START A RANT
SIGN UP / SIGN IN
GET PAID TO POST
FOLLOW ON TWITTER
START A RAVE
MY PROFILE
CONTACT US
ABOUT US
News & Politics

Rave

Tea Tea for Texas! Please stay out!

Posted 39 months ago|202 comments|2,393 views
VIDEOS
Written by
Finally, a state to stand up and say enough. Go a head and spit in our face. We will just piss on your shoe.

The Texas Education Board ruled that all children must be taught the Judeo-Christian influences of the nation's Founding Fathers.

That is right. Taught Judeo-Christian influences. Period. End of conversation.
If your liberal butt can't do the job then find one you can. Period. Stop teaching our kids your theory and start teaching our kids the facts.

The AP has a hidden story not being covered by any other news source.

The full story:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/arti...

Curriculum standards also will describe the U.S. government as a "constitutional republic," rather than "democratic," and students will be required to study the decline in value of the U.S. dollar, including the abandonment of the gold standard.

Go figure. Teaching the truth. Close the gates to Texas guys as the influx of people is about to begin.

By late Thursday night, three other Democrats seemed to sense their futility and left, leaving Republicans to easily push through amendments heralding "American exceptionalism" and the U.S. free enterprise system, suggesting it thrives best absent excessive government intervention.

RedStateGuy is going to be pissed.
UPDATE - 39 months ago
Wow! The Texas Education Agency (TEA The wide-ranging debate over what should be taught in history classes covered everything from non-controversial items to heavily discussed topics such as how the history of the Alamo should be taught and whether hip hop should be discussed in classrooms. (All those who died at the Alamo will be discussed in seventh grade Texas history classes. Hip hop will not be part of the official curriculum standards.)

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?i...
UPDATE - 39 months ago
New video. Texas could be setting a new trendsetter for states across the country.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE0cjEoC7...
UPDATE - 39 months ago
Mark, Thanks for the picture link of Democrat State Board of Education member Mary Berlanga with all of the ''Jim Crow'' hanging on her desk.

Your statement was..

4 days ago: Did you see the desk of State Board of Education member Mary Berlanga - she adorned it with Jim Crow history? You know, the kind of history the religious right Christians would prefer to sweep under the table as they pine for the days of Leave it to Beaver.
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
39 months ago: Why not, the left was spinning school history books for years too. Always good to balance out the one-sided propaganda with one-sided propaganda from the other side. It's like CNN and Fox News but hopefully they'll leave in a few gems of truth as they indoctrinate the children.
39 months ago: Call it spin if you wish. We Texans call it TRUTH.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
39 months ago: No, it's called religious right GOP 'truth' - all the Dem members voted against it.
39 months ago: I guess that Democrats running away and not voting counts as a no vote in your mind.

...three other Democrats seemed to sense their futility and left...
39 months ago: Regardless of party a 10 to 5 vote seems like a mandate to me...

AUSTIN – After considering about 300 amendments during its January and March meetings, the State Board of Education, on a 10-5 vote today, gave preliminary approval to new social studies curriculum standards that will be used in the Texas public schools.
39 months ago: No, It's called Constitutional Republic.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
39 months ago: Did you see the desk of State Board of Education member Mary Berlanga - she adorned it with Jim Crow history? You know, the kind of history the religious right Christians would prefer to sweep under the table as they pine for the days of Leave it to Beaver.
39 months ago: Enjoy the video.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
39 months ago: Those were the shows - Beverly Hillbillies, Gomer Pyle, Bewitched, etc.,- and they thought TV was a wasteland back in that day.
39 months ago: It is the perception of Texas and dumb Hillbillies by people like you. To infer that Texas is a wasteland is laughable coming from someone in Florida. A state that is currently listed in the top 5 to fail along with California, Nevada and New York. Your ethic meter is showing. Needing a Texas Bail-out?
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
39 months ago: Huh, now looking at some actual statistics for percent of population, 25 years and older who have high school degrees and higher, Florida in 2006 had 84.7% and Texas had 78.6% - are you sure you should be calling out any other State when you're near the bottom of the eduational pole?

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d08/t...

And aren't you sensitive - I wasn't intending to make any sleight regarding the TV show or calling your state hillbillies - my wasteland comment was relative to today's wasteland of TV shows vice what people thought was wasteland in the past. I prefer to watch the old sitcoms.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
39 months ago: BTW, I've lived in multiple states and just before leaving the military, I was either going to move to Central Florida or San Antonio, Texas. It was pretty much a flip of the coin and while I'm now in Florida, there's still half a chance I'll move to Texas.
39 months ago: I find all of that smoke to be very funny. Try eating it. Your smart enough to know that data is highly skewed due to the amount of illegals in Texas that the government won't purge.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
39 months ago: That's one small reason Florida won out on my 'move to' choice.
39 months ago: If your just looking for a close V.A. I suggest Kerrville. My Mom finished her retirement tours there before moving back to the homeland.
39 months ago: Mary Berlanga and Jim Crow? Really. I'd like to see that picture as Berlanga is one of the Democrats that voted no.

with Democrats Rick Agosto, Lawrence Allen, Mary Helen Berlanga, and Mavis Knight voting no.

Texas State Teachers Association news room:
http://www.tsta.org/news/current/index.s...

Please explain why Hip Hop should be include in education.

Mavis Knight became frustrated when she learned that her amendment, which had just passed, did not reinstate hip-hop because hip-hop had just been removed--again.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
39 months ago: That's a good link TCG - at least the Texas State Teachers Association isn't towing the religious right's buffoonery, and they'll undoubtedly work around the Leave it to Beaver history book assuming it passes legal muster and is published as is.

Quote:

"His amendment also removed the Beat Generation. He noted that this genre contained the same characteristics that the right wing found objectionable in hip-hop."

Hope they didn't tell Jack Kerouac to hit the road.

A real example of buffoonery is:

"In Psychology, the board could not find a place to list Sigmund Freud as a significant figure...The board spent much of the afternoon removing Hispanics from the curriculum standards and replacing them with others. One key example was replacing painter Santa Barraza with Fred Avery, the creator of Daffy Duck."

So Fred Avery of Daffy Duck fame is in and Sigmund Freud is out. What's with religious cult's animus against Psychology - you got kooks like Tom Cruise of Scientology fame melting down about the evil of shrinks and here we got the religious kooks on the TBOE going Daffy over Freud.
39 months ago: The Texas State Teachers Association is second only to S.E.I.U. when it comes to socialism.

...at least the Texas State Teachers Association isn't towing the religious right's buffoonery, and they'll undoubtedly work around...

Not if they want to keep their jobs and high retirements.

They are also fighting moves to force them to teach by rating them on student achievement.
39 months ago: I didn't get a reply or picture link to ''Good ol' Democrat Miss Mary'' and her desk adorned with ''Jim Crow''. Could this be? A ripe chance to a anti-southerner to post actual links of a picture of a Democrat with ''Jim Crow'' artifacts on their desk while spouting equal us and them? Ripe to the point of being intoxicating.
39 months ago: Leave Beav and Wally out of this!
39 months ago: I'm still waiting for a link of Democrat State Board of Education member Mary Berlanga's desk with the ''Jim Crow'' history. Or are you just blowing more smoke? Really, you threw it out there. Please send us the picture link so we all can see the adornment of the democrats desk with ''Jim Crow'' history. I'm not letting this pass. Now that it is a Democrat your backing down?
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
39 months ago: The pic is right here:

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2010/0...
39 months ago: Thanks, I burned it to CD just in case. You need to check her out. A real over the edge anti-American lawyer that is pissed because she didn't get her way. I say to Miss Mary. If you were any good at being an attorney you would not be in Corpus Christi.
39 months ago: Besides, she is just pissed because we are pushing her tribe back across the Rio Grande and she is losing imagration status clients by the droves. I'd be pissed also if my dreams were crushed because I thought Mexico still owned Texas.
39 months ago: You think I'm joking? Check out Miss "Jim Crow" at...

http://www.bonilla-chapalaw.com/mhb.html
39 months ago: Just so you know Mark. I just set an email to the firm which Miss ''Crow'' belongs to with a copy of the picture of her desk asking how a immigration and social security attorney ''Partner'' can have this stuff displayed openly on their desk. I asked for a open to the public reply. I also stated that if they do not respond I would mass produce the picture and her Bio on their website with all of the related questions. Let's see how the radical leftists respond.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
39 months ago:
|￣￣|
＿☆☆☆＿
（ ´_⊃｀）
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
39 months ago: Ah well, the shoe will be on the other foot and the hard core liberals in Texas can do like the religious right has done for years - pull their kids out of public school and home school, private school, religious school, etc.
39 months ago: Would that be the shoe we pissed on? Sorry. 10 years is the ruling. So our kids will be taught some truth until 2020.
39 months ago: I'm pissed you posted this rave first.

Right on Texas!

Liberals can't stand the truth.

I'll be your Texas history books show we Volunteers saved your a**es!

I'm about to figure Mark out. Let's change is name to stirfry.
39 months ago: ...I'll be your Texas history books show we Volunteers saved your a**es!...

Probably not. I do think that you can be assured that Texas History will include the Tennessee Volunteers as an intregral part to win "Texas Independence" from the Culturally corrupt Aztec crossbred Spanards which like to claim the land as Mexicans. Talk about hiding the past and stealing land. The French and Spanards were the worst.

Spain gave us Mexicans.
France gave us Creole.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
39 months ago: You know the sad thing about this is that Texas pretty much determines what text books are used throughout the nation. Now all of the kids who rely on the texts are going to be dumb as a box of rocks. Fortunately there are other sources too.

"We have manipulated strands to insert what we want it to be in the document, regardless as to whether or not it's appropriate."

