there was a reason. Good things came of the bad things.
"Shall I go personal, and admit that I used to be like you, untill I finally had accumulated enough experiences of senseless pain and death and suffering to realize that NOBODY was looking after us?"
You think I haven't had problems? I just realize that all bad things that happen have a reason. We survived the Cuban missile crisis, and you think no one's watching over us?
------------------
Mephistopheles's Repossessions and Furnace Works
C/O
Mephistopheles, Cain, Brutus, Medici, Torquemada, Richelieu,
Metternich, Tweed, Rasputin & Daley, Attorneys-at-Law
1 Perdition-on-the-Styx Plaza
Dis, The Nether Regions
"A Hell of a Law Firm"
What utter nonsense. You don't want to head in that direction with me. Really you don't.
Tell me what the divine reason is for systematic child abuse. Tell me why a omniscient being couldn't find a way for the Israelites to share the promised land with the former inhabitants without genocide. Divine for us the wonder of Cystic Fibrosis, Spina Bifida, and Amylotrophic Lateral Sclerosis. Explain to me why a good, friendly, nice young woman should take half an hour to bleed to death after being impaled by a bit of metal in a car crash. Give praise and thanks for Ebola, Malaria, Typhus, Cholera, Smallpox, Bubonic Plague, and Hantavirus, for the Lord God Made Them All.
And you know what? I don't CARE if the people who committed those historical (and present-day) atrocities weren't "real" Christians. (Isn't that a convenient excuse? "Oh, nooooo! It wasn't US, it was the DARK CHRISTIANS!" everytime they want to get away scot-free with something...) For one thing, they sure seemd to THINK they were the "real thing," and for another, and vastly more important... the "real" Christians, where were THEY? They sure as Hell weren't on the front lines, leading the opposition, saying "you can't DO this in the name of our God!" THAT'S what I meant by APATHY.
GO watch the B5 fifth-season episode "The Very Long Night of Londo Mollari." Watch it very carefully. It contains very important lessons for you, as I interpret it. Cartagia represents the "dark" Christians. Londo, your "good" Christians. G'Kar, myself and people like me throughout history. You'll get a hint of what I think about them, and what I want.
Hm. I see we're heading in two parallel directions here, partly the Argument against Christianity in general, and partly the argument against God in particular. Either is sufficient. Both might be a bit much for one thread to handle.
------------------
Calvin: "No efficiency, no accountability... I tell you, Hobbes, it's a lousy way to run a Universe." -- Bill Watterson
------------------
Calvin: "No efficiency, no accountability... I tell you, Hobbes, it's a lousy way to run a Universe." -- Bill Watterson
*flash of inspiration*
Got an explination that may seem simpler.
I think God operates under something similar to the prime directive that He's imposed on Himself. No interference. I think it's similar to what the 'Trek PD should be. For instance, how could stopping an asteroid with a well-placed torpedo interfere with the natural development of a civilization? Stopping a war, on the other hand, would. A war is caused by people, and they can choose to end it any time they want. It's that darned free will thing again.
As for the "real" Christian thing, if they don't at least try to follow the teachings of Jesus, they ain't Christians, no matter what they call themselves. Do you think Christ would have condoned the Crusades? Oh, and there were no (or at least very few) "real" Christians, as you call them, at the time. Remember, the Catholic church controlled the information. If you want to blame someone for those atrocities, pick on them.
Don't think B5 is shown around here. I'll keep an eye out, though.
Do you mean God in general, and Christianity in particular, or am I missing something? (Not trying to nitpick, just curious.)
You may not have a choice, because that IS frequently the answer.
------------------
Mephistopheles's Repossessions and Furnace Works
C/O
Mephistopheles, Cain, Brutus, Medici, Torquemada, Richelieu,
Metternich, Tweed, Rasputin & Daley, Attorneys-at-Law
1 Perdition-on-the-Styx Plaza
Dis, The Nether Regions
"A Hell of a Law Firm"
------------------
--Then, said Cranly, do you not intend to become a protestant?
--I said that I had lost the faith, Stephen answered, but not that I had lost self-respect. What kind of liberation would that be to forsake an absurdity which is logical and coherent and to embrace one which is illogical and incoherent?
James Joyce, A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man.
------------------
"The demon was an idea, the demon is awake. Scratch mark left across the surface of your mind. This hour now upon us, the hour has now arrived."
--
Soul Coughing
Oh, and before someone brings up the fact that God interfered with the Isrealites, they already knew about Him. Everyone did, to begin with, but almost everyone left Him or forgot. The reason the Hebrews were special was that they never forgot God, and if they did, someone who did remember reminded them.
------------------
"Arthur hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realised there was a contradiction there and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife."
As for biblical people and Israel. There is more than one good jew who really wasn't. David for one. Israel didn't even worship God for most of it's existance. The United Kingdom is the only time until after the Exile that they truly worshipped God. Ezra and Nehemiah finally got Isarel to worship God for good, but later they got too legalistic. You can see all this in Judges and any book that contains passages about the divided kingdom.
I am very interested First if you would tell us how Paul corrupted Christ's teaching. If you want to try to start a new, trully Christian church I'll join it.
------------------
If the laws of the land were given to a society should not we take the laws away now?
------------------
"And she stands beneath the mistletoe screaming. For him to stand beneath the mistletoe, screaming."
--
They Might Be Giants
------------------
"Arthur hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realised there was a contradiction there and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife."
------------------
Peace on Earth
God as Janeway?
That would make Jesus Captain Kirk, would it not? Or, perhaps... The Captain of the Exeter? Beaming down to a planet, going native, and affecting the whole planet's culture?
Of course, God isn't really good at obeying His Directive, if you've got miracles all over the place, prayers being answered, spiritual healing, and all that rot.
No, the analogy simply doesn't work.
A Prime Directive God would be a Deist God, who never touches the Earth or its inhabitants, not a Christian God who interveses only when the whim strikes Him.
(Unless you're saying God is as imperfect as Starfleet officers.)
Personally, if I were formulating in my mind a Starfleet Analogy of the Christian idea of God as my reality seems to reflect it, I'd have to say
Commodore Matt "there was... BUT NOT ANYMORE!" Decker.
Good intentions, tried to save the crew... but didn't think it through, and fed 'em all to the planet-killer. A bit too concerned with wrath. Ended up saving the day by destroying himself, thus allowing others to proceed unhindered.
But back to your original answer:
How does a God who "allows" horrid things to happen to the innocent differ from no God at all?
------------------
Calvin: "No efficiency, no accountability... I tell you, Hobbes, it's a lousy way to run a Universe." -- Bill Watterson
------------------
"And she stands beneath the mistletoe screaming. For him to stand beneath the mistletoe, screaming."
--
They Might Be Giants
------------------
Frank's Home Page
"My son and I have this wonderful kind of rivalry. Since I've taken over the Mac department in our home, he's seen fit to take over the PC. I have a routine I do for him, walking down the hall, bumping into walls, doing corkscrews and stumbling. I tell him I'm a Windows operating system." - John de Lancie
I WOULD however like to say this... just as a note..... a lot of attention is called to the fact that bad things happen to good people in religious debates. Over and over again it's heard that "If God loved his people so much, then why does he allow bad things to happen to good people?"
All I'd like to say about that is that bad things don't only happen to good people. Things like that happen to bad people, as well. And also, to reverse the statement, consider the point that God allows good things to happen to bad people and to good people alike.
I don't know what my point was with that. Well, I do... but it's 1am and I can't seem to get it out... maybe I'll edit the poist later and make it more coherent... maybe not... but I just wanted to get that out in the open. We are all children of God, and whether we're "good" people or "bad" people, we are in the same lot for whether good or bad things will happen to us. I don't know why that is, and I'm not about to just take a guess at it. Someday, when each of us meets God, we can ask him that ourselves, I suppose....
Anyway.. that was my personal (though barely coherent) opinion... consider me done with this thread now.....
~LOA
------------------
"The battle is raging inside my weary heart
screaming for me to let it all go...
My body is weak and I can't take the struggle anymore...
the love that was here is filled up by anger and rage..." ~FOM
I'm gonna go pout
------------------
"Sell the kids for food" - Kurt Cobain
In Bloom, Nirvana
With not a whole lot of research, I'm sure you could find within each of the last four administrations an example of one part of the govt. or another breaking MOST of the 10 Bill of Rights amendments, to say nothing of the rest.
1. Freedom of speech, the press, religion.
Well, this one's pretty constant. Everything from sending the IRS after your political enemies to the so-called Internet Decency Act to the so-called Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
2. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. (the 'well-regulated militia' part, being a subordinate clause, is irrelevant.)
Constantly attacked from all sides. Moreso now that it becomes evident that the unarmed are not only vulnerable, but gullible.
et cetera.
as to LOA's comment: I'm afraid I must insist on parity. Some of us have suffered enough.
------------------
Calvin: "No efficiency, no accountability... I tell you, Hobbes, it's a lousy way to run a Universe." -- Bill Watterson
------------------
"Arthur hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realised there was a contradiction there and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife."
------------------
"All in all is all we are" - Kurt Cobain
All Apologies, Nirvana
------------------
Peace on Earth
How do you think Clinton got elected in the first place? He ran on the platform of being a conservative, or at least a moderate. You know, a "New Democrat". Of course, he kept none of the promises he made during his campaign. And according to George Stephanopolis, "The president has kept all the promises he intended to keep." I honestly can't see how the people elected him twice. He's a liberal. Period.
------------------
"Arthur hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realised there was a contradiction there and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife."
. Anyway the Bill of Rights have been stomped on for years, why it wasn't until the 1950's that there was a push to really enforce the Bill of Rights, before that the Constition Gave rights only on the Federal level, the states on the other hand could do what they pleased. In fact even today while most rights have been extended to the to cover all Americans, the entire Bill of rights have not. The best example is that the Right to Bear Arms is only guranteed a Federal Right, however any state could ban firearms. Moreover, just because the Supreme Court has extended most of the Bill of Right to a state level they can also revoke that at any time.
------------------
"Think of all the delightful aspects of the reproductive process: menstruation, pregnancy, labor. And the part we're trying to eliminate is sex?" Cecil Adams the guy who does Straight Dope.
Anyone who claims that Jesus of Nazareth was a great moral teacher but nothing more is a fool, period. How can a man who claimed over and over again to be a god be a great moral teacher? How can a person who taught that belief in his diety was the only way to get into heaven be a great moral teacher? Many Bible quotes come to mind, but the most relevant is probably John 14:6. "Jesus replied, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me'" (quoted from the New International Version).
There are only three possible logical opinions on Christ, if you accept that the words that the four gospels accredit to him are actually his:
1. He is a liar.
2. He is a lunatic.
3. He is Lord of the Universe.
I'd recommend you get all the facts before you make up your mind which opinion to espouse. As for which one I espouse, well, does my signature quote give you any idea?
------------------
Dane
"...and there was war in heaven..." The Bible, Revelation 12:7
4. He was wrong, or at least, not entirely correct.
of course, I continue to subscribe to "it probably never happened anyway, just a more 'contemporary' retelling of the 'dying god' archetype, with some Judaism thrown in and a great deal taken from the story of Apollonius of Tyre."
------------------
Calvin: "No efficiency, no accountability... I tell you, Hobbes, it's a lousy way to run a Universe." -- Bill Watterson
------------------
"Arthur hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realised there was a contradiction there and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife."
Anyway, Clinton is the most goddamned conservative President since, well, George Bush. Okay, bad example, but he's conservative! None of his programs (at least not many) have been liberal. Ever hear of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Bill? The first part was fascist and the second part states-right republican bullshit. He's a conservative if I ever met one.
------------------
"All in all is all we are" - Kurt Cobain
All Apologies, Nirvana
Jesus being the son of God is wholly absent from the gospels. The concept of the messiah as being the son of God is kinda hinted at in the Old Testament, Paul really hones in on it in his letters, but the entire concept of the trinity didn't get nailed down until Nicaea I, IIRC.
------------------
"Is this real life? Is this just fantasy?"
-Queen, Bohemian Rhapsody
"O people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians)! Do not exceed the limits in your religion, nor say of All�h aught but the truth. The Messiah 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), was (no more than) a Messenger of All�h and His Word, ("Be!" - and he was) which He bestowed on Maryam (Mary) and a spirit (R�h)[] created by Him; so believe in All�h and His Messengers. Say not: "Three (trinity)!" Cease! (it is) better for you. For All�h is (the only) One Il�h (God), Glory be to Him (Far Exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And All�h is All�Sufficient as a Disposer of affairs."
------------------
"20th Century, go to sleep."
--
R.E.M.
"Philip [the disciple] said, 'Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.' Jesus answered, 'Don't you know me, Philip, after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.'" (John 14:8-9)
"I and the Father are one." (John 10:30)
"When Jesus saw their faith, he said, 'Friend, your sins are forgiven.' The Pharisees and the teachers of the law began thinking to themselves, 'Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but God?'" (Luke 5:20-21) [Forgiveness of sin was recognized as the prerogative of God alone; Jesus' numerous claims to forgive sin are thus claims to divinity.]
As far as Jesus' claims of Sonship:
"After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: 'Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you.'" (John 17:1)
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him." (John 3:16-17)
"They all [the elders and chief priests] asked, 'Are you then the Son of God?' He [Jesus] replied, 'You are right in saying I am.'" (Luke 22:70)
"'But what about you [disciples]? Who do you say that I am?' Simon Peter answered, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' Jesus replied, 'Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.'" (Matthew 16:15-17)
"'Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son?'" (John 10:36)
(All quotes from the New International Version.)
These are all the words of Jesus as recorded in the gospels. You can either believe that he said them, or believe that someone made them up. Neither you nor I can prove the point one way or another. A decision to believe it or not to believe it is a decision based upon faith. So... where do you place your faith? And are you willing to bet your life on it?
(Oh, and not to be TOO much of a smart ass, but DT and Tom, don't you think you ought to READ a book before you comment to closely on it?)
Have a great last day of 1999, everyone!
------------------
Dane
"...and there was war in heaven..." The Bible, Revelation 12:7
Oh, yeah. His plans for socialized medicine are conservative. Unnesecary tax increases aren't liberal, either. Oh, and wanting to give up part of our national soverignty with the NTBT, that's definitely not a liberal idea. He refuses to even consider a tax cut or a spending cut. The man has all the ear-marks of a liberal. Your definitions of conservative and liberal may be completely wacky, but the way most people think, conservative means that the government gets less power, and liberal means that the government gets more power. Clinton's a liberal. Period.