Ya'all have good English too.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
39 months ago: I'm sure educated and conscientious teachers will be able to workaround one-sided textbooks - they've had to already but I'd love to see a history textbooks that are free of political bias and focused on presenting actual events and facts.

For example, did you note the perversity of Time Magazine lifting up Tom Lefto Hanks as some kind of historian on WWII when he frames the Pacific War as US racism & terror. Seriously, is Hanks sucking on Sean Penn's teat and did he forget that the Japanese imperialists were butchering 'sub-human' Chinese and were allies with Nazi Germany. I don't want the Tom Hanks version of history in any academic book.

At the same time, I don't want the religious right sanitizing America's own racial stains such as the forced relocation of Japanese Americans to internment ghetto camps. I imagine that fact won't be in their new 'history' book, and it's probably safe to assume Jim Crow history will be erased too.

As long as the hardcore left and the right are pushing the history books, you might as well call them fantasy novels. Of course to the religious right, that's no biggy since they treat their bible as non-fiction.

Oh, and let's dispense with the phony Judeo-Christian tag and call it what you know it is - Protestant-Christian. Let's not pretend the religious right is inclusive of the Jewish religion or recognizing the contribution of Jews in the founding of America.
scotmanster
scotmanster
39 months ago: I can't believe you of all people "Mr. Fair And Balanced" Mark are saying educating our children of how and who influenced our forefathers is wrong. This is not whether you,Al or me believe in God or not. It is about teaching how our Nation was formed..leaving our factual information is suppressing the truth. So you are ok with suppressing the truth as long as it it fits your bias?

But you sit here and try to promote your bias openly.

"religious right sanitizing America's own racial stains such as the forced relocation of Japanese Americans"

We do things as a nation and all are accountable equally. You sit here and blame the religious right but were are you when the latest ethnic group was forced into internment camps after 9/11?

If I were to accept your way of thinking that a group of people is accountable for that occurring then you personally are accountable because you did not petition our Government to stop it. But I don't pretend you have any more control over it than I do. Nor do I pretend a group of people had any more control over past mistakes than the rest of this Nation.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
39 months ago: ...Mark are saying educating our children of how and who influenced our forefathers is wrong...

Putting words in my mouth again and I most certainly want the children to learn what the founding fathers said. For example, Thomas Jefferson:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

And how about this founding father quote from James Madison:

James Madison's summary of the First Amendment:

"Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform" (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug. 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731)

How about this one from Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,4 - as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, - and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Is there any doubt that the religious right textbooks are going to censor any factoids out that deter them from proselytizing their evangelical Dominionist religion in public schools?
scotmanster
scotmanster
39 months ago: No one is proselyting their religion on you Mark nor is it happening in this debate especially concerning the text books. You yourself even agreed after reading a link about the Texas school board that it was not proselytizing.
39 months ago: ...taught the Judeo-Christian influences of the nation's Founding Fathers...

INFLUENCES. Your honestly saying there was not any Judeo-Christion influence?

Where does it say taught any religion?
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
39 months ago: ..there was not any Judeo-Christion influence?..

Yes, in the sense they wanted to get away from the oppressive Church states of Europe and worship as they please, and our secular Constitution allows for a plurality of religions with no religious tests to hold office.
39 months ago: I agree. Church States such as The Church of England played a major role. It is a fact that this country has deep roots in religious freedom. With that said, most of it was freedom to worship your own Judeo-Christian belief not the states mandated religion.

Once again. We are not expecting or will we allow specific religion indoctrinations in our schools.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
39 months ago: ...Where does it say taught any religion?..

When they voted to replace Thomas Jefferson with religious right icon John Calvin, it's patently obvious what this Christian fundamenlist filled board is up to. It's not about American history - these ultra-cons loathe Jefferson, they loathe our secular Constitution, and choosing John Calvin while excising Thomas Jefferson is all about propagating evangelical Christianity as the state religion.
39 months ago: ...When they voted to replace Thomas Jefferson with religious right icon John Calvin...

Where did you see this?
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
39 months ago: http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/texas-removes-thomas-jefferson-from-teaching-standard/19397481
39 months ago: Please re-read the part where it says,

...drop Jefferson from a world history section...

It's does not say dropped from American History.

This is a mis-leading article. AOL is the only ''News'' source? Oh yeah, it is according to the Texas Freedom Network. That alone makes me question it.
scotmanster
scotmanster
39 months ago: Good eye TCG.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
39 months ago: You know how to do searches as well as I can, and it's been reported from multiple sources. The boards decision to replace Jefferson with a protestant fundamentalist minister is a fact and not an opinion. If you want to quibble over which course, fine - it's the Age of Enlightenment in world history.

So how does this board of religious zealots claim they're trying to reinforce "American Exceptionalism" when they're intentionally removing Thomas Jefferson from the Enlightenment picture? It's because he wasn't an evangelical Christian and they loathe him as one of the engineers of an exceptional secular state that fostered the unique world concept of separation of Church and State.

And dollars to donuts, we can bet that Thomas Jefferson's quotes on that subject won't be in any 'history' textbook (American or World) as approved by this board of evangelical zealots.
39 months ago: ...we can bet that Thomas Jefferson's quotes on that subject won't be in any 'history' textbook (American or World)...

I am guessing your referring only to quotes by TJ regarding governments mandate of a single government religion. Is there any other quote topics by TJ you feel needs to be addressed?
39 months ago: Al, Since you an ex-education union hack, I expect no less from you regarding this topic. Your right in the fact that ''Texas pretty much determines what text books are used throughout the nation''. Coming to a classroom near you, truth.

''dumb as a box of rocks'' and ''Ya'all have good English too.''?

Good enough English and smart enough to possibly include the text in your schools.

Isn't that funny?
scotmanster
scotmanster
39 months ago: I did not know this was English class? I will make sure I pick out all your grammar errors from here on out.

This is very good news to hear. Especially when it is undeniable truth that Judeo-Christian did influence the decisions of our nation's Founding Fathers.

Whether you believe in God or not it does not matter in this particular debate. You can not take away the fact that these influences did occur. That is fact from fiction. The God haters must be crawling out of their skin reading this, knowing they have to stop teaching their fiction.
scotmanster
scotmanster
39 months ago: "Board members argued about the classification of historic periods (still B.C. and A.D., rather than B.C.E. and C.E.); whether students should be required to explain the origins of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its impact on global politics (they will); and whether former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir should be required learning (she will)."

I had a question more than a rebuttal. Maybe if Rudi reads this he can answer this for me. Was wondering how the Jewish community looks at this quote from the Ap Article. Is some of the main Jewish events that have occurred throughout history being presented with a anti-Jewish bias in text books?
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
39 months ago: Here's an interesting Jewish perspective.

Geoffrey Dennis, Rabbi, Congregation Kol Ami in Flower Mound; faculty member, University of North Texas Jewish Studies Program

"if every high school could offer a course like that, where students would learn about religion, rather than be indoctrinated with religion, then I think such a course should be mandatory in our public schools. Problem is, of course, that too often such proposed courses, whether it be "Bible as Literature" or "World Religion," are usually promoted by groups whose primary interest is not to inform, but to indoctrinate children with a particular religious perspective."

"I think we have to approach the formal inclusion of religion in our school curriculums with great caution and, especially, it has to start with a conscious decision, at the highest levels of state government, that such programs are required to reflect the full diversity of religious life, rather than to simply favor the parochial preferences of voters, even if they are in the majority. Effective education in this domain begins with the First Amendment: government (that is schools) are not permitted to establish any religion at the expense of any other."

Doesn't that seem balanced?

http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/archi...
scotmanster
scotmanster
39 months ago: Are Jewish events that have occurred throughout history being presented with a anti-Jewish bias in text books?
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
39 months ago: I agree with Mark that History should deal with facts and should be nonpartisan. I think it is nuts that Texas should determine texts for the nation and that decision is made by 10 people with a conservative religious agenda. Why don't we allow the best historians have a say in what is in the history texts, the best mathematicians determine math texts and the best scientists determine science texts.

It is said that the victors get to write the history books, therefore we give short shrift to the only use of nuclear bombs on a civilian population.

Furthermore history should not be to glorify those who took us into war but it should be used to avoid poor choices and learn consequences. As Santana said those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

"Along with inspirational visions, we will need specific schemes for accomplishing important purposes, which can then be laid before the groups that use them. Let the economists work out a plan for food... Let the political scientists work out tactics for the poor, rather than counter-insurgency tactics for the military. Let the historians instruct or inspire us, from the data of the past rather than amusing us, boring us or deceiving us... Let the scientists figure out and lay before the public plans on how to make autos safe, cities beautiful, air pure. Let all social scientists work on modes of change instead of merely describing the world that is, so that we can make the necessary alterations with the least disorder." ~Howard Zinn, from The Uses of Scholarship
39 months ago: Al.

Face the truth.
39 months ago: Red, Al is just mad because his shoes are wet.
Siempre Solo
Siempre Solo
Auburn, NY
39 months ago: What are we arguing about again? Oh yeah, HIS STORY. There is nothing new about the winner of a battle being able to tell the story from his perspective. Texas never felt part of the Union and the rest of the south still has similar sentiments. They are all waiting for their side to rise again, slaves and all. This is Texas way of keeping their hope relevant to a new generation of kids who might not give two hoots if great grand pappy killed Negro's, Ingins and Mexicans, who would probably like to forget that part of his past. Here's to Texas the last bastion for ignorance in America. Hip, hip hurray!
39 months ago: Finally!