As for Jesus being the Son of God, Dane pretty much fried you all there, so all I can add is "Amen!"
------------------
"Arthur hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realised there was a contradiction there and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife."
It's actually an interesting argument that, if it wasn't directed towards Jesus, I could imagine a lot of Christians agreeing with. That is, the idea that God has the capacity to have children makes God more like us, and one of the central principles of Islam is that God is absolutely nothing at all like us. Hence, such a trinity is rather blasphemous.
Of course, you are free to doubt the divine nature of the Qur'an. (I put the apostrophe in the wrong place earlier.) I certainly do. But then, why one book and not the other?
------------------
"20th Century, go to sleep."
--
R.E.M.
Let me first attack Omega's definition of conservatives.
Why do conservatives support a larger military? Stricter police forces? "Family values"? Anti-abortion bills? Aren't these the government?
If you were truly conservative, you'd be all for unrestricted abortion, unrestricted freedom of speech, a small, stay-at-home military, smaller police forces, open immmigration, and no death penalty (we actually agree there).
"No way, no how would I let dat evil governememement put its nose in our affairs! Git outta here, and keep yer federal aid away from dem poor people! That's fascism it is, lettin da governemement give money to dose der poor people in da ghettos. Oh, yeah, wait, I forgot, keep out dem goddamned wetbacks! Thanks for dat Mr Government!"
That's my impression of a conservative (if you are from the south, I mean no disrespect)
Clinton's actions in regard to foreign policy have been roundly hawkish, and what is more Republican than killing in the name? Like I said, the AT&EDP Act was beyond conservative. If I was a specialist on domestic policy, I could go on, but I'm not and I don't feel like researching it cause it is New Year's Eve!
------------------
"All in all is all we are" - Kurt Cobain
All Apologies, Nirvana
------------------
Elim Garak: "Oh, it's just Garak. Plain, simple Garak. Now, good day to you, Doctor. I'm so glad to have made such an... interesting new friend today." (DS9: "Past Prologue")
"But then, why one book and not the other?"
Because, IIRC, the Bible, which predates the Qur'an, specifically says that after Christ and his Apostles, there will be no more prophets.
"Why do conservatives support a larger military? Stricter police forces? "Family values"? Anti-abortion bills? Aren't these the government?"
Yes, but those don't give the government power in more areas of our lives. They strengthen the power in the areas it already has power in. Keeping order and defending the country are two of the primary responsibilities of a government. Dare I say, THE two. There's no family values legislation that I know of, so that can't give the government more power, but as for why we believe in them as a principle, it's because children born into stable families have a FAR lower chance of ending up on drugs or in prison. And anti-abortion bills: that's not about giving the government more power. It's about not restricting laws involving murder to humans that have already been born.
------------------
"Arthur hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realised there was a contradiction there and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife."
------------------
"20th Century, go to sleep."
--
R.E.M.
------------------
"Arthur hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realised there was a contradiction there and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife."
------------------
"I've never seen anything this beautiful in the entire galaxy. Alright, give me the bomb" -Ultra Magnus, Fight or Flee
------------------
"Arthur hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realised there was a contradiction there and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife."
"Of course, you are free to doubt the divine nature of the Qur'an." Why thank you for affirming my rights! As I said in my last post, since none of us can prove ourselves correct here, it all comes down to where you place your faith. I reiterate my question: Are you willing to bet your (eternal) life that you're right and everyone else is wrong?
DT: Nice parenthetical comment there ("it's you people that lead me to be a self-described athiest who believes in a supreme being") but please don't blame me for the fact that someone who happens to believe what I believe treated you poorly in the past. That's like blaming a person for a racist attack because they're the same race as the attackers. I do look forward to your reply on the issue though.
Omega: Thanks for the Amen! I'll pass on arguing the accuracy of Biblical prophecy versus that of other so-called holy books. Here's a better proof that a person's religious beliefs/faith/spirituality is real: Is your life better in every way now than it was before you believed? Mine is, and no one can argue with that!
------------------
Dane
"...and there was war in heaven..." The Bible, Revelation 12:7
[This message has been edited by Dane Simri (edited December 31, 1999).]
------------------
You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.
Regarding Islam, they do believe that Moses and Jesus were divinely inspired, and they do accept portions of the Torah and the Gospels. (Hence the Jews and the Christians often being refered to as the People of the Book.) But as to which specific portions are included, I couldn't say.
Now I'm going to horribly overgeneralize here, but I'd imagine Christianity, in the eyes of Islam, is viewed rather like Judaism is viewed by many Christians. Well-meaning, but not quite getting the whole picture.
One other thing; I think your approach towards conversion is a little misguided, Dane. If Christianity is meant to appeal to people, it has to be because it is true. This "what if" business is nonsense, because it can be applied equally to any belief system. There are probably several hundred religions out there. The odds of picking the right one are rather small. What if the Branch Davidians had the right idea? Or Morgan whatshisname and his Heaven's Gate folks? No, any attempt to convert cannot be grounded in the what if argument because such an argument has no foundation. Besides, faith through fear is no faith at all, is it? Why else grant humans free will?
------------------
"20th Century, go to sleep."
--
R.E.M.
[This message has been edited by Dane Simri (edited January 01, 2000).]
Sol, you make several excellent points. But I think perhaps I've misrepresented myself a little bit. You said that my "approach towards conversion is a little misguided." If you've seen my postings as attempts to convert anyone, you've missed my point. I'm merely trying to correct misinformation about Christianity when I see it pop up, and point out that, in the end, everyone has to make a decision -- based upon faith -- as to which basket to place all of their eternal eggs in.
You said, "This 'what if' business is nonsense." If by "this what if business" you mean my urging people to consider the eternal consequences of choosing incorrectly, I would adamantly disagree. I think one of the most valuable questions a person can ask himself is, "What if I died right now, found myself standing before God, and heard Him ask, 'Why should I let you into my Heaven?' What would I say?"
Free will to decide our eternal fate is a tremendous gift, but like all such gifts, comes with a tremendous responsibility. That responsibility is to make sure you know the facts before you make your decision. Some, by their postings on this thread, have shown that they don't have all the facts straight on Christianity. I've only tried to correct that.
Oh, and I'm also trying to help DT get rid of the "Member" designation in favor of something more interesting.
------------------
Dane
"...and there was war in heaven..." The Bible, Revelation 12:7
------------------
--Then, said Cranly, do you not intend to become a protestant?
--I said that I had lost the faith, Stephen answered, but not that I had lost self-respect. What kind of liberation would that be to forsake an absurdity which is logical and coherent and to embrace one which is illogical and incoherent?
James Joyce, A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man.
Most OT prophesy came true, or it's supposed to later. I am not going to comment further because it's a tough argument in person much less internet.
--WARNING!!--
I AM working on a major in Bible and maybe a minor in philosophy, and later a Master's. I will have a whole lot of stuff to throw out in the future. Stuff most of you will be scratching your head's at.
---
May I suggest reading the bio of C.S. Lewis, or the well know story of Josh McDowell if your looking for stories on convertion (sp.) and proof.
------------------
Peace on Earth
------------------
"Obesity. Adiposity. Corpulence. Whatever word you use, it represents one thing: being a big fatass."
Geraldo Rivera
And, there remain the occasional discrepancies between OT prophecies and what the NT says actually happened during the time of Jesus, (although these are always cleverly claimed to be errors in translation, usually by the same people who claim that the Bible is infallible.)
Prophecy, especially couched in obscure and often mis-and-retranslated phrasings, is open to a multitude of interpretations, and a clever mind will be able to see myriad ways in which they have "come true." Witness the plethora of works about the so-called Prophecies of Nostradamus.
In fact, I daresay a number of SF writers have had prediction rates approaching the "accuracy" of the Bible. And some of THEM actually gave approximate dates, a feat which the Bible remains completely incapable of.
------------------
Calvin: "No efficiency, no accountability... I tell you, Hobbes, it's a lousy way to run a Universe." -- Bill Watterson
And the most accurate NT is in Greek (OT Hebrew), and can only be properly translated by people who look at everything and not those who just pick and choose whatever word they want to use.
Oh, while on the subject, the recent Bibles that have come out like the Message and others PARAPHRASES are bad. Be careful what you are reading. NRSV is considered the best. Any version of the King James' is outdated.
------------------
Peace on Earth
Bryce (and everyone else): Keep in mind that there are some who have been indoctrinated into the belief that the King James version of the bible (henceforth abbreviated as KJB, not to be confused with the New King James version) is the ONLY correct version of the bible in existence.
I suppose that means if you don't read (King James') English, you'll never know the real truth?
References to the KJB sometimes pushes my buttons. My grandma was convinced that only this version of the bible was correct. Why did she believe this? Because she had been taught to.
I understand that the KJB was actually a paraphrase of the Bishop's bible that was in use at that time. It was written in Middle English, and was difficult to understand by most of King James' contemporaries. Calling it a paraphrase means that they did not examine archival texts of the various books in the original languages. Rather, they (whoever paraphrased the KJB) examined the text line by line, and rendered the nearest equivalent in (for them) modern English.
While there is a place for paraphrased texts (Reader's Digest, anyone?) I don't like to use a paraphrased Bible for reference, since the meanings are necessarily suspect and imprecise. If I had a talent for languages (sadly, I don't) I would prefer to have my texts in the original languages.</Tangent>
--Baloo
------------------
EXPERIENCE, n. The wisdom that enables us to recognize as an undesirable old acquaintance the folly that we have already embraced.
--Ambrose Bierce
Come Hither and Yawn...[/B]
------------------
"20th Century, go to sleep."
--
R.E.M.
[This message has been edited by Sol System (edited January 02, 2000).]
Sol: What statement? If its about the Bibles its just the opinion held by many theologians today. Every professor in the department at my school would make the same statement I did. Many of those professors have translated the Bible more than once for different versions. I had only good intentions, also.
I was simply trying to answer for the statements First made in the post above mine. And I am not far along, I have 23 hrs.
------------------
Peace on Earth
[This message has been edited by bryce (edited January 02, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by bryce (edited January 02, 2000).]
------------------
It's no use. I guess I'll have to leave all my money to the Egg Advisory Council. Eggs have gotten quite a bad rap lately, you know, Smithers.
~C. Montgomery Burns
Anyway, I just want to back up Dane and Omega's statements that their lives are better now than they EVER were before they believed... that is SO true for me. I always believed, but I never truly ACCEPTED it... I never placed my faith in it.... but since I have, things have just been amazing for me.
And Sol.... as for your post about how you think life is just fine right now even without God, so did I... I truly thought that my life was grand... but since I've accepted Christ and begun my relationship with Him, things have gotten even better than I ever could have imagined.
Anyway.. I just wanted to say that...... take it however wanted.. .I know everyone will anyway
~LOA
------------------
"The battle is raging inside my weary heart
screaming for me to let it all go...
My body is weak and I can't take the struggle anymore...
the love that was here is filled up by anger and rage..." ~FOM
Bryce: Jay is correct. I could, and in fact did before thinking better of it, use your "logic" to say the following...
Christians believe the only good woman is one who has been beaten into submission.
Are there Christians who are abusive thugs? Certainly. Does that mean that all Christians beat their wife? Of course not. Please think a bit next time before you type, ok?
------------------
"20th Century, go to sleep."
--
R.E.M.
Anyway, I'm now an Athiest. Officially! Daryus will be proud, but that's it! As Trent Reznor once said, your god is dead! Wait though, he's three people, so that should be okay :-)
I'm going to steer clear of these religious debates for a while...
------------------
"All in all is all we are" - Kurt Cobain
All Apologies, Nirvana
You are such a hypocrite. The programs I talked about are just expanding areas where the government is already there... necessary, of course, because humans were born into sin due to Adam and we need the government?
Conservatives, nature's hypocrites.
------------------
"All in all is all we are" - Kurt Cobain
All Apologies, Nirvana
There's basically two questions you have to ask to determine whether Clinton's a liberal or not: Does the national government have more power now then when Clinton was elected the first time? Would the national government have yet more power if every law he submitted to congress had been passed? Unless I missed something BIG, the answers are "yes" and "yes". In my book, that makes him a liberal.
'Course, then you have to take into account that he's effectively admitted that he's socialist. Remember that interview where he said that it's not our money? And that we wouldn't spend it the right way, anyway? 'Course, how well did the media report it?
------------------
You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.
Tora: You said, "You could substitute any deity for the word 'God,' and the question would basically remain the same, but useless to you because it's no longer the Christian God." Not at all! I AM a Christian, by my own choice and decision, but I would encourage EVERYONE to substitute the name of any and every diety into the what-if question, then live for a while by that diety's principles, test that diety's promises, and see if He/She/It/They measure up. IMHO, the whole purpose of living a human life is to choose where you'll spend eternity... All I'm urging people to do is to make sure they have all the facts before they choose.
Bryce: When I read the following, I nearly fell off my chair:
--WARNING!!--
I AM working on a major in Bible and maybe a minor in philosophy, and later a Master's. I will have a whole lot of stuff to throw out in the future. Stuff most of you will be scratching your head's at.
I don't know if you meant to sound arrogant, but you did. As a fellow Christian, I was very offended by that remark. Oh, and if you think having that degree will give you all the answers, I suggest taking a quick look at Psalm 145:3. Not trying to flame you too much (after all, we're brothers here) but I think you ought to be careful how you phrase things. A mentor of mine once said, "If you win the argument but lose the person, you've lost the argument."
Sol: I loved this one: "I'm sure my life would feel better if I spent my time in an ether-induced haze, too, or looked at it through a bottle. But you see, it wouldn't be my life any longer." All I'll say is that it's been at least five years since I took my brain out and had it washed... Maybe it's time I did it again, huh?
And DT: You said you were going to steer clear, but dropped this on the doorstep on the way out: "The only good Christian is one who fakes their faith." I sure wish you'd explain that before you make your exit from the debate. I don't understand what you mean by it.
Thanks for reading!
------------------
Dane
"...and there was war in heaven..." The Bible, Revelation 12:7
[This message has been edited by Dane Simri (edited January 03, 2000).]
Liberal? I put it to you that EVERYONE who is involved in government is Liberal, by your definition, except those who fight to get laws repealed, rather than passed. (I suppose this makes Anarchists, who want no laws and no government, the Ultimate Conservatives. Too bad anarchy is totally non-functional as a means of society.)
And as for this:
>"I would encourage EVERYONE to substitute the name of any and every diety into the what-if question, then live for a while by that diety's principles, test that diety's promises, and see if He/She/It/They measure up. IMHO, the whole purpose of living a human life is to choose where you'll spend eternity... All I'm urging people to do is to make sure they have all the facts before they choose."