The Siempre I know is back!
Siempre Solo
Siempre Solo
Auburn, NY
39 months ago: I never went away!
scotmanster
scotmanster
39 months ago:
This is Texas way of keeping their hope relevant to a new generation of kids who might not give two hoots if great grand pappy killed Negro's, Ingins and Mexicans, who would probably like to forget that part of his past. Here's to Texas the last bastion for ignorance in America. Hip, hip hurray!

I just can not believe what I read here at RR sometimes. You deny your own heritage?
Siempre Solo
Siempre Solo
Auburn, NY
39 months ago: Please elaborate!
scotmanster
scotmanster
39 months ago: Are you denying your heritage as Unites States citizen and what we have overcome?

Or is your heritage just about the past and not recognizing anything that happened after it?
Siempre Solo
Siempre Solo
Auburn, NY
39 months ago: Some Americans have overcome. Some Americans have had to compromise. Others aren't happy with what they got, but others still got everything they wanted and more. America has always been the land of mixing and diversity, problem is very few Americans have ever wanted this and the vast majority of Americans have always fought against acknowledging this simple little truth. That is what Texas is trying to do.
scotmanster
scotmanster
39 months ago: Do you not pay taxes like I do? Surely if I were favored becuase of the color of my skin I would have fringe benefits over one of a different color of skin. But I don't if I break the law I go to jail. If I speed I get a ticket, if I fail to pay my taxes the irs comes after me. Just like the rest of America does.

We are all in the same boat just some people like to be separate,they like to feel that they are special and that trait can be found in all humans no matter what color they are.
scotmanster
scotmanster
39 months ago: You said they never wanted this. What exactly about this Nation do they not want?
Siempre Solo
Siempre Solo
Auburn, NY
39 months ago:
America has always been the land of mixing and diversity, problem is very few Americans have ever wanted this
The above is what I wrote. What the heck are ytou talking about?
scotmanster
scotmanster
39 months ago: So your saying Americans never wanted mixing and diversity? Well guess what they got it and that is the society we live in. Accept it and move on.
Siempre Solo
Siempre Solo
Auburn, NY
39 months ago: Perhaps you haven't read any of my rants, raves or comments over the past year. I'm a product of it Scott. My people are your people and their people and his people and her people too. Chances are that you have sat next to someone whose ancestors are my ancestors too. When I talk about the injuries committed against native Americans and African slaves and both their decedents by Anglo settlers in the Americas and their decedents I am not pointing a finger at you or Red or Cypress because I don't know any of you. You could all be mulatto or Chinese or something else.


What I am doing is pointing a finger at my own ancestors. I am discussing my own history. White people tend to forget that being of mixed race, mixed ancestry, mixed ethnicity, mixed culture, mixed religion, mixed nationality does not make that person less or only what seems to stand out. It makes that person more. A mixed race person of black and white parentage that looks black for example is not just black. That person is white too and A mixed faith person whose parents are Jewish and Buddhist despite what supports of each of those faiths might want to believe is both perhaps even more.


If I fault you in anything is in not understanding the dynamics of being mixed. I am not just a product of one thing. I am a product of many and my perspective as that of many other mixed Americans reflects just that. If you read one of my tirades against an injustice don't stereotype me as just another one of those because that just shows that America still doesn't accept or tolerate it's inherent diversity. Getting over the diversity means embracing it and making it your strength not the other way around, putting it in a closet and forgetting about it.
scotmanster
scotmanster
39 months ago: I certainly did not stereo type you. But you believe because I am not mixed I have no clue what racism feels like. I am sorry their is such a thing now as black Americans being racist against white Americans. But I accept these ideologies are from twisted logic thinkers in our society that only represent a small percentage of us as a whole.

I do not lump them up in a whole and say all blacks think the same way. But that is just the opposite I am hearing from the other side of the fence when they bring up racial problems of the past and compare them with the Christians of today in the same sentence.
scotmanster
scotmanster
Content Removed by scotmanster
scotmanster
scotmanster
39 months ago: "But that is just the opposite I am hearing from the other side of the fence when they bring up racial problems of the past and compare them with the Christians of today in the same sentence."

I should expand on this idea because it is much deeper in that people stereotype southern people as being racist. I have good friends from the south I can show you picture after picture of non-religious mixed racial friends. Does it mean racism is across the country is wiped out? No it doesn't it just means people as a whole that represent the majority have outgrown the hatred of the past. it is only in small pockets of our society that the hatred is found and we have taken giant steps to route these sick individuals out.

Just so happen popular celebrities of today know what sells and make huge issues out of racism to sell it to the public at large. They laugh all the way to the bank meanwhile promoting more hatred.
Siempre Solo
Siempre Solo
Auburn, NY
39 months ago: All I hear from you is they and them did this and that. I don't here any inclusivity in your words. Don't kid yourself yo9u are mixing. You just don't realize it.
scotmanster
scotmanster
39 months ago: What ever that means SS I have no clue. Try speaking English this time around.
Siempre Solo
Siempre Solo
Auburn, NY
39 months ago: The feeling is mutual. I'm not sure if I understand what you are saying either. Perhapps it is you that is not speaking English.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
39 months ago: I thought we had already established that we are all mixed in the United States. From the darkest black man to the fairest skinned caucasian, not one of us can claim ethnic or racial purity.

Just because I am not mixed with black blood or hispanic blood, or jewish blood or middle eastern blood or oriental blood does not mean that I, or anyone else for that matter, is not just as special in his "mixed-ness" than any other combination of bloodlines.

"White" is not one great homogeneous collection of every light skinned person, any more than is hispanic, or oriental. Call a Puerto Rican a Mexican, and see if you don't get corrected. Call a Korean a Chinese and see if you don't get a fat lip. Call a German a Pole, and you might have your hands full.

Don't reduce being mixed to the simplicities of what is visible to the untrained eye. Would you know the product of a a Vietnamese wed to a Japanese on sight alone?
scotmanster
scotmanster
39 months ago: "Inclusive means the fact or policy of not excluding members or participants on the grounds of gender, race, class, sexuality, disability, etc."

"Mixing means a. To combine or blend into one mass or mixture."

So let me see if I can interpret your non-English into English...

Siempre said in English... I don't here you including members of a different race. Don't kid yourself your are blending races into one mass.

So which is it Siempre? The first sentence or the last sentence that you see fault in me. That is what I meant by jibberish can some please interpret the foreign language Siempre is speaking becuase it makes no sense to me?
39 months ago: ...Texas never felt part of the Union and the rest of the south still has similar sentiments...

...Texas the last bastion for ignorance in America...

Could it possibly be that we just quietly get the job done and keep sending money to fund most of the country? Nothing like rediculing the ones that pay the bills.

Lets compare those ignorant Texans against New York bigheads.

Texas
The economy of Texas is one of the largest and fastest growing economies in the United States. In 2006, Texas was home to six of the top 50 companies on the Fortune 500 list and 46 overall, more than any other state. Texas has an economy that was the second largest in the nation and the 15th largest in the world based on GDP (nominal) figures. As the largest exporter of goods in the United States, Texas currently grosses more than $100 billion a year in trade with other nations.

In 2008, Texas had a gross state product of $1.245 trillion, the second highest in the U.S. The Gross state product per capita as of 2005 was $42,975.

Texas's growth can be attributed to the availability of jobs, the low cost of housing, the lack of a personal state income tax, the quality of higher education, low taxation and limited regulation of business, a central geographic location, a limited government, favorable weather, and plentiful supplies of oil and natural gas.

New York
New York's gross state product in 2007 was $1.1 trillion, ranking third in size behind the larger states of California and Texas.[32] If New York were an independent nation, it would rank as the 16th largest economy in the world behind Turkey. Its 2007 per capita personal income was $46,364, placing it sixth in the nation behind Maryland, and eighth in the world behind Ireland.

New York City is the leading center of banking, finance and communication in the United States and is the location of the New York Stock Exchange, the largest stock exchange in the world by dollar volume.

...who might not give two hoots if great grand pappy killed Negro's, Ingins and Mexicans...

Please post your facts or at least your statistics. Remember the fact that reconstruction was a Northern thing. You just can't stand it that those dumb southerners which you put down once and robbed blind have learned how to beat you at your own game. Until you decide to change the rules. Again.

The civil war you like to refer to was an economic war and you know it. Wait until that comes out in text books.

Are you just mad because we don't want to teach our kids Hip Hop?
Siempre Solo
Siempre Solo
Auburn, NY
39 months ago: Nice stats C, What do they have to do with teaching revisionist history? White people been the largest consumers of Hip Hop related merchendise over the past 20 years.
39 months ago: I'll start here and then deflate your bubble on My pappy's pappy and your pappy's pappy.

White people have been the largest consumers of Hip Hop everything for the last 20 years?

You should be greatful. The stuff stinks. Probably liberals wanting to show you they can be ICE. Oh chill man. The stuff is still gang, racist, and sexist. So I'll now move down to your pappy statement.
Siempre Solo
Siempre Solo
Auburn, NY
39 months ago: Since you brought up hip hop music I'll asume you are the expert and primary consumer of that genre of music. Which just serves to solidify my point. So go ahead now and repudiate my pappy statement.
39 months ago: You assume too much. I know you have a chip on your shoulder dating back to when your African forebearers sold your family some 600 years ago. Who is worse? The Drug Dealer or the Drug User? Looks more like the Africans were the Dealers. Own it and throw that chip into the Bar-B-Que. Go figure. Self righteous people ''Blaming'' the end user and not the producer/seller.
Siempre Solo
Siempre Solo
Auburn, NY
39 months ago: Now look who is assuming too much. What personal knowledge do you know about the african slave trade? Were you involved? Is that how you know who sold who? Or could it be your making more of those blanket statements of Teacup revisioning you are becoming famous for? I've got African ancestors. That's true and some of them were ripped from their homeland into forced labor. That is true too. But news flash buddy. I've also ancestors of anglo decent as well some who held slaves themselves and that is just two of many more blood lines that make up Siempre Solo. If I have a chip on my shoulder C, it is against my own kin folks. Because in your close minded view point my african ancestors prevent me from being white. But my language, culture, history, ethnicity and blood lines say otherwise. I think what tickes you off more than anything else I say is how easily I can identify with white, black and a boatload of G-d knows what else. It bothers you because it means that all those other non-you ethnic groups are no different than you. Welcome to my wonderful world of diversity!
39 months ago: Not much except what My Pappy handed down. Just like what you know from your Mammy hand me downs.