Been there, done that, got the T-shirt (this has recently become my favorite phrase, pardon its overuse.)
You know, I used to be a Methodist Kid. I helped run Church Summer camps, if you believe that.. I went to church with my grandmother (probably the last Good Christian I ever knew personally, possibly the ONLY)
Then, round about 16 some things started to happen, and the stuff really hit the fan with the death of someone close to me when I was 17. So, I started questioning. I used the latent rational mind I possessed to objectively look at the Way Things Are vs the Way Things Should Be, given the existence of God As Advertised. I tested. I probably did some things I shouldn't have, but it was all for the sake of complete objectivity.
The first thing I discovered is that something my father used to say, "Wish with one hand and hold the other behind a horse, and see which fills up first," applied equally to prayer. This held true whether the prayer was selfish in nature or not.
Prayers were "answered" in equal proportion whether they were addressed to "God," the Deity that controls the Universe, or the Great Potato.
This same rule applied to all other "pre-demise" promises experienced by myself and all other experimental subjects. (Objective 'witnesses,' if you will.) Of course, there's no way to test "post-demise" promises scientifically, as I don't yet have the equipment to run multiple tests.
In conclusion, I found that I derived no benefits, aside from that of a false sense of peace of mind, from the Control Subject during my initial run. Further attempts at replicating that effect, even with the Control, were fruitless.
------------------
Calvin: "No efficiency, no accountability... I tell you, Hobbes, it's a lousy way to run a Universe." -- Bill Watterson
[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited January 03, 2000).]
What the hell is it with "conservatives" and the "power" of the government?? Do you even have a clue what your talking about or are you just spouting things you've heard on talk radio without bothering to read on your own? Hmmm??
The government began to expand since the election of Washington, took a giant leap forward under the enigmatic Jefferson, continued to grow under Jackson, and reached a watershed of 19th century growth under Lincoln.
Lincoln say you? Why yes, for he understood that for the promise of the Constitution to extend in full the the citizens of the nation only when the goverment is willing to take an active role to see that it is done. So let's blame him shall we? Perhaps we could blame the Guilded Age presidents (and if you don't know what the Guilded Age is, go look it up) for hiding in a hole while the Robber Barons (see above about reading) raped the country and the citizens while the governement sat idly by not following it Constitutional duty to protect the citizens. All of which precipitated Roosevelt saving the precious capital system we live under by modifying it.
See, were you to actually read the history of the issues you argue so vehemently about crap like Clinton 'expanded government.' Perhaps you would find the Mr. Clinton isn't the person responsible for the increasing power of the United States government in the era since Roosevelt.
Once again, were we to read history one can see that Johnson, like Lincoln before him, understood that the roll of government was to protect the rights of all its citizens' to in effect continue the fight in what one historian defined as America's "Unfinished Revolution" and work in an active fashion to guarantee civil rights.
We might also find that the angelic Ronald Reagan lead to a great expansion of the military bringing about a huge deficit that you so blame on Clinton for trying to fix.
[edited to reflect that it was the elder Bush, another compassionate conservative, who brought on the tax increase and not Comrade Reagan.]
And finally, yes Sally, government does belong in the lives of it's citizens. The Constitution enumerates rights and appoints the government as the institution to protect those rights. I wouldn't trust the majority of coporations to do anything more for their collective workers other than screw them as much as possible to make a buck.
So the pathetic pursual of Clinton by consevative types once again shows how completly childish they are.
------------------
It's no use. I guess I'll have to leave all my money to the Egg Advisory Council. Eggs have gotten quite a bad rap lately, you know, Smithers.
~C. Montgomery Burns
[This message has been edited by Jay (edited January 04, 2000).]
OK, first, expansion of the military to eliminate a threat is good. The defence of this nation is the primary responsibility of the national government. How do they do that? With the military! The military is not the horrible, evil institution Al and Bill believe it to be. It is the first, last, and only line of defence for our freedom.
Second, Regan lowered, not raised, taxes to get the revenue he needed to finance that military buildup. Check the records. Taxes were cut significantly on ALL classes, not just the rich, as revisionist liberals would have us believe. In fact, the rich got the SMALLEST tax cut. As a result of lowering taxes, tax revenues doubled. (And liberals say supply side economics doesn't work.) Unemployment and inflation also dropped to levels not seen since, nor for a good time before. The only tax increase he passed involved a budget deal with the Democrat controlled congress, in which they agreed to cut spending by twice as much as he raised taxes. They lied. They did something similar with Bush, didn't they?
Clinton, on the other hand: has the "man" (I use the term loosely) ever proposed a tax cut? He wouldn't pass a 1% across the board spending cut. 1-freakin'-%! And that's really just a reduction in growth, since there's always something like a 5% spending increase per year figured in to begin with, so to actually CUT spending, you have to first reduce by whatever that rate is.
"I wouldn't trust the majority of coporations to do anything more for their collective workers other than screw them as much as possible to make a buck."
Only if the people running the corporation are idiots. Treating your employies like dirt does the corporation very little good in the long run.
Besides, corporations have rights, too. The government can't choose one side or the other. The best idea would be for the government to let the people and the corporations work things out for themselves, as long as no one violates the rights of anyone else.
So the pathetic pursual of capitalism and the military by liberal types once again shows how completly without a clue they are.
------------------
You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.
------------------
"20th Century, go to sleep."
--
R.E.M.
Omega, read up, I'm now an Athiest! Trinitarians have convinced me god is dead. Anyway, Jesus was a socialist, as was god. Tell me where the corporations were in the Garden of Eden you tool of Satan.
Anyway, I shall not respond to a single of your accusations until you respond to mine about the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act.
Now, over to defending Clinton, who by current political standards is a moderate, not a liberal. The only liberals left are Hillary and Kennedy.
Let me first defend Mr Clinton, then I shall attack him.
To begin with, he's more man than you are. I've got a feeling Bill Jr has seen more action than you.
Now, let us get on with ripping him, shall we?
Conservative policy: Militarily. Clinton plans the largest military increase since Reagan, and likewise has used the military to bomb many countries. That's what Republicans are good at!
Was it just me, or did Clinton cut Welfare? Last I checked this is a strongly conservative thing to do. Republicans, as they are so prone to racism, gladly enjoy slashing welfare so as to take our poor and, effectively, put them into some form of slavery.
"Ain't it funny how the school yards closed, round the time that the factory doors closed, round the time that the doors of the jail cells opened up to greet you like the reaper?"
------------------
"All in all is all we are" - Kurt Cobain
All Apologies, Nirvana
My comment about Christians was in reference to Sol's comment about them in response to the offensive statements about Muslims.
And yes, your life would be better in an ether induced state. But heroin is even better
------------------
"All in all is all we are" - Kurt Cobain
All Apologies, Nirvana
True, but how do you deal with opressive governments like China's? Can't very well force them to make their people free.
DT:
"Anyway, Jesus was a socialist"
Only as far as his followers went. You want to FORCE everyone to give to the poor. God wouldn't want that, as I demonstrated in our ICQ conversation. You gonna post that, BTW?
"Tell me where the corporations were in the Garden of Eden"
What does this have to do with anything?
"Anyway, I shall not respond to a single of your accusations until you respond to mine about the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act."
Haven't had time to look them up yet. Give me some time. Or, if you prefer, post it yourself.
"Now, over to defending Clinton, who by current political standards is a moderate, not a liberal. The only liberals left are Hillary and Kennedy."
I don't care about your "political standards". He wants bigger government. That, my friends and enemies, is a liberal. Period.
"To begin with, he's more man than you are. I've got a feeling Bill Jr has seen more action than you."
My point exactly. I resist temptation. Better yet, I try to avoid tempting situations altogether. He doesn't even seem to have a consience(SP?) to tell him when something's wrong. When did how much sex you've had become the measure of a man?
"Conservative policy: Militarily. Clinton plans the largest military increase since Reagan, and likewise has used the military to bomb many countries. That's what Republicans are good at!"
Well, if you do mean "plans", and that's not just a typo, do you actually believe a word he says anymore? He also claimed to have planned a middle-class tax cut and supposedly had a 100 day plan for his first term. He didn't. I'll believe it when I see it.
And he bombed countries where we had no interests, or no evidence of anything that affected us. Similar to Vietnam, in some cases. The only country he was justified in bombing was Iraq, and he should have continued until we could get inspectors in on a regular basis. He uses the military to get attention away from himself. That's the only concievable reason for all these bombings. It's also pretty odd for someone who "loath[s] the military" to use it so often, wouldn't you say?
"Republicans, as they are so prone to racism"
I have yet to see one example of modern Republican racism, despite all the liberal accusations.
"gladly enjoy slashing welfare so as to take our poor and, effectively, put them into some form of slavery."
More like take them out of slavery. As long as someone can get everything they need from the government, they won't work. They become dependant on the government. THAT's slavery, not forcing the poor to actually work for a living.
"And yes, your life would be better in an ether induced state. But heroin is even better"
Ah, so THAT explains it...
------------------
You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.
As for the religious thread, I don't believe in any God and I don't feel better or worse about it. Like pretty much any one of my age in my town. They believe in God in some way, but don't give a damn about Church and the Bible. As a whole, Christianism seems pretty much dead with the youger generations in Quebec although I can't really give any statistics... In the US, its seems better than ever...
------------------
-If you ask me, I think continuity is highly overrated...
*Brannon Braga*
-Where were you when the brains were handed out?
*Sonic the Hedgehog*
The main purpose of Basic Training is to get young, self-centered males to stop identifying only their own needs and desires, and subordinate them to the group (yes, I know there are females in the military, but they are already accustomed to cooperative social behavior, for the most part). Another aspect of military training (for combat forces, anyhow) is to break down the innate human reluctance to kill without creating a homicidal maniac. Before you try to say that young males are reluctant to kill, keep this in mind: if street gangs killed with the efficiency of a modern army, they's need dump trucks to clear the bodies off the street every morning.
--Baloo
------------------
EXPERIENCE, n. The wisdom that enables us to recognize as an undesirable old acquaintance the folly that we have already embraced.
--Ambrose Bierce
Come Hither and Yawn...[/B]
------------------
Calvin: "No efficiency, no accountability... I tell you, Hobbes, it's a lousy way to run a Universe." -- Bill Watterson
Anyway, show me where Clinton has installed big government. When he slashed welfare? Or when he allowed affirmative action to be shot up in some places?
Yet again, a conservative view on welfare is about as backwards as can be. Because wealthy white American males start at one point does not mean everyone does. But, that's such a slap in the face to capitalism, we couldn't possibly admit that.
You've also yet to comment on immigration. Likewise, please explain to me why I cannot smoke a joint or do LSD without the government arresting me.
Also, I know you're not great at history, but explain to me who it was that ended slavery below the Mason Dixon Line and integrated the Alabama schools? Federal or state governments?
The AT&EDPA is explained in another post in another thread. Its where I declare my support (jokingly) for the FARC
------------------
"Here is another word that rhymes with shame" - Kurt Cobain
Blew, Nirvana
No idea what you mean here. Clinton himself wrote in a letter that he loathed the military, if that helps.
"Anyway, show me where Clinton has installed big government."
Well, let's see: tax increases, that huge socialized medicine plan that he would have implemented by now if he could, that idea of his to supply a preschool education for every kid, for starters. The only reason he hasn't implemented all his ideas is that the Rep congress won't let him (thankfully).
"Yet again, a conservative view on welfare is about as backwards as can be. Because wealthy white American males start at one point does not mean everyone does."
What don't liberals get about this: EVERYONE has equal opportuniny. That does NOT guarentee equal outcome. What you put into your life is what you get out of it. Anyone willing to work that CAN work SHOULD work. And everyone short of a quadrapalegic CAN work in some way. It's not survival of those who are born with advantages. It's survival of those who EARN advantages. Except for the extremely small (and yes, it is extremely small, not nearly as large as liberals would have you believe) percentage of people who inherited their money, everyone in this country who has any amount of money earned it (except those on welfare, that is). It's a great idea: you work hard, you're rewarded. Conversley: you don't work, you don't eat (it's in the Bible, if you're interested: 2 Thessalonians 3:10).
"You've also yet to comment on immigration."
I like immigration, as long as it's legal. Let everyone who wants in in, as far as I'm concerned. I consider someone who comes here from Mexico and flips burgers twelve hours a day to support their family far more American that someone who simply refuses to work, and chooses to live off of others instead.
"Likewise, please explain to me why I cannot smoke a joint or do LSD without the government arresting me."
Good question. Who's administration made that illegal, anyway? As far as I'm concerned, if you want to destroy your life, be my guest. It's yours to do with as you please. As long as you don't force it on anyone else.
"I know you're not great at history"
My world history's a little rusty, that's all. My American history's great. (And don't bring up that Che Gueverra guy. He was a remarkably unimportant figure in the history of the west.)
"Explain to me who it was that ended slavery below the Mason Dixon Line and integrated the Alabama schools? Federal or state governments?"
Neither. The end of slavery was due to an ammendment, which is instituted by the people themselves, not the government. The intigration of schools was caused by a supreme court decision, and the Judicial branch is a seperate entity altogether. The federal government and the military simply enforced that decision.
As for that other thread, sorry, but I can't find any explination of those acts. I did find that reference to the terrorist groups, though.
------------------
You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.
Being blunt, from the tennor of previous posts and questions you've asked, I can say that you don't seem know shite about history. You may be able to spout current political events (with your twist on the explanation) but little that does that a historian make.
"The end of slavery was due to an ammendment, which is instituted by the people themselves, not the government. The intigration of schools was caused by a supreme court decision, and the Judicial branch is a seperate entity altogether. The federal government and the military simply enforced that decision."
The Thirteenth Amendment (Slavery and Involuntary Servitude) was passed using Article V of the Constitution:
"The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both House shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution..."
Meaning that it was passed by Congress acting as representatives of the people, like the Federal Government does with all the legislation it passes. In other words it was not passed by the people which would have been more the case through a more public amending process
"...application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, shall call a convention for proposing amendments..."
Moreover, the Radical Republicans (wow, there is a term we don't need to use today) passed the 13th Amendment on less than up and up terms. They made sure that the representatives of southern states were not seated and therefore could not vote. Futher, they admitted West Virginia as a state under dubious circumstances so that it could vote affirmative on the amendment.
As to the last part of that, the Federal system includes the jucicial branch as a part of government. The three branches are indeed independent, however, like the much argued Trinity, they all fall under the heading of government.
------------------
It's no use. I guess I'll have to leave all my money to the Egg Advisory Council. Eggs have gotten quite a bad rap lately, you know, Smithers.
~C. Montgomery Burns
[This message has been edited by Jay (edited January 05, 2000).]
to Omega: shakes his head, hey at least DT dislikes Clinton as much as you do . Remember that America is the least political country in the world, meaning that there is very little difference between Republicans and Democrats, while in other places a person called a conservate there, would be very Liberal the US, so someone with views on the far left could see Clinton as Conservate (honestly I say he is a survivour, and that he has no moral center, and no core beliefs, but he is deffinately (sp) not a conservative). Anyway most of the stuff DT believes Clinton has done was actually laws and bills passed by the Republican majority Congress, Bill didn't like most of what you said but he didn't have a choice (or option 2 the opinion polls said what he wanted at first wasn't popular, so he changed his mind and took credit).
Actually at the current levels military spending is the lowest levels in has been since before WWII (that is ajusted for inflasion of course).
BTW while my spelling may be bad, I did learn quite a bit about history in school.
------------------
"Think of all the delightful aspects of the reproductive process: menstruation, pregnancy, labor. And the part we're trying to eliminate is sex?" Cecil Adams the guy who does Straight Dope.
Jay:
"Meaning that it was passed by Congress acting as representatives of the people. In other words it was not passed by the people which would have been more the case through a more public amending process "
Uh, it still had to be passed by the people. 3/4 of the states still have to ratify an ammendment, under any circumstances.
"As to the last part of that, the Federal system includes the jucicial branch as a part of government. The three branches are indeed independent, however, like the much argued Trinity, they all fall under the heading of government."
True, but the judicial system doesn't make laws. It simply interprets and enforces existing ones. The government didn't expand with the decision to integrate schools.
"Being blunt, from the tennor of previous posts and questions you've asked, I can say that you don't seem know shite about history."
I'm a sofomore in high school, and my world history course just got to the ninteenth century. Sue me. Besides, what questions are you talking about?
How did we get here, anyway?
*looks back*
Oh, yeah. It was how the government supposedly got more power when it recognized blacks as equal citizins. That'd be like saying the government would have more power if (when) it outlaws abortion. Effectively, it's an expansion of the definition of humanity, and the enforcement of that definition. That doesn't give the US government any more power. In fact, it gives it less. The government isn't supposed to be able to discriminate based on race, color, creed, or social standing, under any circumstances. ('Course, that pretty much invalidates the stupid idea of a graduated income tax, but that's for another thread.) Thus any laws that reduce someones rights based on anything short of criminal activity are illegal, and should be overturned.
------------------
You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.
"Likewise, please explain to me why I cannot smoke a joint or do LSD without the government arresting me."
Well while our government does alloy us much freedom, it is against anything that is extremely disruptive, like, drugs which makes people harder to control and act more randomly (which isn't neccessary bad, it's against the very nature of the government). The government wants us to be productive citizens and does what it can to make sure we are (for example, another good question would be why is suicide illegal, I am serious it is, if you try it you can get arrested or put in a mental institution, because it disrupts order). So my final answer to the drugs question is that it would interfere with order.
------------------
"Think of all the delightful aspects of the reproductive process: menstruation, pregnancy, labor. And the part we're trying to eliminate is sex?" Cecil Adams the guy who does Straight Dope.
>"The government isn't supposed to be able to discriminate based on race, color, creed, or social standing, under any circumstances."
But you're against laws that say so, remember? Or was that against laws that say the states and corporations and people can't... in which case, what's the difference?
------------------
Calvin: "No efficiency, no accountability... I tell you, Hobbes, it's a lousy way to run a Universe." -- Bill Watterson
[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited January 05, 2000).]
There's something in there that you probably didn't even notice that really bugs me. It's this: you equate laws that say that the government can't discriminate with laws that say businesses can't discriminate. If I run a business and, for whatever stupid reason, choose not to hire hispanics, that's my own darn business, and none of anyone elses. Again, that places the rights of corporations on a lower level than the rights of the individual. I submit that the two are equal, and therefore, that the government has no business intervening in any dispute that does not involve the violation of laws. I think we may need a second bill of rights, to protect the rights of corporations. Anyone else like that idea?
------------------
You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.
Perhaps you've never needed your HMO.
You are using circular reasoning, there, though. If there WERE laws, then there would be something to violate, hence the ability for the government to get involved.. but WHO do you think MAKES the laws? The Government.
------------------
Calvin: "No efficiency, no accountability... I tell you, Hobbes, it's a lousy way to run a Universe." -- Bill Watterson
[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited January 05, 2000).]
------------------
You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.
Article I, Section 2
"Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.)
Article IV, Section 2
"No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."
Dred Scott allow slave holders to take slaves into free states and prohibited the slave to sue for freedom at such time. The conclusion not to allow slavery about the line rested in the Missouri Compromise, which in effect Dred Scott declared unsconstitutional.
However, the decision was not unanimous and any decisions by the Court can be rethought and superseded by subsequent decisions. Dred Scott was more a crafted defense of slavery by Chief Justice Taney than anything else.
And quickly, Article I, Section 9 reads:
"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
Lincoln was well within the Constitution when he susspended Habeas Corpus for sections of Ohio.
~~~~
And I just thought this was funny!
------------------
Smithers, do you realize if I had died, there would be no one to carry on my legacy. Due to my hectic schedule and lethargic sperm, I never fathered an heir. Now I have no one to leave my enormous fortune to. No one.
~C. Montgomery Burns
[This message has been edited by Jay (edited January 05, 2000).]
------------------
You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.
[This message has been edited by Omega (edited January 05, 2000).]
Now, you'll say, "Well, corporations could also discriminate against white people" which is true in the sense that, yes, it is possible. However, we deal with more than just possibles. It is also possible that Mexico could invade the US. Should we bomb them now?
And yes, my problems with Clinton are more that he allowed stuff to happen than anything else.
Incidentally, I'm now waiting for my pal Jay and the other liberals to refute the "we all have equal opportunity" bullshit. I feel like I'm hogging the ball (no offence to Ricky Watters intended).
Anyway, above the Mason Dixon Line, most states DID abolish slavery. I live in one. Thankfully, my state was founded by Quakers, a sect of Christianity that doesn't have their heads up their rectums (no, not a contradiction).
Also, I will again look at George Wallace. Now, Omega, I know that you have no problem with black people being denied equal education. But I do. And I don't give a rat's arse what the governor of some backwards state thinks. If it takes the President of the United States to integrate that school, then I'm thankful.
What you damned conservatives don't understand about our constitution is that it is designed to prevent tyranny. The states block the federal government, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BLOCKS THE STATES (I felt caps was neccessary, as you seem not to get this). Now, sure, if you like the idea of denying education to black people (highly inflammatory comment removed) then let us all interpret the constitution the way you do. But for those who like to live in a society where minorities are granted equal rights, then I believe the liberal interpretation is more right on.
And as for your comments about Che, tell that to the current Mexican government. Or, for that matter, tell it to George Bush who would disagree with you.
------------------
"Here is another word that rhymes with shame" - Kurt Cobain
Blew, Nirvana
The phrase "non sequitor" comes to mind. If a white person running a business can deny a black person a job, a black person running a business could do the same thing. Equal opportunity still applies.
"Thus, we NEED the government to make laws giving them the advantage."
Oh, I thought you LIKED the idea of equal opportunity. The government giving anyone an advantage destroys that idea.
"It's also a nice way to pay them back, since I do believe it was white people who enslaved blacks."
Actually, it was mostly blacks who enslaved blacks, who were then sold to the white people. Maybe you should brush up on your history. Care to confirm, Jay? You're suggesting that because my great-great grandfather may have owned a slave, that slave's great-great-grandson should have an economic advantage over me? And what if my grandparents were dirt poor (as they were)? Does that mean I need to be able to demonstrate that my ancestors never owned slaves, so I won't have to accept these economic disadvantages? This is obviously about as dumb an idea as the one that says that someone who's maternal great-grandmother was black can't ride in the white section of a bus because he's black, even though you could never tell by looking. It's the same kind of stupidity, just inflicted on someone else.
"Now, Omega, I know that you have no problem with black people being denied equal education."
Wha... Where the heck did you get that!? I have every problem with it! I've said it several times now: any law that discriminates IN ANY WAY based on race, color, creed, or social standing is unconstitutional, and should not exist. And even if it wasn't unconstitutional, I still would think it was wrong. If a state refuses to abide by a supreme court decision, then they are in rebellion, and it's the president's responsibility to force them to comply, by whatever means nesecary. Thus the forced integration of schools was exactly what was supposed to happen.
Why do you seem to think that I'm against equal rights for minorities? I'm just against SUPERIOR rights for minorities.
"And as for your comments about Che, tell that to the current Mexican government."
The only reference in the encyclopedia article I read on him that involved Mexico is that it's where he met Castro. So either you're confused, or my encyclopedia's missing something important.
------------------
You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.
And yes, white people did enslave blacks. Over there, they may have been sold into slavery by their fellow man, but it was white people buying them. White people whipping them. White people forcing them to slop pigs and pick cotton. White people who hanged them for trying to rebel. White people who were willing to break apart the Union to keep them enslaves. White people who lynched them in the south. White people who denied them the vote. Whie people who denied them education.
Incidentally, it was also white people who committed the greatest act of genocide ever, destruction of the Natives. Do you deny this?
And of course you don't know about Che's impact, you know nothing about him or non-american politics. You don't even know what's going on in Mexico right now. And you didn't get my Bush reference either.
------------------
"Here is another word that rhymes with shame" - Kurt Cobain
Blew, Nirvana
A common misconception, the classic the Civil War was fought over slavery, bull sh*t, slavery was one of many issues that started the civil war which were: economic deferences, States rights, Federal supremacy, slavery, and a few other things. Slavery was not the end all issue of the war, in fact the Lincoln said that ending the war and reuniting the US was more important than the issue of Slavery, it was the point that most pointed out the differences in the north and the south. However the most important issue was states rights, slavery just happened to be the best example of how the south viewed the north nullifying there right to have property and move it where they want.
Ok DT, I bite who the hell is Che, I have no idea who he is and I would like to know who he is and what he did.
------------------
"Think of all the delightful aspects of the reproductive process: menstruation, pregnancy, labor. And the part we're trying to eliminate is sex?" Cecil Adams the guy who does Straight Dope.
And yet we question whether the those fact somehow let white slave holders off the hook. Not by a long shot.
What do we owe a people after 200 years or so of forced involuntary servitude? And then even after that, 100 more years where the constitutional rights guaranteed them were denied by a series of state laws (Jim Crow laws), private hate groups (the Klan), and yes, a government who sat by why it's citizens were hung and denied edutation.
What do we owe them? A whole hell of a lot. It may not be in terms of money, for I think that people think of monitary compensation far too quickly. We at the very least owe them an opportunity to succeed. And that opportunity needs to come from the sectors that kept them at the bottom of society for too long.
Ask me what success is and what leads to it and I'll say education. Most white folk will as well I think. That's becase I come from a class and a culture where education is valued and seen as very important. However, (and by no means should this be interpreted al la that famous book, the Bell Curve and blacks are any less capable of of learning than whites) after being denied the right to read by slaveholders and denied access to education (or at least equal education), it becomes clear that education is much farther down on the list of social / sub-cultural importance.
So what you say, they have equal opportunity now don't they? I would argue that blacks all across the United States to not have the equality of opportunity that whites do. There are reasons for this. Firstly, whites are at the top of the power food chain and are very loath to give up any of that power to anyone. The Jim Crow laws and the rise of the Klan in the late 19th century and early 20th century point to that, and the rise of the more recent racist milita groups are emblematic of the fact that minorities have gained some enroads into the power structure and some white folk don't like that too much.
Secondly, it takes time to change a culture. How long has it been since the Civil Rights movement began? 40 years or so? Is that long enough for a society as a whole to change and accept the fact that minorities are American citizens and grant them the rights deserved? It seems the answer is still no. Is 40 years enough time for that sub-culture denied educational access to change it's priorities to fall more in line with the majority opinion of success? The answer, while it might not be an absolute no, is certainly not yet.
Afirmative action may not be a perfect plan. To be sure there are many flaws in the system. However, and this is a BIG however, affirmative action regarding educational access is very important in that it allows entrance to university for many for whom they are first generation in their family to go to school. They in turn have the chance to go back into the communtiy to build up the knowledge database as it were to the importance of education. Moreover, their children are more likley to go to university. It's better than sitting on our hands as a society and saying let them claw their own damn selves up.
The conservative backlash against such programs as affirmative action shows to me the fact that they want equality in name only. In other words, they shout "equality, equality," but also to remain on the top of the heap. First among equals is a fallacy.
And lord knows I could, but I ain't about to argue the casue of the Civil War, this is not the thread for it, beyond to say that slavery was the central issue in the casues of the war.
------------------
Smithers, do you realize if I had died, there would be no one to carry on my legacy. Due to my hectic schedule and lethargic sperm, I never fathered an heir. Now I have no one to leave my enormous fortune to. No one.
~C. Montgomery Burns
[This message has been edited by Jay (edited January 06, 2000).]
Like many historical figures, he bacame more important in death as a symbol. To some a symbol to struggle against oppressive governments. To others he was a symbol to try even harder to stamp out insurgents.
------------------
Smithers, do you realize if I had died, there would be no one to carry on my legacy. Due to my hectic schedule and lethargic sperm, I never fathered an heir. Now I have no one to leave my enormous fortune to. No one.
~C. Montgomery Burns
"Let me ask you this, how many black billionaires are there? How many CEOs of Fortune 500 companies are black? Hispanic? Native American?"
You realize that this is the case even WITH affirmative action in schools? Here's a suggestion: colleges should be allowed to let people in based on their grades. How does that sound? As it is, black kids are going to get a free ride, and get in no matter how low their grades are. They have no motivation to excell. But if you let schools do as they please, then black kids are going to have to work just as hard as everyone else to get in (unless, of course, you believe they really ARE'NT as intelligent as white folk), and they'll have a reason to do so. It's just the same as the communist beliefs you claim to have abandoned. Everyone gets the same reward, no matter how wall or badly they do. Does anyone else like the idea of being rewarded based on the merit of your work? I certainly do.
Any kid who gets into college without knowing what he needs to know first is not going to get much out of it. So even with a college degree, the kid won't know much about how to get along in the world. THAT, I submit, is why there are so few rich black people. Because they never had to work hard to get anywhere, so they never learned that that's required in the real world.