PBS? Not known for being hard right.

During the 19th century, the Ashanti fought several wars with the British, who sought to eliminate the slave trade.

http://www.pbs.org/wonders/Episodes/Epi3...

Just one of many African tribes that sold you just like drugs.
Siempre Solo
Siempre Solo
Auburn, NY
39 months ago: Sold me? You sound like The Ron Bot Hunter. Did you know the British started the slave trade?
39 months ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery

Not that I want to defend the British but slavery is much older than Britian. They did enslave their own, but as for long distance slave trade? They got the idea from others.
Siempre Solo
Siempre Solo
Auburn, NY
39 months ago: I'm not talking about ancient history here. Eg. Egypt, Babylon, Etc. They used slavery as a way of punishing the looser of a battle. It was either enslave them or kill them. The slavery that built our nation was one solely based on economics as you pointed out sometime ago, which makes them all the more hardhearted. Keep in mind too that the Africans that sold other Africans were not from the same villages, clans or families. They were warring villages and clans that sold their enemies into slavery. So it is not as if my own kin sold my own kin. It was an angry neighbor. The British, Spanish, Portuguese, Etc. That brought into the slave trade and helped promote and keep it going for as long as they did held a greater blame because the were not at war with any African village or clan or family. They were merely exploiting inner strife that was none of their affair. Much the same way that the US still continues to meddle in foreign affairs today, playing one country against another.
Siempre Solo
Siempre Solo
Auburn, NY
39 months ago: I supose your pappy's pappy diddn't own my pappy's pappy, huh? Or was he good to his property? A good Christian man! Spare me the revisioning. I know what the South wanted.
39 months ago: This statement is a true reflection of the STUPID BLACK mentality. The black thoughts are that all whites owned slaves. Come to find out if you do your research that only 5 percent of whites owned slaves. To make it worst why are you nice northern Blacks assaulting the Free Blacks that owned slaves? I'll make it simple for you. What are the top 10 Black sir names. What is yours? Jones? Really this whole notion by Black America that all whites and the forefathers owned slaves is a Turd from the Black community that they are going to have to eat.
Siempre Solo
Siempre Solo
Auburn, NY
39 months ago: I hate to see ignorance but when it spits out in self defense with out a little bit of research on the point of attack it reminds me why it is ignorance and not just misinformation.

Get some clarification on these before you proceed with your self righteous southern, revisionist, Tea party diatribe:

1)"reflection of the STUPID BLACK mentality" What do you mean by black? Are you implying that I am black or African American or both, or neither? Are you then also insinuating that all black people think the same? Are all blacks Americans? Do all blacks think alike? Can someone be black and white? If my mammy was black and my pappy white and I got my pappies name am I White or black. So please, what do you mean by black? Because I can't even begin to address the word stupid before I know just who you think black is?


2)"The black thoughts are that all whites owned slaves." Shoot, that's funny! Not all whites could afford slaves and some whites were southern abolitionist that made life a living hell for slave owners. Some Ingins, Mexicans and free Negroes owned slaves themselves too, so what you think black folks know about what white folks did is wrong. The fact is that American culture, commerce, religion and society was formed and established by Anglo influence so yeah it was "the white mans fault" which is why I addressed it as such, but you need not get all defensive if your kin were the good guys!

3) But your figures are once again reflective of a revisionist agenda. But don't worry good sir. I don't vote in Texas so my opinion there don't count!
scotmanster
scotmanster
39 months ago: "I agree with Mark that History should deal with facts and should be nonpartisan."

Were did Mark say that? He is saying the opposite.
scotmanster
scotmanster
39 months ago: Don't forget to add TCG... NY is one of the highest taxed states and gets most of its revenue from robbing its citizens.
39 months ago: Don't forget California Scot.

I'll be waiting on the next economic report and remind Siempre and Al when Texas takes the number 1 spot since New York and Califorinia are going ''BUST''.

I thought the fact that the big bail-out companies are located in New York laid it out.

Yeah, our kids will be taught about the Dollar and "Gold Standard'' also.
Siempre Solo
Siempre Solo
Auburn, NY
39 months ago: Who you telling? I've been a citizen of the Empire State long enough!
39 months ago: Empire State. That is funny.
Siempre Solo
Siempre Solo
Auburn, NY
39 months ago: No, Lone Star. That's funny!
39 months ago: Your right. No, Lone Star. Text books coming so to your school. Too funny. Book burning anyone? Eh, Siempre?
Siempre Solo
Siempre Solo
Auburn, NY
39 months ago: The loosers are American Children who will grow up believing that America is an ilusion and a failled concept that can not work. And who will we have to thank for such a sad scenerio?
scotmanster
scotmanster
39 months ago: You just described Liberalism to the T. They as well think America is a failed illusion and want to remake this country too. I believe in telling the truth about history not some biased belief and the fact is not all southern people were slave owners.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
39 months ago: 'Were did Mark say that? He is saying the opposite.'

Scot, if you look above, I said I'd love to see history books that are free of political bias and focused on presenting actual events and facts. You responded by falsely claiming that I didn't want children learning about what influenced the founding fathers. To that claim, I quoted a few of the founding fathers as they espoused separation of Church and our new "secular" State.
Those inconvenient quotes along with our Constitution don't jive with the religious right's bogus attempt to paint the founding of America as some kind of evangelical theocracy, and so you resort to making it about me instead of the points I'm making. Try again buddy.
scotmanster
scotmanster
39 months ago:
Those inconvenient quotes along with our Constitution don't jive with the religious right's bogus attempt to paint the founding of America as some kind of evangelical theocracy,

The point is you and Al are jumping the gun with statements like this..

"Now all of the kids who rely on the texts are going to be dumb as a box of rocks

Is there any doubt that the religious right textbooks are going to censor any factoids out that deter them from proselytizing their evangelical Dominionist religion in public schools?

Those inconvenient quotes along with our Constitution don't jive with the religious right's bogus attempt to paint the founding of America as some kind of evangelical theocracy, and so you resort to making it about me instead of the points I'm making.

I'm sure educated and conscientious teachers will be able to workaround one-sided textbooks "

TCG proved you wrong with his link he supplied. http://www.tsta.org/news/current/index.s...
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
39 months ago: I also read where the TBOE is going to note that there were Republicans that voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That's good but me wonders if the TBOE will include the percentages of Congress types by region who voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)

Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)

Notice the huge disparity between North and South, the South being all the States that were part of the former Confederate States of America. Gee, it looks like the South didn't want Civil Rights - go figure.

And notice there weren't many Southern Republicans back in that day - guess the Dixiecrats were still smarting over the party of Lincoln kicking their a**. Of course, once the Republican Party became the Rebiblican Party and threw Lincoln under the bus, those former Dixiecrats crossed over in mass.
39 months ago: Once again you mislead...Continue to the next line and read...

"Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
39 months ago: You're tossing in a red herring - the issue isn't what the North is; it's the fact that the representatives from the Southern States (former CSA) by a huge margin (both Dems and Republicans) voted against the Civil Rights Acts. The definition of the North doesn't cover up that shameful fact.
39 months ago: Nay, nay. Don't be a putz.

Break the stast down by original ''Union'' and ''Confederate'' states and leave the rest out if you want to make a point. You know full well your statement is garbage.

Did LBJ need or not need the ''Southern'' vote to pass the bill? Simple question.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
39 months ago: Why are you insisting on breaking down the Northern Vote - we know they voted for it in large numbers. Are you trying to hide the fact that only only 7 out of 87 Southern Dems voted for the Civil Rights Act, and a big fat zero out of 10 Southern Republicans voted for it? I expect that to be in the fundamentalist Christian history book, and if they want to break the Northern vote into Union and new states, by all means but the paltry handful of Southern yay weren't needed to pass, right?

Legend has it that LBJ told an aide after signing the Civil Rights Acts, "We (the Democrats) lost the South for a generation." Whether or not he said it, it certainly appears to be a fairly accurate prediction.
scotmanster
scotmanster
39 months ago: I'm sorry to say but some people are so far from the truth. Some need to experience the world more before coming to broad conclusion like all southern Christians are racists or implying it.

I understand the numbers and am not denying that but when you tack on the end of them a statement like "I expect that to be in the fundamentalist Christian history book" then you are saying southern christian racism is a issue and we would propose to put it into text books..

I do consider myself a Christian and have even went to Christian churches in the south were blacks and whites worship together. My ex girlfriend is southern Christian and has more black friends than white friends. The first church I ever went to was in Buffalo were whites and black greeted one another with open arms.

Some people need to start learning how to be color blind and start treating one another as humans. They should stop using our race problems of the past as a crutch.

The same can be said for religious hatred. I personally did not burn people at the stake. So what gives people the right to belittle every christian like they are pedophiles and racists like the religion haters believe?