"Incidentally, it was also white people who committed the greatest act of genocide ever, destruction of the Natives. Do you deny this?"
That it was purposeful, yes. Most of the natives that died died from diseases that the europeans didn't even know they were carrying. Besides, there were, what, one million natives in all the Americas? Two, at most. And not all of them died, by a long shot. I'm pretty sure that more Jews died during the Haulocaust. Oh, and the people Stalin killed. Heck, more people are starving to death in China (a communist country, I might add; I thought everyone was supposed to have food under communism?) than that. Hardly the greatest act of genocide ever. And you might be interested to know that there are more native americans alive today than there were in Columbus' time.
HMS:
Pretty good. South Carolina seceded because Lincoln was elected, and they thought he was going to outlaw slavery. The irony was that he had no intention of doing so, and their succession probably hastened the end of slavery by a good bit.
Che Gueverra was a revolutionary/terrorist (depends on if you win or not; he did both) in south and central America. He helped Castro overthrow the Cuban government.
"I bet you didn't know this one Omega, there were black slave holders in the south."
As a matter of fact, I had read that.
"And yet we question whether the those fact somehow let white slave holders off the hook. Not by a long shot."
Uh, you may not know this, but I've got news for you. The white slaveholders are already off the hook. They're all dead! To quote Data, "In 2036, the New United Nations declared that no Earth citizin could be made to answer for the crimes of their race or forbearers." Do you not like this idea? If not, maybe we should hold blacks from one part of Africa responsible for Shakka the Great, hmm? Or Germans responsible for Hitler. I don't see the difference.
"We at the very least owe them an opportunity to succeed. And that opportunity needs to come from the sectors that kept them at the bottom of society for too long."
That's what I suggest we give them. But as long as affirmative action is in place, they won't have it. See the first part of this post.
You know, liberals seem to be stuck in the past. Yes, there WERE Jim Crow laws, and there WAS slavery, but they aren't there today! The only thing stopping black people from getting an equal education is a lack of motivation, which is caused by affirmative action!
You also seem to think that the members of a minor portion of a group can represent an entire group. Just because the Klan exists, with all of ten thousand or so members, that doesn't mean that there's a streak of racism through the entire white population. As I told DT last night, there's a fundamental law of humanity that applies here:
Among the members of any group above a certain minimal size, there will always be people who hate members of a different group for no rational reason. The only exception comes when being a member of that group precludes hating another group.
This is invariable. There are black people who hate white people just as much as the Klan hates them. But they're a minority, too.
"Secondly, it takes time to change a culture."
Agreed. What you're missing, however, is the fact that you're trying to force the change that takes place in the integration of both cultures. That can't be done. Another fundamental law of humanity is that when a person has an opinion, and someone else tries to change that opinion, that person's opinion will almost always end up strengthened, not weakened. People have to change their minds on their own. You can't legislate morality.
"They in turn have the chance to go back into the communtiy to build up the knowledge database as it were to the importance of education."
Not if they don't learn anything in college, as they probably wouldn't if they didn't know at least most of what they needed to know to get in to begin with.
"It's better than sitting on our hands as a society and saying let them claw their own damn selves up."
Why? People don't learn anything by being given things all their lives, except to expect to keep being helped along. The entire idea of school is to claw your way up. That's how the world in general works. Just being passed through school does no good. You have to LEARN what they teach, or the school has failed. If you graduate high school without being able to read, there's something seriously wrong with that school. If you graduate first grade without being able to read, there's something seriously wrong with that school. There are requirements for getting into college for a reason. If you don't meet those requirements, then you shouldn't get in. Period. Otherwise, it won't do you any good, and it'll just be a waste of everyone else's time. The key isn't letting black people into college. The key is their learning what they need to know. No one can force them to do that. They have to desire it. A few good teachers might help there, but that's mainly a parent's job.
"The conservative backlash against such programs as affirmative action shows to me the fact that they want equality in name only."
Funny, it shows me that we have a far better idea of how the world works than you do. As I've shown, affirmative action does no good. Going to school does good only as long as you want to learn. Everyone has an equal opportunity to learn. What they do with it is their decision. 'Bout the only thing schools can help with there is motivation. Kids need to be told that if they work hard (emphasis on that) and get the best education they possibly can, they can be whatever they want to be. And they need to be told that over and over.
Your liberal view of the world is either too simplistic or completely insidious. Just because I disagree with your methods doesn't mean I disagree with your goals. It just means that I think that my methods of reaching those goals work better, or that yours don't work at all.
As for Che, I guess that encyclopedia article isn't worth all that much, eh? It didn't mention a thing about his being something of a hero to terrorists/revolutionaries.
------------------
You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.
[This message has been edited by Omega (edited January 06, 2000).]
I do. Let's apply it to Christianity as well, rather than this 'saved by grace' hooey. Works, kids, let the disbelievers have a shot at it, too.
------------------
Calvin: "No efficiency, no accountability... I tell you, Hobbes, it's a lousy way to run a Universe." -- Bill Watterson
"As for Che, I guess that encyclopedia article isn't worth all that much, eh? It didn't mention a thing about his being something of a hero to terrorists/revolutionaries."
Yeah, encyclopedias are like comic books for the mind.
"Not if they don't learn anything in college, as they probably wouldn't if they didn't know at least most of what they needed to know to get in to begin with."
What are you, simple?
Since you have never been to college, let me explain things to you. It ain't high school. You don't get a free ride in college. Once admitted you do what is necessary to stay there or you go home.
So, like duh, if ya don't learn you don't get to graduate. So, it is clear that the opportunity is a chance to succeed. They don't give you a diploma for showing up.
Having worked with students who were admitted with either less than perfect grades or SAT scores, once there some failed to do what was required to stay there and were send home. However, those who did stay succeeded on their own terms. As they learned they grew. Many became mentors to other students. Several went on to higher degrees.
As to the rest of your tripe, why bother?
In other threads, Sol and others showed you flaws in you arguments and you ignored those and went ahead with the dogma of your talk radio conservatism. As for me, I have shown you the other side of the argument about minorities and access and you spout the same arguments that we've all heard before that basically says screw 'em, I've got mine and I going to do my damnest to make sure that no one else gets any. And say that my world view is insidious?
Continue lock step all you want down your fascist road. Perhaps someday you'll come to see that the world is a complicated place and your thinking will match the depth that it requires.
------------------
Smithers, do you realize if I had died, there would be no one to carry on my legacy. Due to my hectic schedule and lethargic sperm, I never fathered an heir. Now I have no one to leave my enormous fortune to. No one.
~C. Montgomery Burns
Sorry, forgot to put in a new header.
"Since you have never been to college, let me explain things to you. It ain't high school. You don't get a free ride in college. Once admitted you do what is necessary to stay there or you go home."
So this so-called "affirmative action" doesn't put any pressure on schools to actually have minorities GRADUATE, just to admit them?
"As to the rest of your tripe, why bother? In other threads, Sol and others showed you flaws in you arguments..."
Not that I've found, so either I have a memory that's alot worse than I think, or you're wrong. Name one flaw in the argument that affirmative action removes motivation.
"...dogma of your talk radio conservatism."
I don't believe I've heard Rush talk about affirmative action yet. I've only listened for a few months. It's common sense talking.
"As for me, I have shown you the other side of the argument about minorities and access and you spout the same arguments that we've all heard before..."
Well, let's see here. There was the one about how a kid who's ancestors have never been to college needs an advantage to get there, but that doesn't really make sense, since whether their parents went to college or not will have little if any effect on their SAT scores. How they did in twelve years of school determines that. Then there was... hmm, I can't find any other arguments about how minorities don't have the access white people do. Just the same statements on how people who had the same color skin as I do mistreated black people a couple of centuries ago, and I should pay for that, even though they weren't related to me.
Tell me: you believe that blacks have a disadvantage in society. Why? Who gives them that disadvantage? It's not the government. The extremely small minority of racists in the population can't have much to do with it. So what is it?
And YOU never responded to MY question: why should someone who's great-great-grandfather was mistreated by someone who happened to have the same color skin as I do, but is not related to be in the slightest, have an economic and educational advantage over me? Do I need to carry around papers showing that my ancestors never owned slaves, so I won't have to suffer a disadvantage?
"...basically says screw 'em, I've got mine and I going to do my damnest to make sure that no one else gets any."
Where the heck do you get these ideas, anyway? Oh, wait, I forgot. You actually BELIEVE liberal propeganda. As I have said several times before, I have no problem with black people earning money. I DO, however, have a problem with someone being given something when they haven't earned it, because it does them more harm than good.
Oh, well. Continue lock step all you want down your socialist road. Perhaps someday you'll come to see that the world is a complicated place and your thinking will match the depth that it requires.
------------------
You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.
"So this so-called "affirmative action" doesn't put any pressure on schools to actually have minorities GRADUATE, just to admit them?"
Yeah, no shit.
Some of the kids I worked with don't make the grades. Which also works towards you lame lack of motivation argument. Once again, just to be clear on the subject, if the student does not get the required grades the student is gone. In case you missed it in the precious post "So, like duh, if ya don't learn you don't get to graduate. So, it is clear that the opportunity is a chance to succeed. They don't give you a diploma for showing up. I'm sure you will find that out should you ever go to college. It isn't eary for anyone. Now, has that penetrated that extra thick Cro-Magnon skull yet?
In fact, lets continue with this...the afirmative action programs as they existed didn't kidnap people off the street. No, and nor do they just throw everyone who applied throgh the program into college. But we'll just ignore that like we do the rest cause it don't fit you dogma.
Moreover, were you to have experience with the people in such programs, you would find out that they are incredibly motivated. Their family often places a great deal of presure on them to be the first to graduate college.
I swear, some day it's going to dawn on you that there has been as systemic attempt to keep minorities in their collective place. But no, conservative types are so quick to use the "most persecuted group of people in all history are white, Christian males and it is about time they started to fight back against their oppressors." argument.
"Some people say we have a color-blind society," Powell said in his commencement address to the historically black university. "But it's not yet. Some people say we have a level playing field, but we don't yet. Some say all you have to do is pull yourself up by the bootstraps, but there are too many people who don't have boots, let alone straps."
~Colin L. Powell
Good lord, did he say that?? Maybe that's what the far out wacko Republicans don't like him.
Oh, and try this one: "We (black people) are said to receive undeserved special privileges, while we know that hardly a single white would willingly trade places with us today."
~Deval L. Patrick, U.S. DOJ attorney general for civil rights
"I don't believe I've heard Rush..."
So, you do listen to him...I was right. LOL!!
"Continue lock step all you want down your socialist road."
Come now, be more original than that.
------------------
Smithers, do you realize if I had died, there would be no one to carry on my legacy. Due to my hectic schedule and lethargic sperm, I never fathered an heir. Now I have no one to leave my enormous fortune to. No one.
~C. Montgomery Burns
[This message has been edited by Jay (edited January 07, 2000).]
One thing we have to keep in mind about conservatives is that their definition of someone who isn't racist is: someone who ain't lynch up a darkie lately. So by that token, most people aren't racists. I'll give Omega that.
Also, as can be easily seen, it's obvious that he's still a high school kid who has no idea what the real world is like. When I was that age, I thought affirmative action sucks. Now, I realize that it is a flawed program, but the best we've come up with. So I'm gonna cut the kid some slack.
He's also shown that he has absolutely no idea how college works. It's not the goal of the college to have anyone pass. As a Professor once told me, their job is to make you enthusiastic about the material, present it to you so you can understand it, and then help you if you want to be helped. This ain't high school.
Omega has, however, brought up an interesting point. That is we need to work on getting better education to the inner city youths at an early age. As such, I believe we should begin diverting more money to improving inner city schools (certain liberal programs provide "combat bonuses" to those who teach in the inner city). To begin with, we can stop diverting more money to the military than every other power combined does. If we cut off, say, 50 billion, (which, incidentally, is more than the UK spends, and would bring the US down to still well over 200 billion per year) we can send that to these inner city schools. Or, more precisely, formula grants, determined by a federal agency established to improve inner city schools.
Pretty much everything else is conservative rhetoric we've already shot down, but I will talk more about Che.
Kudos Jay for that one! Che Guevera is generally considered to be the patron saint of revolutionaries. His guerilla warfare tactics, albeit not as advanced as the VC's, are copied all over Latin America. More importantly, Gueveraism, an offshoot of Marxism and a dead-end, is the prevailing political philosophy in Mexico and elsewhere (it differs from Maoism in that Gueverism emphasizes the workers over the peasants, thus being the reason it is dominant over Maoism, albeit both a dead-end). Yes, Omega couldn't tell you that. He also couldn't find Chiapas on the map, nor would he be able to identify Subcommandant Marcos if he tripped over him. And I'm glad to see Jay picked up on my subtle Bush reference. Gueverism was the "reason" George Bush needed to sell crack cocaine to the inner cities. (hey, that's not fair! white youths should have had first crack at buying crack!)
------------------
"Here is another word that rhymes with shame" - Kurt Cobain
Blew, Nirvana
China is not a communist country. There has never been one. Even Maoists say that China is not communist. Gawd... how many times do I have to say it. China is about as communist as the US is.
------------------
"Here is another word that rhymes with shame" - Kurt Cobain
Blew, Nirvana
"Yeah, no shit."
One, please watch your language. Two, maybe I should have made it clear that I wasn't being sarcastic. You actually just told me exactly what I wanted to hear.
Hypothetical situation one: A black kid is admitted to a college through affirmative action. He doesn't know some of the material he should, but he's motivated enough to go back and learn it in his spare time. He passes all classes, and graduates. If he's that motivated, would it not make sense that, with a little more effort, he could have gotten in normally by taking the SAT (or whatever test this particular school uses, since I assume they don't ALL use the SAT), even if it took a few tries? And if he DID have to take the test multiple times, he'd be likely to learn quite a bit from the studying he'd do.
Hypothetical situation two: A black kid is admitted to a college through affirmative action. He doesn't know some of the material, and isn't motivated enough to go back and study. He fails some nesecary classes and goes home. If he couldn't have gotten in normally by taking the SAT, and wasn't motivated enough to go back and study, then he probably wouldn't have been motivated enough to take the SAT multiple times so he could get in without affirmative action.