All of it is hatred whether it be the actions of the Catholic church of burning people at the stake centuries ago or the religion hater now throwing it up in the face of all Christians. The hatred is no different. That is how hate works is it starts as a seed and feeds on itself and before you know it your justifying unspeakable acts.
Content Removed by Jack H Remington
39 months ago: Texas has an important Freethinker heritage.

http://www.texasescapes.com/TexasHillCou...
39 months ago: Quoting from the monument in Comfort, Texas,

"From 1845 to 1861, a number of German Freidenker ("Freethinkers") immigrated to the Texas hill country. Freethinkers were German intellectuals who advocated reason and democracy over religious and political authoritarianism. Many had participated in the 1848 German revolution and sought freedom in America. The Freidenker helped establish Bettina, Castell, Cypress Mill, Luckenbach, Sisterdale ,Tusculum (Boerne) and Comfort. Laid out in 1854, Comfort soon was home to about half the population of hill country Freethinkers. Freethinkers valued their newfound freedoms of speech, assembly and religion. Their settlements, where a knowledge of Latin was considered essential for a cultured intellectual society, became known as "Latin Colonies." They strongly supported secular education and generally did not adhere to any formal religious doctrines. They applied themselves to the crafts of physical labor and divided their time between farming and intellectual pursuits. Freethinkers advocated universal equal rights, and their moral values were dominated by their respect for life. They actively supported such social issues as the abolition of slavery and the rejection of secession. Their loyalty to the Union during the Civil War cost many their freedoms and their lives. Following the war, many Freethinkers relocated to nearby urban areas, while others returned to Germany."
scotmanster
scotmanster
39 months ago: I never knew that JHR that is something that is not found in our text books here in NY about the south. I was taught all southern states owned slaves and it was the north that brought about the changes. I can see how easy it is to lump a geographic regions together to make for a quick study, Interesting piece.
39 months ago: Thanks, Scotmanster.
39 months ago: Hey, Siempre. Africans sold Africans like drugs. Wiki this link and tear it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_sla...
Siempre Solo
Siempre Solo
Auburn, NY
39 months ago: I replied to that already. Warring African tribes sold each other into slavery as an act of war. Europe was not at war with Africa. They bought and sold Africans for profit. See the difference?
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
39 months ago: ...Hey, Siempre. Africans sold Africans like drugs...

So we sunk to their level of barbarism and that makes it all good? Doesn't surprise me since the religious right of that day could thump their bible and say that slavery was a-okay with their imaginary god.
39 months ago: The British? Really? No Drug production or distribution, No drug users.

You just can't face the fact that your own people did you in, eh?
39 months ago: What is sad is that you can't admit your own people are still selling you.
Siempre Solo
Siempre Solo
Auburn, NY
39 months ago: I've accepted that my own people (White people) bought and sold my own people (black people) all on stolen land from my own people (native Americans) and that this sad, evil history helpped build the country where my own people (Imigrants) could come and make a life and bring me into this world as an American to live with my own people (Americans[White, Black, Native American, Imigrant]) Yes, I've accepted that!
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
39 months ago: ...all on stolen land from my own people (native Americans)...

And I'm sure the religious right fundamentalists who rewrite the history books will carefully research old John Ford westerns to portray native Indians as savages. Maybe they'll add some some 'glorious' true stories of how Christian missionaries set up boarding schools to proselytize the native Americans, forcing them to abandon their culture and religion. Rock of Ages, cleft for me, Praise the Lawd, and Amen!
39 months ago: Huh? My own White people stole it from my own Red people while subjecting my own Black people to slavery? You forgot the Yellows. Let's not forget the new colors... Pink and Rainbow... Do you have any of that in your mind?

Since your White family decriminated against your Black family? Would that not be a wash? Really, just pay yourself your own reparations. You will only lose money if you send your White bucks to Uncle Sam and wait on your Black check in the mail. White Uncle Sam will need his cut.

Or is it a Census thing?
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
39 months ago: Can you please provide evidence of this Christian influence? Pretty sure most of the founders were Deists...Hooray for Texas trying to force oppressive religious views on everyone.
39 months ago: Welcome back from ''Spring Break''.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/10/j...
Our Founding Fathers separated church from state, but they wisely did not separate God from state; they acknowledged God as the source of our rights, and, in fact, they were careful to place Biblical morality directly into our founding documents and laws, and into our values and culture precisely to help prevent a future of totalitarian or tyrannical rule in America. The combination of keeping Judeo-Christian religious morality in the state, as opposed to the church it's self; and, additionally, setting up our laws based on reason and common sense has contributed to the American Character, and to what is known as "American Exceptionalism."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Chris...
In the American context, historians use the term Judeo–Christian to refer to the influence of the Hebrew Bible and New Testament on Protestant thought and values, most especially the Puritan, Presbyterian and Evangelical heritage. Some early colonists saw themselves as heirs to the Hebrew Bible, and its teachings on liberty, responsibility, hard work, ethics, justice, equality, a sense of choseness and an ethical mission to the world, which have become key components of the American character, what is called the "American Creed."

These ideas from the Hebrew Bible, brought into American history by Protestants, are seen as underpinning the American Revolution, Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. Other authors are interested in tracing the religious beliefs of America's founding fathers, emphasizing both Jewish and Christian influence in their personal beliefs and how this was translated into the creation of American institutions and character

http://www.sullivan-county.com/deism/jef...
Jefferson believed in an afterlife. Jefferson never called himself a Deist, but a Unitarian. In America and England of that time the two were much the same, a branch within liberal Protestantism.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
39 months ago: Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, April 13, 1820

And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

Jefferson must be rolling over in his grave to hear Christian fundamentalists lying through their teeth. In fact regarding the subject of lying, I highly recommend a a meticulously researched book titled, "Liars Liars For Jesus: The Religious Right's Alternate Version of American History."

http://www.amazon.com/Liars-Jesus-Religi...
39 months ago: I beleive you are confusing the teaching of Judeo-Christian influences with the teaching of a single religion.

"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." This sentence is taken from a September 23, 1800, letter by Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush wherein he defends the constitutional refusal to recognize a state religion.
39 months ago: Morality as envisioned by our founding fathers and incorporated into the documents that set the guidelines for our government may coincide with those of the Bible, but they are not THE "Biblical morality" that you seem to be putting forth. If they were, there would have to be a consensus on what the Bible says, there would have to be one set of scripture put out as "THE" authoritative book that ALL citizens would have to abide by. In other words, to be "Biblical Morality" and for us all to be bound by it, there would have to be a State mandated religion.

Fortunately for the citizens of the US our founding fathers were smarter than that and although the relied heavily upon their lessons learned in church, synagogue, mosque and temple, they did not allow the formation or inclusion of a religion within the government.

Could it be that you are attributing any reference to "God" as being Biblical or of Christian origin? God, or Gods were around eons before the birth of a man named Christ Jesus, if that was even his name. The Bible does not have an exclusive right to "God", neither does the Koran, the Talmud or any other religious text. IF there is a God, he was around long before any were written by man and he will be around long after we are all dust. If you believe in God, that is your choice, your right to do so, even the founding fathers recognized that we came from somewhere, someone or something, they just didn't know who or what or when, and we still don't.

Many an intelligent human has tried to explain where man came from, many have fallen back on the legends/stories of old and others have come to their own conclusions that rely on the senses that come with the human body. I'd prefer that each person be allowed to come to their own conclusion and not be forced to it by fellow citizens, parents or laws.
scotmanster
scotmanster
39 months ago: "And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors."

That day never came did it? I'm sure that quote alone got him what was due to him.

So let me ask you Mark if you are so dead set against the belief in any God what exactly do you believe in? Do you believe once we die we are dead and no longer exist? Because if you do how do you explain our human consciousness and the whole meaning behind hope? What makes you keep on going on because if their is no after life then their is no reason to try to attain anything in this life? Seems rather bleak and shallow. I much rather believe in an imaginary man than not believe in anything as yourself. What gives you purpose?
scotmanster
scotmanster
39 months ago: Another question Christianity of today gives people hope, it gives them purpose majority of Christians are a good people, they help in the community, they help their fellow man and the majority are law abiding.

Who are you to judge them and what they believe are you not shoving your anti-religion down our throat every chance you get? I often here you bringing up how the church persecuted millions and you compare them to the Christian of today like somehow they personally killed them themselves but if that were true then all white men of today are totally responsible and somehow took part in the enslaving black people. You would be personally responsible for those deaths. But I know you are not ignorant Mark but after reading it day and and day out I realize how hateful, critical, judgmental you are.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
39 months ago: I'll tell you what. I will stop ranting about the evil that is the Christian church when you right wing religious whack jobs do 1 of 2 things. 1. Admit that you hate freedom if it doesn't align with your oppressive religious views (abortion and gay marriage are examples of this). OR 2. STFU about your oppressive religious views and let people actually be free.
scotmanster
scotmanster
39 months ago: If you don't want to answer the question with a weight of honesty that is upto you.

But I will answer your question Christianity does not hinder the freedom of your rights. Seeings how gay marriage is not a right, NY law does not recognize that "union" as a legal contract for marriage. Abortion too is not a right. You do not have the right to kill your children then why should you have the right to kill a child in the womb? It is your choice whether you choose to believe in God or not and the great thing about freedom of religion is protected under our Constitution.

But these issues you stated have nothing to do with my religion or religion. These issues are not being fought against only by Christians. Even non-believers agree that gay marriage and abortion are morally wrong. What I have seen in America over the last decade is an increase intolerance to religion as a whole. Can you tell me why all religion is being victimized ever since the gay rights movement and ever since the amount of abortion being performed in the USA is at an all time high or would you rather tell me to "stfu" as you so maturely put it?

But with your comments they actually empower me to fight harder against these issues through the legislative process and to write my representatives.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
39 months ago: Abortion doesn't kill a child (assuming it is in the 1st trimester...which is legal in this country).

The point is that it is the religious right that vocalizes so harshly about freedom and liberty...while begging the government to not allow for all people to have it.

The government shouldn't infringe on the rights of people...marriage as a state institution (tax benefits, legal union etc) should be legal. ALL MEN are created equal...not just the ones you like. Morally wrong or not doesn't make it your business. Mormons think consuming alcohol is morally wrong...yet we still get to drink all we want. If we let every religious groups moral ideals govern us we would be very sad indeed.

It is not your business about how many abortions are being had. It is legal. Your moral feelings about it have no bearing on this issue.

Full Faith and Credit clause brings interesting issues to play with gay marriage. Since some states are recognizing gay marriage and the Constitution states that things like marriage, licenses, etc are supposed to be recognized across all states...except when states choose to ignore it??? Please, some states are blatantly breaking the Constitutions rules.

ALSO interesting is that Texas does not recognize gay marriage...but did let a lesbian couple (who were married legally elsewhere (not sure where)) get a divorce. Thats odd though since a divorce is the dissolution of a marriage...but if the marriage didn't exist then how can you dissolve it?
scotmanster
scotmanster
39 months ago: Now that I answered your question how about answering mine..you brought up abortion and gay marriage I did not. I proved to you not only Christians are against these issues but non-believers as well. But that is not what I want to talk about.

Scratch that to be honest never mind I don't want to hear what either of you have to think because they are nothing but double standards. You want this quote on quote freedom but you take it away from a child in the womb because it is a inconvenience to you? Then you have the nerve to tell me to "stfu". No these discussion often end up in dribble because people can not bear to take a honest look at themselves and how they are accountable for their actions.
scotmanster
scotmanster
39 months ago: Tell me why mothers that go for an abortion are recommended to get counseling after they kill the child? Would it be to help her through emotionally while she is wrestling with her conscious because she knows what she did was morally wrong? Becuase she knows in her heart she just took the life of her own child because of her and the fathers selfish inability to be responsible for their actions?

You have the nerve to call that a freedom? I rate that up their with a child predator and child abuser. The same selfish mentality is required. Just some quote on quote "intelligent" college professors believes a child in the womb is not a child and that makes you dictate your conscious? Grow a backbone soon otherwise you will end up burning in hell. Now you have the right to say I am proselytizing my religion and shoving it down your throat with those last few lines. Don't choke on it. With that I am unsubscribing to this topic.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
39 months ago: Abortion in the 1st trimester does not kill anything. Something has to be alive to kill it and that is simply not the case during the 1st trimester.
scotmanster
scotmanster
39 months ago: Ofcourse it is not alive that quote on quote "intelligent" research just makes it that much more convenient to kill the child, doesn't it?

Another example of backward ideologies is we live in a society that locks people up for animal cruelty but somehow says it is legal to kill a child in the womb.

From sex to conception to life after conception that child is growing. If it was not living throughout that whole process it would be inanimate object that can not change as in a rock that does not have the capability of growing. Your misnomer logic of freedom is backwards to the core.

So please tell me all the excuses you learned about how the living child is not a child in the womb. All abortion amounts to is a grievous sin in God's eyes.

"But whoever causes the downfall of one of these little ones who believe in Me—it would be better for him if a heavy millstone were hung around his neck and he were drowned in the depths of the sea!" Matt 18:6
39 months ago: "Can you tell me why all religion is being victimized", religion is not being victimized, it is finally being held accountable for all the forced adherence to the tenants of the different sects that have been made into laws that affect EVERYONE, not just the believers within that sect.

I'll give you one big one just to show you how religion has been forced on those who do not believe in a particular brand.

Many religious groups believe that the consumption of alcohol is a sin and basically forbid it for their members, other religious groups do not forbid it but do advise respectful use. From 1920 until 1933 the religious fanatics got what they wanted in the US, the outlawing of alcohol in all states. You can hem and haw and try to put the blame on other groups and other reasons but the primary reason this happened is because the religious nutcases screamed and cried and caused untold amounts of damage to both property and the reputations of businessmen and joined into a voting block that is still causing harm throughout the US.

It is still illegal to sell alcohol in the county I live in. This causes me harm because I must burn extra fuel to drive out of the county to buy even a bottle of wine for a meal. Why does that harm me? Because that extra money spent on fuel could be used to purchase other things, maybe even given to charity, at the very least, not having to drive 70 miles per trip could cut down on pollution. And your response that I should not drink is a waste of breath/words because I'm going to tell you to stop drinking coffee and tea with your meals or at the least have their sale restricted to the same stores as alcohol.

This also goes against your statement that "Christianity does not hinder the freedom of your rights", it definitely does hinder the freedom of my rights, especially the one that concerns happiness.
39 months ago: Maybe you should go to Congress and the Supreme Court and get them to determine when a zygote or fertilized egg becomes a "child", maybe you can impress upon them your absolute certainty about that very moment. In the meantime, don't forget to inform all women who take any type of chemical birth control that you are trying your best to get that so called simple, painless, widely used method declared a legalized abortion method. Anything you (as the female) do to prevent the implantation and growth of a fertilized egg will have to be reclassified as abortion if your definition of "child" is accepted by our government.

Just think of the millions and millions and millions of eggs that have been fertilized in all those "Christian" wombs/tubes/ovaries or where ever the sperm caught up with the egg and then flushed out with the monthly flow.

You will condemn them all to your Hell with a single stroke of the pen, if your brand of religion were really real that is. (Real as in the "Real religion of God", since they are all a figment of someones imagination, not real.)

Even the human female body aborts zygotes, many times after implantation and for no known reason, shall we just condemn all females for being female?
scotmanster
scotmanster
39 months ago: Let me first say this is not only meant for you Six but other non-believers as well or the ones dead set on shoving their Godless ideals down my throat. You say Christians had little to do with this country and the forming of it but you claim it is becuase of Christians you don't have freedoms? So which is it? It is either one or the other and you can not have both.

I don't pretend to be a scholar about prohibition but I will say this that prohibition was not just a Christian movement it was a scientific movement as well. They did scientific studies showing how abuse of alcohol leads to abusive domestic behavior. Over indulgence of any drug will show the same effects. This has little to do with God but more about it is a matter of fact. That is why prohibition took hold.

But here you are saying on one hand Christians had nothing to do with forming this country but then you expect me to believe something as big as prohibition lays at the feet of Christians. So which is it? Do Christians continue to have a impact on this nation like when it was formed or should I believe your wild claim they had nothing to do with this Nation? From what I am hearing you are just grasping for straws to push your religious intolerance.

If you don't like the laws that you are under either move to a wet county or petition your legislators. The outcome will be the same but it requires you to change the circumstances you despise.

Listen I been writing my representatives for years about our Second amendment right to keep and bear arms that is my personal commitment. Instead of me sitting here complaining about anti-gunners I take the fight were it counts at the state level. If you are not willing to do the same thing to change your circumstances then what you say holds no depth it just makes it shallow bitter words.
scotmanster
scotmanster
39 months ago: I don't condemn them to hell they condemn themselves. Plus what does it matter you to you? Last I heard all of you don't believe in Hell, just some made up place.

Same can be said for non-believers Six I never understood if you are all so dead set against religion why does it matter an ounce to you what they believe. I clearly demonstrated Christian ideals do not stop your freedoms nor do they have anything to do with this nation according to you all.

So what drives your hate?
scotmanster
scotmanster
39 months ago: A zygote and a fetus are not the same. Your talking a natural occurrence versus an occurrence were a "doctor" aka butcher rips the baby out of the womb. How can you begin to compare them? it does not surprise me that you would though.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
39 months ago: It is modern day Christians that are the ones shoving oppressive religious hatred down our throats. I do not care one iota about how you feel about gay marriage. You cannot claim to believe in freedom and then say that certain groups are not allowed to be legally married because your morals are against it. The world would be a better place if Christians would just mind their own business and let people enjoy the freedoms that they take for granted.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
39 months ago: Life requires consciousness. Consciousness requires a fully functional brain. This simply doesn't exist in the the first trimester.
scotmanster
scotmanster
39 months ago: Nor does it exist in some fully grown human beings. Whats your point? If life requires consciousness then that would mean plants have a conscious, but we know they don't. Life is everywhere you choose to end it when you abort a child.
scotmanster
scotmanster
39 months ago: You don't get it you are sitting here trying to disprove life. The only thing on this planet that does not have life is inanimate objects that don't have the ability to grow.

scotmanster
scotmanster
39 months ago: I simply take the stance saying no it is wrong to take that life becuase it is more precious than any other life form on this Earth. But here we have a kinder heart for a mut that licks its derriere. Sickening if you ask me but that is the life we live in.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
39 months ago: Human life...should have been specific. A fully functional brain is required for life. The brain of an unborn child is fully functional around 25 weeks. Prior to that it simply not a human lifeform.
39 months ago: Lots of things matter to me. If religious beliefs makes a person feel whole, then that is what they should believe in. If not having a religious beliefe is what they want then that is what they should do. You are the one making blanket statements that what I do or do not believe in will have an effect upon me in any afterlife that may or may not exist. I think you fail to comprehend the ability to not believe in your version of what is.

You HAVE NOT demonstrated that Christian ideals "that have been put into law" do not stop my freedoms and I already stated that the beliefs that our founding fathers had at the inception of this countries founding documents had a lot to do with how they worded them. Hopefully you will understand the difference in my wording and yours.

Hate? What hate? Disagreeing with a persons beliefs does not mean hate, that only seems to be coming from those with religious convictions towards those without.....
39 months ago: Now for you to continue your line of defense you have to denote when a zygote becomes a fetus. Otherwise youare spouting nonsense. If you don't know the difference please do some research. You must MUST state the exact moment that you determine it to be one or the other and when you consider it to be tissue that is killed or murder that is commited. There can be no wavering, no wishy-washy terminology, no it's okay today but not tomorrow or it's okay for her but not her. STATE YOUR POSITION. and please try to be clinically exact as the fate of the world rests upon your next few words.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
39 months ago: What does first trimester abortion kill then?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
39 months ago: So that collection of cells in a woman's womb is not alive? Of course it is. And isn't the act of removing it from the woman's body designed to keep it from doing what it is intended to do? Which is? Continuing to add more cells to itself until it signals to the host that it is ready to be born?