So assuming those two situations are accurate, the people who get into college on affirmative action and pass could have gotten in anyway, and the people who get in and fail probably wouldn't have gotten in, making their forced presence a waste of time and money. Affirmative action does no good, because everything in life is about motivation. If someone thinks that they don't have to do as well as everyone else to get by, they're not going to try as hard, and thus not learn as much. I'd bet that if you took two identical colleges, one with affirmative action, one without, who drew students from two identical school systems, the one without affirmative action would have MORE black graduates. The ones in the school without AA (as affirmative action will be hereafter refered to) (and yes, I know it stands for acloholics anonymus) would know they'll need to work harder than the ones at the school with AA. The students motivated enough to want to get into college will also be motivated enough to pass the test, no matter how hard. Those in the system WITH AA that are motivated will still be motivated, but only to do what they have to. Which means they'll only shoot for the lower standard, and won't learn as much.
"I swear, some day it's going to dawn on you that there has been as systemic attempt to keep minorities in their collective place."
Some day it's going to dawn on you how much you sound like that nutcase Jim Carville. "It's a right-wing conspiracy, Larry." Right. Just like the attempt to get rid of Nixon before he resigned was a left-wing conspiracy. A systematic attempt by whom? The Klan, with all their thousands upon thou-
well, thousands of members? Hmm? Who?
"But no, conservative types are so quick to use the "most persecuted group of people in all history are white, Christian males and it is about time they started to fight back against their oppressors." argument."
You two seem to assume a lot of things are true that you have no evidence for. I doubt you could find one person who believed that. Well, since we are on the internet, I'll grant you the one, but one rational person. This is so stupid and baseles I'm not even going to bother responding.
"So, you do listen to him...I was right. LOL!!"
Uh, you think that might have something to do with the fact that I SAID I listen to him a couple debates back?
Well, it was such a great line. I hated to see it so badly applied, though, so I had to use it properly somehwere. I'd love to hear your definition of facist, too.
DT:
"One thing we have to keep in mind about conservatives is that their definition of someone who isn't racist is: someone who ain't lynch up a darkie lately."
*ahem*
WHERE THE HECK DO YOU GET THESE STUPID IDEAS?!? AND ANSWER ME THIS TIME! TELL ME WHERE YOU HEAR THIS BASELESS CRAP!
*calms down*
Sorry, I just don't like being accused of something that you have no evidence for, and when your only reason for accusing me is because all the liberal propeganda you've been fed tells you that all conservatives are racist, simply by virtue of being conservative, it get's worse. You two are more racist than I am, simply because you actually care about race. A racist is someone who discriminates based on ancestory, usually distant. That's you. Whether you discriminate in favor of a minority or not is irrelevant. I couldn't care less, nor could most conservatives.
"it's obvious that he's still a high school kid... When I was that age... So I'm gonna cut the kid some slack."
DT, I will ask you one more time to kindly shut up about my age. My age is irrelevant. And even if it was relevant, you're only seventeen, yourself.
"Omega has, however, brought up an interesting point. That is we need to work on getting better education to the inner city youths at an early age."
Are you saying you agree with me?!
*world implodes*
Now look what you've done!
"I believe we should begin diverting more money to improving inner city schools..."
Why is it that liberals think the solution to everything is more money? It's like going to a doctor for a headache. If he gives you two asprin, and they don't work, he's not just going to give you four more. Hard work is the answer, not money. In my area, the city is spending something like $7,000 per kid in public schools. That's twice the tuition of private schools in the area. Throwing money at a problem doesn't solve it. You need someone who knows what they're doing running things to solve a problem. All the money in the world can't help incompetence.
"To begin with, we can stop diverting more money to the military than every other power combined does."
Oh, yeah. In the face of a country with four times our population, who was just sold two or three decades of nuclear technology by a certain leader who shall remain nameless, and within three or four years will be able to nuke any city on the planet, let's cut military spending. Yeah, that makes perfect sense. If you want more money, cut taxes. It's called supply-side economics. Check the records on the Regan admin. It works.
*remembers a parody*
It's time to play "Your Price is Right"!
Al: Pakistan's Mahat n'Masandals, India's Alligot Ismulah, and China's I'Bring Do, come on down! Let's see what our first item up for bids is. Ohh, it's some super-secret satelite technology that can be used to hook classrooms up to the internet...
Bill: Or to target those classrooms with thermonuclear weapons. Ha ha. But it will stop those kids from smoking!
*L*
------------------
You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.
I know I don't speak from experience since I've never been in the army. I also know that those methods (as harsh as they seem) are necessary to accomplish the goals you stated. I just find it revolting that people would be willing to submit to such treatments. A "Necessary Evil" of sorts. Feel free to say want you think but don't flame that much.
By the way, I don't even know why I talked about the military in the first place 
... I always make an a**hole of myself...
First of Two: What do you mean? It is real! The movie said so ! By the way, I'm a big 20 years old kid who doesn't understand anything about the whole thread dealing with US politics nor do I want to know. Too complicated to me .
------------------
-If you ask me, I think continuity is highly overrated...
*Brannon Braga*
-Where were you when the brains were handed out?
*Sonic the Hedgehog*
"Tell me: you believe that blacks have a disadvantage in society. Why? Who gives them that disadvantage? It's not the government. The extremely small minority of racists in the population can't have much to do with it. So what is it?"
"And YOU never responded to MY question: why should someone who's great-great-grandfather was mistreated by someone who happened to have the same color skin as I do, but is not related to be in the slightest, have an economic and educational advantage over me? Do I need to carry around papers showing that my ancestors never owned slaves, so I won't have to suffer a disadvantage?"
Anyone have answers? Anyone?
------------------
You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.
TerraZ:
"Looks like a typical brainwashed soldier to me, ready to do what and ONLY what we tell him."
Well, you know, there's a reason for this.
"Target missiles at the enemy base and fire!"
"Yes, sir! Target destroyed. Oh, and I took the liberty of destroying ths surrounding city, too. I hope nobody minds."
------------------
Frank's Home Page
"I'm still amazed at how unintuitive the Windows world is and how it tries to mimic the Mac." - John de Lancie
[This message has been edited by The Shadow (edited January 07, 2000).]
Anyway, he went to a cross-training session at Fort Bragg, and spent some time with the Rangers, and Delta Force troopers. When they were done, some Rangers came back to Canada for more cross-training. The JTF-2 guy was the chaperone for some the Rangers, and by chance, I got to go to a hockey game with them.
ANYWAY, I spent a bit talking to them, (Usually answered with 'that's classified. I'm not sure if they were joking or not.) Anyway, they seemed to be quite laid-back, and not 'brainwashed' or anything like that.
So, I guess the point of this grotesquely long message is that in every instance that I've ever met anybody from the Military, US or otherwise, I haven't met any that qualify for 'brainwashing' or mindless servants, even the Green Berets, which would most likely be portrayed as.
------------------
"I've never seen anything this beautiful in the entire galaxy. Alright, give me the bomb" -Ultra Magnus, Fight or Flee
And if you believe the Bible, God believes in the concept, too. We're still paying for Adam and Eve's little screwup...
But anyway. I'd be a lot more inclined to disagree with Omega if I saw more minorities actually struggling to get ahead.
I really really REALLY hate to say this, but if two kids come to the library, one black and one white, and one is studying quietly and the other is playing basketball in the hallway, better than 9 times out of 10, I could tell you which was which without looking.
Now, I know that this is just a small part of a vicious circle in which being smart has become something to be derided (notice the smartest kid on TV lately is Steve Urkel), where being on the wrong side of society has become 'cool,' and where the ignorance of adults (who manage to get by, anyway) has contributed to the lack of motivation among their children.
But isn't ANYBODY trying?
YES. Of COURSE they are. I see that, too. But not often enough.
Of course, this may be a problem endemic to my area, and it may be that most of the minority kids I see here are the ones who are latchkey kids or whose parents want them out of the house while they do what they do, and don't care where they make trouble.
But it's discouraging.
------------------
Calvin: "No efficiency, no accountability... I tell you, Hobbes, it's a lousy way to run a Universe." -- Bill Watterson
------------------
Fool of a Took, throw yourself in next time!!
Gandalf
See, you are the perfect example of what we're talking about. I wouldn't call you a racist. But you don't hold blacks in as high esteem as you do whites. This is no sin of your's, this is a sin of the culture. Hell, I'll admit that I feel less secure while I'm in the ghetto than when I'm in the high brow neighbourhoods. It's the way we've been taught to act.
Now, Omega denies that there is any racism. He calls it a mass conspiracy in our paranoid minds. That's a standard conservative problem. It's like his statement on racists. Me and Jay are the racists cause we discriminate against those poor, oppressed white people (my oh my, I hope people don't stop buying Microsoft just because Bill Gates is white, that poor opressed man). Race IS a factor. If anyone denies that, they're a moron. No offence Omega, but yeah, you are culturally a moron, you have no idea what the fuck goes on out there. I don't need evidence, I don't need proof. I need common sense. Hitler didn't need to go out and take a poll of the German people to find out what they thought of the Jews. He could just say to himself "I hate those goddamned Jews, and so does most other people." And he was right.
I ask you Omega, prove to me that there is a god. Somethings are difficult to prove but easy enough to observe. This is one of them. You're not going to have much concrete proof, but you just spend time around people and you figure it out. The word nigger is not as rare amongst white people as the television would have you believe. The very fact that there IS a KKK should tell you something. You may blame it on a small minority, but the organization has existed, and for long stretches of prominence, for well over a century. In America, it is PROVEN that there are still places which will not hire blacks over whites, even if the former is more qualified. Affirmative action is needed, because some colleges would prefer not to let in blacks. Hell, ever hear of racial profiling? Drive down the goddamned highway some day. It has always amazed me how out of proportion the amount of blacks I see pulled over is to the amount in the population. Let me ask you this, why are there fewer blacks writing for network television than there are whites? Why are there so fewer blacks in managerial positions in sports than there are whites? And this is even factoring in that they only make up about 15% of the population. Are blacks inferior to whites? According to you, they have to be. Why else do these happen? There's no affirmative action in the world of broadcast television. So that's it then. Blacks are not as good writers as we white folks are. Blacks write worth shit. Hey, maybe they're just not "motivated" to do it.
And no, we don't have to answer for the sins of our fathers. Hell, mine didn't come to this country until recently. Some of them were too busy slaving for the Tsar, some were too busy starving in Ireland, some were too busy shooting up fellow Dagos. So it really isn't the crime of my ancestors either. But we are responsible for the condition created, because it benefits us. We were given the higher slot on the rungs. There was a time when NYC hired the Irish after they came off the boat to be the police officers, because they were on the lowest rung. It's called evening the playing field. You can deny all you want that it is unfair, but it IS! You are a white male! You believe in god, right? Next time you pray to him, you thank him for being born male and white. Because that's the greatest thing that could've happened to you. The only better way to have it was if you could've been born into that 10% that owns 70% of the economy. Instead of sitting in your ivory tower, why don't you go to the nearest big city? Spend some time there, not in the tourist area, but in the real area. Talk to those people. Find out what it is like to be black in America. It sucks.
I don't know if this thread is even worth continuing, personally. I'm gonna stay in it until I get my 250 posts, but you can't show someone reality if they're just going to base it on what they've been told by the television and newspapers and Rush Limbaugh.
Think it over lad, try and get a grip on reality. I hope you do.
And on a side note, don't quote reagonomics to me. We've proven they don't work. This is the worst economy since the depression, and we can thank Reagan (as well as Clinton) for that.
I'll get to the defence rhetoric you've read (pure bullshit) in another thread.
And btw, the concept of profanity is purely based on puritans. Fuck them, I fully support Jay's right to say shit. That's the way real people talk.
------------------
"Here is another word that rhymes with shame" - Kurt Cobain
Blew, Nirvana
"...you don't hold blacks in as high esteem as you do whites."
A lie, plain and simple. Everything I've said indicates that I couldn't care less about race unless I'm organizing a polar expedition or something like that. Yet you continue to insist that I consider black people to be inferior. And you say I can't think on my own.
"Now, Omega denies that there is any racism."
Again, a lie. I said that racism is nowhere nearly as prominent as you believe.
"I ask you Omega, prove to me that there is a god."
To quote one of my political allies (who will probably bludgeon me to a pulp when he reads this), "Been there, done that, got the tee-shirt." Look up the archived Creation vs. Evolution thread. The first one. 'Course, whether you choose to accept the evidence I presented is up to you.
"The very fact that there IS a KKK should tell you something."
Yes, it tells me that that law of humanity I quoted a few posts back is correct.
"You may blame it on a small minority, but the organization has existed, and for long stretches of prominence, for well over a century."
Your point being? There's a town 'bout fourty miles north of Chicago where an inordinately large number of people believe that the world is flat. Another law of humanity: For any given belief, there will always be some people who believe it once the belief has been expressed, no matter how irrational the belief may be. Your world view is way too idealistic. There will ALWAYS be racists. There's nothing you can do about that.
"In America, it is PROVEN that there are still places which will not hire blacks over whites, even if the former is more qualified."
Of course there are. There always will be. But what percentage, hmm? Something like .001 or less, I'm betting.
"Affirmative action is needed, because some colleges would prefer not to let in blacks."
OK, there are two possible situations when it comes to colleges. One, it's a public college. In that case, they need to fire whomever is making that decision. Two, it's a private institution, in which case, the government has no authority. In one case, AA is not warranted. In the other, it's unconstitutional.
"It has always amazed me how out of proportion the amount of blacks I see pulled over is to the amount in the population."
And it has always amazed me how high the porportion of the number of black people I see speeding and breaking other traffic laws is relative to the number of black people in the driving population is when compaired to the same ratio for white people. Might THAT explain why they're pulled over more often? Ya think?
"Are blacks inferior to whites? According to you, they have to be."
No, according to me, they don't take advantage of the opportunities presented to them in as high a porportion as white people do. Again, you accuse me of being a racist with no basis. But explain this to me: if black people make up less than 13% of the population, why, in prime-time television's six network average, are 18% of characters black if they're discriminated against? And, more importantly, why do they still complain?
"Blacks are not as good writers as we white folks are. Blacks write worth shit."
There's a non-sequitor for you. Has it ever occured to you that it may have nothing to to with the fact that the people are black, but the fact that less black people ARE good writers on average? I'm not suggesting that they're not as intelligent, so don't you accuse me of racism (again). I'm suggesting that you and people like you are the problem. Because of what you teach, black children grow up expecting everyone to think they're inferior, and thinking that they need to be ready to defend themselves. A mentality like that is counter-productive to learning. If we ever hope to have a color-blind society, then the black children need to be taught that yes, there are racists, but there really aren't that many (which, contrary to what you've been tricked into believing, IS the truth). That's the jobs of parents and, to a lesser degree, early teachers.