Isn't that, in effect, killing that collection of cells? How can you not be killing it, when it is so very apparent that the mass of tissue you remove is alive?

Oh I see, it has to be like you in order for it to be alive. It has to be able to tell you that it's alive.

Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
39 months ago: Never said it wasn't alive in any sense...said it was not a human life form. If you want a technical term...1st trimester abortion removes an unwanted parasite.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
39 months ago: Wow, I never thought of children as parasites before. But you've given me inspiration. I think we should push for the removal of all parasites.
39 months ago: OOTB, from what I've read, you consider a fertilized egg to already by a human child, correct?
scotmanster
scotmanster
Content Removed by scotmanster
scotmanster
scotmanster
39 months ago: Good point OOTB.
scotmanster
scotmanster
39 months ago: I disagree on the fully functional brain. Retarded children brain is not fully functional and we don't suppose to kill them off becuase their brain is not normal.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
39 months ago: Retarded Children do however have constant brain wave activity...hence despite it not working properly they do in fact have a fully functioning brain.
scotmanster
scotmanster
39 months ago: Here is your proof that retardation is a brain malfunction just like I stated it was..

The results of the new work are similar to findings in two other diseases related to autism—fragile X syndrome and Rett syndrome. Scientists were able to reverse mental retardation in mice suffering both of those illnesses, as well. Put together, Silva says, these results suggest that researchers are beginning to find brain malfunctions that cause autism—and may be possible to reverse.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...

A brain malfunction means the brain is not fully functional does it not?
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
39 months ago: Malfunction means not working properly.

Also, malfunctioning brains in retardation cases are still producing a constant stream of brain wave activity, these waves simply are not making it to the proper destinations within the brain.

Within the first trimester there is not sustained brain activity. Prior to about 24 weeks or so there is little to no brain wave activity. Human life requires a constant stream of brain wave activity and therefore prior to the 24th week (roughly, sometimes 25th or 26th) there simply does not exist the conditions for human life.
39 months ago: Scot, still no answer to my question? Remember it has to be definitive, no wishy-washy hemming and hawing around the point of when a fertalized egg becomes a human being.

If you can't define it, then PH's continous brainwave function will have to stand as a point between living parasitic tissue and a living human being.

Whether or not the life that is born is a life worth living is not part of the question.
scotmanster
scotmanster
39 months ago: You are the same thing as you profess believers in Christ to be..how does that suit you?
39 months ago: Scot, no where did I say that Christians had little to do with this country and the forming of it". Lots of different faiths and those of no faith had plenty to do with it, they just did a good job of keeping each others religion out of the government in a way that all benefit.

Strange, in any book or write up about Prohibition, there is rarely any mention of scientific studies that brought about the movement to ban alcohol, if any mention at all. Carrie Nation did not carry a copy of scientific studies while chopping up bars.

Any religious intolerance I have is directed at laws being made or already made that support a religious groups "opinion" over the non-religious groups "opinion" and since that usually revolves around the sale of alcohol in a geographical region in these posts (there are other topics), yes I can lay it at the religious groups feet. You are pointing out "Christians", if I do it it is an error, I blame all religious groups and try not to single Christians out, even if they are the predominant ones who think that their religious views ought to be made into laws for everyone.
39 months ago: Your suggestion requires money I don't have to make come about and on top of that, it wasn't until recently that the laws governing petitioning concerning alcohol were finally made equal for all. The law used to state that those petitioning to have a county made "dry" had to get (and this is just an example because I've forgotten the numbers) 28% of the registered voters to sign their petition. To petition for the county to go "wet" requited 45% of the registered voters. Do you see any unfairness in the numbers? Remember, when this law was written the country was coming out of Prohibition and in nearly all states the question had to be put to the voters and to get it there required a petition. Do you really think in the Bible Belt that getting 45% of the voters to sign a petition would be as easy as getting 28%? Do you know that this law stayed on the books for DECADES? Does that sound like a fair law? As of a couple years ago the law was changed to an equal number of registered voters for either petition and since then there have been several counties working on getting a chance to vote on something they didn't get a chance to vote on before, many that have are now wet. Do you want to know who opposes the opportunity to even vote on the question? Do you really? Do I even have to tell you? It's not the county government; it's not the majority of the citizens in the county. You guessed it, it's the Christian churches and their members who are the most vocal AGAINST VOTING ON THE QUESTION. They don't even want it on the ballot. And guess who is driving across the county line to buy alcohol…… elders, deacons, preachers, little old ladies, church members.

I have all the email address of all the state reps, and all the federal ones from my state as well. You think I already don't send them my views? I used to take the paper, used to get printed in the letters page about lots of topics but mostly that one. Only get one letter per month to print and I was in there many times a year so don't try to tell me how to effect change, I think I've lived long enough to know how. It takes a while to make things change, I've got a few more years till I'm dead.
scotmanster
scotmanster
39 months ago: You are missing the whole point. I did not bring up these issues. These issues are not just being preached from churches. You choose to believe they are and the whole time saying that the United States is not primarily a god fearing nation. i am not directing this all at you Six if you read what I said, I said..

"Let me first say this is not only meant for you Six but other non-believers as well or the ones dead set on shoving their Godless ideals down my throat."

My point is I am victimizing you and others am I not? Putting the full weight on non-believers shoving their godless ideologies on me. Is it not the same? I weight them equally. But here we live in a country were votes count and we can do it without resorting to victimizing the other.

In order to sell sin you have to first discredit the source and I understand that, I accept that but rest assured I'm tired of hearing all the racial and religious intolerance from some loud mouths around here and I will shove it right back in your face or theirs face. You say your tired of hearing religion shoved down your throats but guess what no one here at RR does these things you claim..Not intill now and how I will jump down your throat every chance I get from here on out. But to get your retribution you all continue to make snid remarks to others that talk of God in their topics. If your looking for an olive branch you broke it and you get no sympathy from me becuase you can not have a beer at your own leisure. Like their isn't more important things in this life to lose sleep over?

"Strange, in any book or write up about Prohibition, there is rarely any mention of scientific studies that brought about the movement to ban alcohol, if any mention at all."

It does not surprise me people usually hear what they want to hear and run with it to make it for an easy argument.

As far as the "natural abortion" argument or so you say? You are talking about a natural occurrence that happens with women and comparing it to aborting a fetus. Well sorry to tell you that is comparing apple to oranges no matter how much you know or how much wiki teaches you. I use common sense to recognize that one is a natural occurrence that happens in women should not be compared to a butcher ripping out a child from the womb. How is that for clinical?

No it is hate Six when every topic here at RR somehow gets religion and race dragged into it. Every time someone mentions God and snid comment follows it. That is what you call being a bigot.

The definition of a bigot.. A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.
39 months ago: I'm missing the whole point. Strange. I didn't bring up the issues either. I did provide an example to a question but the other issues were already on the table when I got here.

I have never said that the US "is not primarily a god fearing nation". Show it to me, quote me, prove it. I also never approached this discussion as if you were directing it "at me". Otherwise I might have taken offense.

Oh yes we live in a country were votes count, and many groups "victimize" other groups by using that vote. They gang up on what they call "sinners" and take away their rights so that those "sinners" are made criminals for what? Wanting to be able to purchase a bottle of wine at the neighborhood store instead of having to drive 35 miles one way? Wanting to smoke some natural herb to ease pain that man-made pain killers won't touch? Wanting to sunbath in bare skin on a private beach? Wanting to pleasure your wife or husband in a way that others consider "sin"? Yeah I know all about the way the religious fanatic's gang up and "vote" their way of life into the law books and yes, you "victimize" others doing it.

I can't sell sin. It doesn't exist in my world. Only to religious adherents does sin exist and even then it is a limited group because other religious beliefs don't call it sin, they just have right and wrong because there is no great punishment in the end, only a life well lived or not.

As for racial intolerance, you'll be in the right company, the biggest racists I have found hide behind a Cross and a Bible, the next biggest group, well, they know who they are and in order to not fan any flames, I'll leave it at that.
39 months ago:
Wiki? You think I learn everything from wiki? Please try again. I reference wiki because it is easy for those less able, to understand and navigate. As for your "clinical" definition of when a zygote becomes a fetus, you fail. You gave no timeline, no growth limit, nothing at all but common sense and it you want to use that, you better try again because you can't get that admitted as evidence in court and that was the scenario I gave you to define that moment in and for, or did I forget to tell you that Congress is full of lawyers and so is the Supreme Court….

Hate is what I read in your anger at my responses to your posts. There is no hate in my posts. I haven't threatened to "Jump down your throat every chance I get from here on out" as you did, nor have I expressed not having any sympathy because a law was unjustly passed that has a negative impact upon millions of fellow citizens, as you did. Yes I can see how your Christian religion has improved your benevolence toward your fellow man, I'm really impressed, think I'll go out and join a Christian church. Yeah, right.

Please read your own definition of bigot and then reference your own posts…… (See my para above this one where I quote you at "Jump….."and "not having any sympathy…."), talk about "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices", you got that part down!
scotmanster
scotmanster
39 months ago: You don't get, nor do I expect you ever will Six nor do I want to "win" you over.