"It's called evening the playing field."
And here's the root of the problem. The playing field can NEVER be level when run by fallible humans. NEVER! The best we can do is not get in anyone's way, and let them use their God-given talents however they see fit.
"The only better way to have it was if you could've been born into that 10% that owns 70% of the economy."
Even better, how about the one percent who pay fourty percent of the taxes?
"..but you can't show someone reality if they're just going to base it on what they've been told by the television and newspapers and Rush Limbaugh."
Oh, yeah. Facts and statistics suddenly become completely invalid when quoted by Rush Limbaugh. Right.
"And on a side note, don't quote reagonomics to me. We've proven they don't work. This is the worst economy since the depression, and we can thank Reagan (as well as Clinton) for that."
Actually, since you don't seem to know what you're talking about, I think I will. First, supply-side died in '90, when the Democratic congress lied in that budget deal. Trickle-down was only implemented from '81 to '90. Now for the stats that blow you out of the water:
From '82 to '90, we experienced the longest peacetime economic expansion in history. Intrest rates dropped significantly. The value of the market nearly tripled. Unemployment was almost at nil, as was inflation, which killed the Phillips curve. Average real family income increased by over fifteen percent. For the poorest 20%, income increased by nearly 12%. Families earning more than $50,000 (1990 dollars) were at 25% in '80. In '90, it was up to 31%. Of those in the bottom 20% income bracket in '79, 65% percent jumped at least two brackets. More people got to the top bracket than stayed in the bottom one. The black middle class increased in size by 50%. By '89, there were nearly four million less people under the poverty line. 20 million new jobs were created, with 82% involving high pay and skill. All due to a 40% income tax cut. Now why doesn't supply-side work, again?
"Think it over lad."
This is the last time I'm going to ask you to stop refering to my age. As I've said, it's completely irrelevant.
"I fully support Jay's right to say shit."
As do I. I simply ask him not to, since I don't swear myself, and don't like quoting expletives. Simply my personal preference. It's not like I threatened to sue him if he didn't stop. If he chooses to continue, I won't ask him about it again.
------------------
You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.
[This message has been edited by Omega (edited January 08, 2000).]
------------------
"20th Century, go to sleep."
--
R.E.M.
And again, I'm more worried if two youths in general sit next to me than two old ladies.
I'm trying to come up wit a point here, but it's not coming. Something to do with the fact that when you see black's picking on someone, you 'notice' it more than when it's white guys.
It's not intentional racism, and it's not in the same league as not watching DS9 cause the captain's a nigger, or not hiring someone cause he's slitty-eyed.
OTOH, I remember some fuss on a Transformer newsgroup when someone said that Blackarachnia looked Asain. Which she does. But people were shouting racist left right and center.
Oh well, roll on 2001.
------------------
"Obesity. Adiposity. Corpulence. Whatever word you use, it represents one thing: being a big fatass."
Geraldo Rivera
In my opinion, the only way to eliminate racism would be the arrival of aliens or some big cataclysm like an asteroid. Everyone would unite despite their mutual hatred to fight the common enemy. And then go back to petty bickering just as usual. People just never learn...
Shadow, Ultra Magnus: Well, like I said, I'm not talking from personal experience. I admit I'm a bit harsh in my judgment, but can you blame me? I was exposed to dozens of movie portraying the army in a bad way in my youth and one relative who could have come straight from any of them. Add to it the constant cases of sexual abuse in the newspapers in the recent years in Canada (I know there's abuse outside too, but in an institution supposed to preserve peace, they are expected to set the example). It's a good thing you guys are here, or else I would have remained a moron all my life ...
Surely you'll admit that their methods aren't always pleasant, and the problem I find is if it affects a soldier's life outside the army dramatically. Which in that guy's case it did. As another example, one of my cousin here in Qu�bec was also in the army for about 4 years and ever since he's become much more reserved and shy. But it doesn't change everybody. And it's, in my opinion a necessary evil. Is there anyone here from the US who's made his military service? I'd like to be enlightened further.
------------------
-If you ask me, I think continuity is highly overrated...
*Brannon Braga*
-Where were you when the brains were handed out?
*Sonic the Hedgehog*
Personally, I don't believe this to be the case, as I generally don't hold ANYBODY in esteem who I haven't studied or listened to. I can think of some black people who most folks have never even heard of, who I hold in pretty high esteem, like Emile Etheridge, Guion Bluford, Louis Ridgely, and Paul Robeson. Sidney Poitier is one of the greatest actors of all time. Et cetera.
I am, however, a firm believer in that Worfian (Michael Dorn, another laudable black actor) quote: "Respect is EARNED, not GIVEN away."
I remember listening to a speech by Jesse Jackson (who ordinarily I don't really like, but he had it right this time) which upset a lot of people, when he addresed a community of black americans with the problems the black community has, -- drugs, gangs, absentee fathers, unmarried mothers, -- and the repeated refrain "We know better!"
I remember a report about a southern state (georgia, maybe) which was coming under criticism because something like 50% of its black male residents were denied voting priveliges... because that state denied the vote to people who had been convicted of felonies.
Perople who believe that the world owes them something simply by the fact of their existence are setting themselves up for a great deal of disillusionment.
------------------
Calvin: "No efficiency, no accountability... I tell you, Hobbes, it's a lousy way to run a Universe." -- Bill Watterson
To quote my social studies teacher, "Figures don't lie, but liars figure." This is not to call Limbaugh a liar, but it's somthing to think about next time you believe that every statistic is Gospel Truth.
"Tell me: you believe that blacks have a disadvantage in society. Why? Who gives them that disadvantage? It's not the government. The extremely small minority of racists in the population can't have much to do with it. So what is it?"
The following applies mostly to the inner-city situation, since blacks at my school are as hard-working as the next kid.
I believe I can answer that. First, I recently read a report in the L.A. Times that there's a much higher percentage of unqualified teachers in inner cities in California. Why? Because of higher crime, possibly. Before you say that it's the inner city's fault for having so much crime, this means inner-city kids aren't getting an equal education with unmotivated teachers, and if you believe the highest achievement you'll have in life is flipping burgers at McDonald's, you wouldn't be motivated either. In this way, crime is an ugly cycle that won't end unless something different is done.
And then there's the lower income level. I doubt any of the teenagers here who can afford a computer would have to work a part-time job to support your family. I'm not really sure how the school funding works in California, but I get the impression that it comes from property tax within the city, which means that the poorer a city is, the less funding the school gets. Feel free to correct me on that.
Omega: No, you're not either a conservative or a liberal. Life is NOT composed of binary choices. I don't know how many times people here have demonstrated that. And even though DT may only be two years older, two years in the teenager life makes a LOT of difference. You need to get out more.
------------------
--Then, said Cranly, do you not intend to become a protestant?
--I said that I had lost the faith, Stephen answered, but not that I had lost self-respect. What kind of liberation would that be to forsake an absurdity which is logical and coherent and to embrace one which is illogical and incoherent?
James Joyce, A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man.
Have you ever considered going into politics? We could use people like you.
Ziyal:
"To quote my social studies teacher, "Figures don't lie, but liars figure." This is not to call Limbaugh a liar, but it's somthing to think about next time you believe that every statistic is Gospel Truth."
Quite true. There's a book I've got around here somewheres called "How to Lie with Statistics". Quite informative. And if anyone's interested, those figures for the 80's came from the US census bureau, so if they're not correct, then we're in a heap of trouble.
You're quite right about better education being the key to everything. That's up to the individual cities, though. What I think a city ought to do is find another city who's educational system actually works, then do what they can to copy it. If it works, it'll spread. And no one say "more money". That won't help, as I've pointed out.
"Omega: No, you're not either a conservative or a liberal."
Did I say that? You can be a moderate, too.
"Life is NOT composed of binary choices."
Of course, not nesecarily binary. I don't know what I was thinking when I said that. But life IS a series of choices, most of which have a very limited field of options when reduced far enough. A liberal as usually defined wants the government to have more power, and a conservative wants it to have less. A moderate would probably think things are just fine the way they are (usually how conservatives are mistakenly described). Of course, people can have different opinions in different fields. That's where the reduction comes in. Instead of saying "Are you a conservative, a liberal, or a moderate?", and getting the reply, "Well, I'm conservative on socialized medicine, liberal on finance, and moderate on social security," you reduce the question to "Are you a conservative, a liberal, or a moderate on welfare?", and get a far simpler answer. Of course, you CAN reduce that to a binary choice, too, like "Are you a conservative on medicare?", but you have to remember that there are more that two options, or you can easily get confused.
My point when this first came up was that if there are only two choices, and the first has been disprooven, then unless someone has a third alternative, the second must be true.
------------------
You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.
------------------
"20th Century, go to sleep."
--
R.E.M.
------------------
Elim Garak: "Oh, it's just Garak. Plain, simple Garak. Now, good day to you, Doctor. I'm so glad to have made such an... interesting new friend today." (DS9: "Past Prologue")
------------------
You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.
------------------
"I'm sorry Wendy, I can't trust anything that bleeds for five days and doesn't die."
Mr Garrison
------------------
Smithers, do you realize if I had died, there would be no one to carry on my legacy. Due to my hectic schedule and lethargic sperm, I never fathered an heir. Now I have no one to leave my enormous fortune to. No one.
~C. Montgomery Burns
[This message has been edited by Jay (edited January 10, 2000).]
For fuck sakes...
------------------
"I've never seen anything this beautiful in the entire galaxy. Alright, give me the bomb" -Ultra Magnus, Fight or Flee
------------------
"Sorry Wendy, I jsu can't trust something that bleeds for five days and doesn't die."
Mr Garrison
Honestly, nearly all of what Jay and DT accused me of advocating and believing is lies! How can you possibly construe the statement that more money is not the answer for our public education system, as they already have far more money than they need, as evidenced by catholic schools, to mean that we should kill spending altogether? I never stated anything of the kind! I said that more money is not the answer, and very rarely is. Hard work is the answer, as it is with all worthwile things in life! Each city INDIVIDUALLY should go through its system, and eliminate teachers and principals that aren't doing their jobs!
And you guys have yet to answer my question: Why would giving more money to a system that spends $9000 per student per year be a better solution than implementing a school system that already exists which works better, has a far higher percentage of graduates, its graduates typically having a better education, and costs far less? I'm not seeing a downside, here.
------------------
You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.
------------------
"Sorry Wendy, I jsu can't trust something that bleeds for five days and doesn't die."
Mr Garrison
------------------
"20th Century, go to sleep."
--
R.E.M.
I don't think that was me. And if they were free, why would they draw ANY particular class?
"the schools select who they want"
I'd guess that that would be because there is limited space, which would not be a problem in a city-wide system. Ziyal, care to confirm or deny?
"So, what do you propose we do with the toublemakers? Ignore them? Sweep them under the carpet?"
We do ignore them. That's the problem. I suggest that we do everything we can to teach them to love learning, and to work hard. But if after all that, they still choose not to learn, then tell them that they are not welcome on school premisis until their attitude has changed. Maybe their parents would do something about it in that case, like they're supposed to. If someone chooses not to learn, there's nothing you can do to force them, and if they're being disruptive in the process, then their presence does them no good and is detremental to others. Thus, if all attempts to convince them to change their behavior have failed, ejection is the logical solution.
------------------
You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.
"I don't want to start a fight, Omega, but it doesn't appear to many of us that your beliefs are being misconstrued all that much. If you percieve that they are, perhaps you need to reexamine them and how you present them."
Really? You're serious? I don't get this. I say that more money is not the answer, and people construe that to mean that I think funding should be killed altogether? If that's the case, then I'm not the one who thinks that there are only two choices at all times.
As to your earlier comment about "facts creeping into my rhetoric", I hope that was a joke, 'cause otherwise, I'm going to have to ask for an explination.
------------------
You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.
For you to say "We keep pouring more and more money into education, and it has done no good whatsoever.... 'And now, for something completely different.'" Well, what does that mean? Other than you think that we should spend less money on the system? Heck, you said in another thread that the government spending money on education was "unconstitutional" so where does that leave us? Spend less means spend some. Spend none means spend none. You can't present an argument and when someone responds accuse them of saying you lied.
So, since this is your idea (and you seem to have so few of your very own since much of what you do is stand on the side and snipe at other people), what is your idea for something different? It certainly can't be something as vague and non-specific as saying "spend less money." Scrap the public system and institute a wholly private system of education? Puhleeese. If you wonder why the public shcools suffer from problems enumerated below, rest assured that one of two things will happen in a privatized system you advocate.
1) Students will be excluded. Due to learning problems, monetary problems, or any other number of criteria that they could think up to keep the undesirables out. Thereby eliminatine one of the beauties of our system is the diversity it offers because everyone gets a chance to partake.
2) Or private schools will loose the right to have a choice about the makeup of the student body. As such they will suffer the same problems faced by the current system.You will have the same overcrowding, students that learn at different levels, students who don't care...ect. In other words, they can no longer be elitist and that hurts the bottom line of higher graduation rates ect you cite before as perks of a private system.
As to your accusation that the we spend $9000 a year on students...well I think that number is fascinating. Ther are districts in south central LA and some Orange county districts, just to be local, that have FAR less than that to spend per student. The inner cities are having a very tough time as that most of the money gets funneled to the more affluent areas (regardless of what final number you think we spend per student).
I wonder then, in this era of flush times, why there are schools in the San Fernando Valley that are composed of wholly of tempory trailers and not buildings. Perhaps they like trailers. You certainly make it sound like the in public school system there are computers at every desk, bees making sweet honey out in the playgrounds being tended by keepers, and plush carpet in all the rooms. Maybe I've lied by concluding that, but that is what you seem to say.
Moreover, I don't think that one can use the money that a private Catholic school has to indite to public school system. There are very different sets of problems for each of them. As Liam points out, private schools pick and choose there student body. The student body of the public school is the community that lives around it. This includes students with disabilities, all sorts of learning problems, and the student who is not motivated at all to attend school. And yet the public system is required to offer all of them a space in class. Furthermore, the majority of private schools also have smaller class sizes than do public schools. It's part of how they sell themselves. Anyone in education knows that smaller class sizes means more teacher or fewer students...the public system does not have the option for the latter.
Finally, I don't accuse you of believing in lies. I think that your view of the world, which you put in your status line as 'Archconservative,' is simplistic and just often wrong. However, I think you believe whatever it is you think you believe. But I don't think you've read enough or had enough real world experience to keep saying what you say. And when you say things that are wrong, I for one am going to speak up.
------------------
Smithers, do you realize if I had died, there would be no one to carry on my legacy. Due to my hectic schedule and lethargic sperm, I never fathered an heir. Now I have no one to leave my enormous fortune to. No one.
~C. Montgomery Burns
[This message has been edited by Jay (edited January 10, 2000).]
Sounds like we've got a duel brewing. Say sardonic barbs at 10 paces. My money is on Sol.
------------------
Smithers, do you realize if I had died, there would be no one to carry on my legacy. Due to my hectic schedule and lethargic sperm, I never fathered an heir. Now I have no one to leave my enormous fortune to. No one.
~C. Montgomery Burns
------------------
--Then, said Cranly, do you not intend to become a protestant?
--I said that I had lost the faith, Stephen answered, but not that I had lost self-respect. What kind of liberation would that be to forsake an absurdity which is logical and coherent and to embrace one which is illogical and incoherent?
James Joyce, A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man.
And now, some figures, if you can dig it. This all goes for my home state, Washington. From the office of the State Superintendent, for the 98-99 school year. Totally.
999,616 swinging cats enrolled.
4.4 billion dollars spent annually.
"Now hang on, Mixmaster S!" I hear you saying. "4.4 megabucks? That be serious cash, yo." Yo. However, it works out to only $4,401.69 per student. About half the figure Omega be quotin'.
Now here's where we gots to make ourselves a distinction between gross dollars spent and the ultimate destination of those funds. G. For instance, how much of that money ever gets anywhere near students? Good question, and one that most educated school debate type things center around. But if we just want to go with the flat "9,000 is good enough for students", we don't need to cut back spending, but double it. Which would involve, here in Washington, spending 92.4 percent of the state budget on education, but I digress.
Now, here be some mo' facts.
55,611.75 teachers. Yo, I don't know WHAT is up with the one teacher who is only three-fourths of a person, but da facts are da facts, yeah?
That breaks down into about 18 students per teacher. Which is a rather enviable class size, homie. But wait! Not all of those 55,611.75 are actual, in the class, teachers. Also, here in da Evergreen State, there are rather larger differences between east and west, with west being far richer and hence having far more teachers per class, even with more students.
"So S-Man," you be saying, "what's the dilly, yo?" Heck if I know. Just some numbers to chew on. Word.
------------------
"20th Century, go to sleep."
--
R.E.M.
Now who only sees two alternatives? I don't suggest we cut spending IMMEDIATELY. I suggest we fix the system first in the manner I perscribed, THEN, when they're down to using half their budget, cut spending by about a third. They'd have more than enough money to do whatever they want (as they already do), and the competence and power to use it.
"a privatized system you advocate."
Oh, so HERE's the problem. You just didn't get it. Sorry about accusing you about lying about my beliefs in this instance. I was mistaken. I've been on defensive ever since DT accused me of being racist, over and over and over and... Again, my sincere apologies. (Everyone please take note: this is the first time I have ever admitted I was wrong in my life! ) I never said anything about a privatized system. I fact, I said "if they were free, why would they draw ANY particular class?" I simply suggest that public school systems model themselves after the catholic school system, since it works so well. It would still be public, though.
As for students being excluded, the fact that it's public would negate monitary problems. And students with learning disabilities sufficient enough to prevent them from learning much in a normal school environment should go to schools specially equipped to teach them, for their own good, AND so as not to hold everyone else in the class back. Such publicly-funded schools DO exist, if I'm not mistaken.
"I wonder then, in this era of flush times, why there are schools in the San Fernando Valley that are composed of wholly of tempory trailers and not buildings."
As there are here in Nashville. One's about six blocks from my house. Of course, they're building to replace the "portables", as they're called. So where does all the money collected for education in these areas go, anyway? And how much per student IS spent, if you can find out? I do agree that, in some areas, more money is needed, but it isn't the end-all solution you seem to think it is. How do you suggest we fix things where they ARE spending $9000 per kid?
"furthermore, the majority of private schools also have smaller class sizes than do public schools."
I believe that Ziyal will confirm that the typical catholic school has thirty to fourty children per classroom.
"I think that your view of the world... is simplistic and just often wrong."
Funny, that's the same thing I think about you...
Ziyal:
"Well, my school.. accepts students based on grades"
Any idea why they have to limit who gets in? Just curious.
Sol:
"To quote a certain giant anthropomorphic rooster, that was a joke, son."
That's what I thought. I just couldn't tell without a . Sorry.
"However, it works out to only $4,401.69 per student."
Is that just state funding, or does it include city xor county?
------------------
You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.
I've never been in one with more than 30.
"Any idea why they have to limit who gets in? Just curious."
Why does Harvard limit who gets in? My school gets people from all over Los Angeles, not just from within the city. When too many want to get into the same school (my school is one of the better Catholic schools around), the school gets to pick and choose. We DO have a wide range of student performances though. There is a grade limit, but the limit is not unreasonably high (from what I've seen of some people around here...). Oh, and let me throw in something else here. Catholic school teachers get paid less than public ones, so you'd KNOW our long-standing teachers are rather dedicated at their job.
------------------
--Then, said Cranly, do you not intend to become a protestant?
--I said that I had lost the faith, Stephen answered, but not that I had lost self-respect. What kind of liberation would that be to forsake an absurdity which is logical and coherent and to embrace one which is illogical and incoherent?
James Joyce, A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man.
Anyway...
Omega, you are! And now that I know you're from Nashville, I'm even more sure. There is a reason the South votes almost entirely Republican. It ain't cause of their feelings on funding NASA either. You sit there spouting your love for Reagan. Well, I hate to tell ya this dude, but the Prez you have wet dreams about was a racist. Did you ever look at his record? Hell, he support the HUAAC (which I'm sure you do) so I wouldn't expect him to be progressive minded. This idiot went on a speaking campaign against Brown v Board of Education, railing against the evils of Mongrelization. And before I leave the racist thread, did you actually read what you wrote in the post about blacks speeding and not writing? Thank god most niggers kill themselves, right? They're so violent, it's just survival of the fittest. (dear eddie, no wonder I hate the Republican party) If I have to hear another "I don't look at race" defence from a conservative... generally, it's racists who say that. I've yet to find someone who said that who isn't.
Don't worry Omega, there's hope for you. You're not set in your ways yet. I suggest you begin reading about REAL American heroes. Huey P. Newton and Fred Hampton being the first two to come off my tongue. It'll give you another viewpoint, because you've obviously been exposed (mainly) to only one. Become familiar with the Black Panthers, learn about why America is REALLY a great country (not the shit they taught you in school) and once you can explain Nat Turner and John Africa to me, you'll be secure enough in your own place in society to realize that yes, race does matter. I'll try and send you some links on these guys soon.
Anyway, lets get back to ripping Reagan. The following is from the NY Times, I think 14/11/1965.
"Reagan is opposed to the Social Security Act as originally formulated, the progressive income tax, Medicare, antipoverty programs, farm subsides, TVA, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, public housing, Federal Aid to education, and using Veterans Administration hospitals for other than service related disability"
Sounds like a real genius, eh?
But keep in mind Omega, I don't personally dislike you. I just think your political and social and economic beliefs are beyond crap. You'll soon learn, don't worry.
BTW, on the matter of schools, in my neighbouring county, where I go to college, they are building a prison near where the school is. If you're wondering, they're spending more money on the prison than on a community college. That's fucked up. And you can quote me on that :-)
And all the stuff you said about funding education (in the bit about cutting by 1/3) is more apt for the military.
Finally, on the age issue, I must second that in the teen years, they do matter. Now, I wasn't picking on your age (I call almost everyone lad or dude or man or bloke or, well, whatever the hell I Feel like at the moment) but I could if I wanted. Crap, a girl two years younger than you a guy two years older than me could not legally bang (nor could I). Think about it while you listen to Rage Against the Machine, or Public Enemy, or NWA.
------------------
"Here is another word that rhymes with shame" - Kurt Cobain
Blew, Nirvana
1+1 is 2 Ronald.
------------------
Samaritan: "A good hot curry will help heal your wounds. That is, unless your religion forbids it".
Man: (Eyes growing wide) "No religion forbids a good hot curry".
-From some movie.
Ah, thank you kindly, Ziyal! That means that if you had a city-wide system, there would be no space limitations, and thus schools would not have that reason to disallow students entry. Anyone else think they have a problem with the catholic school system?
DT:
"Omega, you are [a racist]!"
OK, because I don't want to discriminate between races, I'm a racist? Is it just me, or does anyone else here think that that makes about as much sense as a one-legged man in a long jump contest?
ra-cism (ra'ciz`em) n.
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race. �rac'ist adj. & n.
I fit neither definition. I could point out that DT fits the second. But I won't.
"And now that I know you're from Nashville, I'm even more sure."
You also seem to think that I believe that black people are less intelligent than white people, simply by virtue of their being black. Now who's stereotyping?
"You sit there spouting your love for Reagan."
When did I do that? I simply stated that his economic policies worked better than any other this country has ever seen, and gave the facts to back it up. You have yet to attempt to counter those facts. And you never said exactly WHY supply-side doesn't work.
"But keep in mind Omega, I don't personally dislike you. I just think your political and social and economic beliefs are beyond crap."
It's amazing how you and Jay take the words out of my mouth like that. I could say the same thing about you.
------------------
You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.
------------------
"Sorry Wendy, I jsu can't trust something that bleeds for five days and doesn't die."
Mr Garrison
------------------
"Here is another word that rhymes with shame" - Kurt Cobain
Blew, Nirvana
"Three hundred sixty five degrees; burning down the house."
------------------
"20th Century, go to sleep."
--
R.E.M.
------------------
Fool of a Took, throw yourself in next time!!
Gandalf
Yes, that's right, I didn't forget any digits or screw up the decimal placement; it's FIVE DOLLARS AND NINETY-SEVEN CENTS.
Pathetic. And THIS is in a state that pays most of its tax money towards roads and education in the FIRST place.
Suggestions, o' brilliant education expert?
------------------
Calvin: "No efficiency, no accountability... I tell you, Hobbes, it's a lousy way to run a Universe." -- Bill Watterson
We got hommie chilling in the corner listen to hip-hop and rap, peps spasing for increase in educational fund (not that I don't agree with you guys), and accused racist roaming about, but.....
What about the "Church and State" debate??!!
Tora: "When too many want to get into the same school,... the school gets to pick and choose."
Omega: "Ah, thank you kindly, Ziyal! That means that if you had a city-wide system, there would be no space limitations, and thus schools would not have that reason to disallow students entry. "
Well, if the school gets to pick the best students, and throw out the stoopider people, then surely someone has to take them in. Unless all the schools have a certain standard, in which case the stoopider pupils wouldn't get into any schools.
Unless we should build special schools for those pupils who struggle to get D's. Possibly on an island somewhere.
------------------
"Sorry Wendy, I just can't trust something that bleeds for five days and doesn't die."
Mr Garrison
Primary unit of a dual-unit matrix:
"Suggestions, o' brilliant education expert?"
Well, for that I'd have to examine the Pennsylvania state and Philidelphia city budgets, then see the budget for the Philedelphia department of education, or whatever they call it there. There is no grand, sweeping solution. Everything needs to be figured out on an individual basis. If there were solutions that worked everywhere for everything, why would we even need local governments?
Is that $5.97 state, local, or total?
Oh, and is their school system any better or worse than any other? Just curious. You didn't say.
Liam:
"Well, if the school gets to pick the best students, and throw out the stoopider people, then surely someone has to take them in."
Well, what Ziyal said showed that the reason catholic schools have to restrict entry based on grades is because of a lack of space. If that lack of space was eliminated, as it would be in a city-wide public system, the schools would have no need to restrict entry to conserve space. That objection to the catholic school system being implemented throughout a city being defeated, are there any others?
------------------
You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.
[This message has been edited by Omega (edited January 11, 2000).]
------------------
"No, I don't have a gun" - Kurt Cobain
Come As You Are, Nirvana
Then I got to work and discovered we'd been scammed yet again.
How do you scam a library? Simple. We don't have the time to check every reference that we ask for when people apply for cards. So, we get people who apply for cards, check out a few books... then vanish. This time, they even went to the trouble of making up an address which didn't exist -- which we discovered when the post office returned our overdue notice marked 'no such address.'
GODDAMMIT!!
Had another incident last month. Lady comes in, wants to renew her niece's card. Girl on duty can't find the card. Lady gets all attitudinal on her, makes a big fuss, goes home mad. Later, same lady's niece gets an overdue notice from the library (her third, and the 'final notice before prosecution' type), and Lady writes nasty letters to everybody from the Library Director to the local State Representative, saying she'd been discriminated against because of her skin tone, and gets me in hot water.
I end up on the defensive, but manage to save face with these facts.
1. The niece's card couldn't be found, because a week earlier it was pulled because the niece had books three YEARS overdue.
2. The Lady herself lived in Virginia, but was using a PA address to keep getting books without paying the non-resident fee.
3. It's always been library policy to send overdue notices to the holder of the card, given that we reason that if you're old enough to have a card, you're old enough to accept the responsibility for your actions concerning it.
None of these mattered to her, but fortunately they mattered to our Board. Hell, I'd never even gotten to SPEAK to the Lady, she just went ballistic on me and played the race card to boot. All the while she was checking out books fraudulently. (and still has one overdue on HER card, three months later)
Respect? Respect??? Hello???
This is a two-way proposition, bay-bee! You want some, you gotta show some!
------------------
Calvin: "No efficiency, no accountability... I tell you, Hobbes, it's a lousy way to run a Universe." -- Bill Watterson
------------------
"No, I don't have a gun" - Kurt Cobain
Come As You Are, Nirvana
Yeah, now you all have some idea of how far behind I am.
------------------
Calvin: "No efficiency, no accountability... I tell you, Hobbes, it's a lousy way to run a Universe." -- Bill Watterson
------------------
Peace on Earth
------------------
"Never met a wise man, if so it was a woman" - Kurt Cobain
Territorial Pissings, Nirvana
------------------
I bet when Neanderthal kids would make a snowman, someone would
always end up saying "Don't forget the big heavy eyebrows." Then they would all get embarrassed because they remembered they had the big hunky eyebrows too, and then they would get mad and eat the snowman.
-Jack Handey
Was just waiting for the all-clear to consign this mofo to, ahem, "Flameboard Bondage"
*click*
------------------
The above post was mulled-over, composed, and posted during time Tom would have better spent on his plethora of homework and homework-related exercises. Now don't you feel special?