You touched upon everything in my article except what that fuels this and that is the religious intolerance and snid remarks about God every time someone creates a religious article expressing their beliefs. Should I go fetch them so you can look in the mirror? So you can see how your are proselytizing your godless beliefs. But you sit and cry it is religions fault for the freedom you lack but the only one to blame is the inaction of your own self to change the circumstances you live in.
39 months ago: Scot, do you really consider every comment that does not support your beliefs is a "snide" remark? Just because someone does not kowtow to your point of view does not mean they are ridiculing or even insulting it. They are expressing their opinion, some times their methods or tone is not the best but they are not all out to get you or run your beliefs into the ground.

If you really can show me where my every remark about your religious beliefs was made in a condescending manner, please do it, here and now will be fine.

So you can proselytize your beliefs and that's ok, but if I mention mine that is not? How magnanimous of you.

Like I said before, it takes time to correct things that have been left one way for decades, my inaction as you call it, is hardly the cause of why it happened nor the cause of why it hasn't been changed. I will say in my defense that I was "out of the area" for 20 years on "government business" and since my return, I have been quite pro-active in bringing my views to the attention of the public and the elected officials.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
39 months ago: Scot, what your missing is that when us "godless" heathens cry for legislation that you find to be "sinful" because of your religion and the so called word of a made up God is that we are promoting Constitutionally sound legislation. When religious people try to force their moralistic oppressive values on the people (religious or not) it is in fact un-Constitutional.
scotmanster
scotmanster
39 months ago: Prohibition is not morally oppressive it has been proven in studies that over indulgence of alcohol leads to violent behavior. Especially men beating their wife and kids. It has nothing to do with my religious beliefs but you choose to ignore that fact so you can victimize believers.

It is unconstitutional to practice religion? You are more of a moron than I thought. Religion is protected under the Constitution. So is freedom of assembly..you walk a slippery slope when saying one persons views is unconstitutional. I hope someday for your sake your views are not considered unconstitutional becuase that is the day when we are no longer are a Republic. You have no clue what freedom is all about.
39 months ago: PH, Scot is not interested in constitutional fairness in the law, in his world, his views MUST be mandated by law or it is wrong, whether it is wrong to force others who do not believe as he does or not does not matter to him because he can not envision the possibility that there could be anyone who does not believe the same as he does. And if they don't, they are "sinners" and don't matter. Because this country rocked along for 150 or so years with no one sticking their neck out and saying "HEY!, that's not constitutionally right, fair or even legal", we have a bucketload of bad laws that may be morally ok, but have the stink of "Christian" and "Christian only" beliefs being supported by them.

It's like the prayer in school and public meetings debacle. There is nothing wrong with prayer. You can do it anytime you desire and to any God you want. Just one little catch, you can't force me to do it with you or in your place, ("Me" being any other citizen or person), nor can you MANDATE that it be done as a regular event in a certain way that pays homage a particular God. But you can say a prayer anytime and anywhere you like as long as you do it silently in your head, even in school. Those against the Mandate against school prayer are not capable of making the distinction of how it is still legal if you follow that simple procedure, "Silently, in your head, anytime, anywhere, by yourself". They want to include everybody and make a big show out of it so others will see them doing it, you know, make it a big sinful event because they are doing it for show.
39 months ago:
Scot,
No one said anything about overindulgence of alcohol. No one said prohibition was morally oppressive either. Why do you have to take the mere ability to buy a bottle of wine at the corner store to serve with a meal to the extreme end of the scale into wife and kid beating to justify a law that is unconstitutional? Did you know that coffee can kill you? Takes about 117 or so cups and the caffeine will send your heart running for the door. Let's outlaw it. Did you know you can die from drinking too much water? Sure can. Just start drinking water till you can't hold anymore and then keep on drinking it till you over hydrate and die. Let's outlaw it. Did you know that.... I can go on but maybe you get the point that OVERINDULGENCE was not the issue I was talking about.

It is unconstitutional to FORCE another to practice a religion. You can practice any one you like, just don't be trying to force others to practice it with you BY GETTING LAWS PASSED THAT are only good laws it you believe in that religion. There is no slippery-slope except the one you are sliding around on. You keep trying to prove that it's ok to pass or keep a law that has been shown to be based in religious philosophy and is only a good law if you believe in that philosophy. We are not under "Sharia" law in this country so ANY law that even hints at being based in religious philosophy is questionable. Even if it is a good law, it has to be written so that no one religion or group gains by it. Anti-alcohol laws do not do that when they cause one group to spend extra money just to get into a region where it is sold. Goes against the commerce laws in that it unduly benefits one region over another too. I want to level the playing field by making coffee and tea and sodas just as hard to get nationwide. Make everyone drive 70 miles to get their can of coffee and you can bet they will rethink dry counties.
scotmanster
scotmanster
39 months ago: You sit here and cry about religions quote on quote "suppressing" your freedoms but you have the same ability to "suppress" their freedoms through legislation. The difference between the two is you did not get their first. What do want me to do Six..ook here is a box of tissues now grow a backbone after your down wiping away your crocodile tears. The sad part about it is some of you believe that all religions should be stopped from voicing their opinions via the Constitution. We have seen this with landmark decision that anyone that does not agree with the majority should be shut up. That is what your extreme religious intolerance has brought America. You say you want freedom but you can not even define what freedom is. The world does not revolve around your ideologies alone.

PH proves my point with this quote...

"When religious people try to force their moralistic oppressive values on the people (religious or not) it is in fact un-Constitutional."

You have to gall to talk about freedom and show religious intolerance in the same sentence? That is what is called being a double standard hypocrite.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
39 months ago: I am perfectly tolerant of religion. You have the Constitutional right to practice whatever religion you like in your home or church or in a field. The point is that when it comes to policy I do not care one bit about your religion...keep it to yourself.
scotmanster
scotmanster
39 months ago: Here PH's tolerance of religion...

"STFU about your oppressive religious views"

No one forces you to reply or read religious oriented rants and raves do they? You partake becuase why?
scotmanster
scotmanster
39 months ago: You say your about freedom but you lack it in your words. From that quote you would be fine suppressing religion. You can tell me blue in the face you don't but your words speak loud and clearly.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
39 months ago: So because I support equal rights for all, and those rights don't align with your morals that means I don't support freedom?

I don't want to suppress religion. You have a Constitutional right to practice whatever religion you chose...I just want you to keep that to yourself. You do not have the right to create a theocracy.
39 months ago: Scot, you are missing the point.

There should be no laws that clearly support one religious groups beliefs over another's, or over a group that has no religious beliefs. "Getting there first" just shows your intolerance for different views, ones that don't fall into line with your religious beliefs. If you really want to go there, the Native Americans were here first, I'd much rather live under their laws than yours. They even include Spiritual guidance within them.

What I want you to do is admit that laws passed to support/force any religious group's beliefs upon the other citizens of this country that do not have those same beliefs are unconstitutional. Just admit that one little thing and you will affirm that you are trying to be a good citizen of the US. Otherwise you are trying to subvert this area of the constitution of the US. Simple, easy to do and it doesn't require you to give up anything.

Do you really believe that "anyone who does not agree with the majority should be shut up?" Really? Shall I send you some Nazi literature? Maybe some of the Islamic Imam's decrees would fit right in with your view of "shutting up dissenters".

Freedom. Freedom is to be without the limitations put upon an individual by others, be they financial, moral, religious, guilt, hereditary or any other form of burden not placed upon them by themselves. It is to be able to determine for yourself without guidance from another. Freedom is a lot of things.

You Scot, would deny freedom to many if it furthered the tenants of your religion or your personal beliefs. I won't. And PLEASE do not take that to the extremes, I won't agree that murder and rape are ok and that people should be free to do things that are truly morally wrong. Morally wrong according to your religious tenants is a different subject and you should know the difference. Since I doubt you do, here is an example: Polygamy. Not "truly" immoral, but according to many religions, immoral.
scotmanster
scotmanster
39 months ago: "shown to be based in religious philosophy"

Non-religious studies have been done showing alcohol consumption brings about violence. Just ask any cop on the street.

Again you pin it all on religion just shows that you have anti-religious blinders on.
39 months ago: And once again you take it to the extreme. Do you not know that the consumption of alcohol DOES NOT REQUIRE the consumption of excess amounts?

You probably don't know anything about alcohol and it's use throughout history. You just know the extremes.
39 months ago: TCG, hopefully your rant is headed back to some semblance of where it started, the powers that be mandating that something be taught that may be controversial. Hopefully what has been discussed didn't take it so far a stream that your original intent was lost.
scotmanster
scotmanster
39 months ago: "TCG, hopefully your rant is headed back to some semblance of where it started, the powers that be mandating that something be taught that may be controversial."

That is being done because your partaking in the discussion now? Give me a break.

"And once again you take it to the extreme. Do you not know that the consumption of alcohol DOES NOT REQUIRE the consumption of excess amounts?

You probably don't know anything about alcohol and it's use throughout history. You just know the extremes."

One beer = intoxication under the current laws. How many more people have to die in car wrecks before you understand alcohol consumption kills.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
39 months ago: So one beer means that a person is intoxicated? That is not exactly true, unless of course you are referring to a 3'1", 43lb person.
39 months ago: TCG, hopefully your rant is headed back to some semblance of where it started, the powers that be mandating that something be taught that may be controversial. Hopefully what has been discussed didn't take it so far a stream that your original intent was lost.
39 months ago: Scot, where in my post did I take credit?

Like PH said, HUH? What repressive government body do you live under? Certainly not one within any state in the US. One beer = intoxication! HA!

I will agree that the way the laws regarding alcohol are being enforced due to fanatical pressure from certain groups does make it seem as if one beer will incapacitate a grown man or worman and that the consumption of one beer will allow the use of the term "under the influence" but lets be reasonable.

Would be nice though, save me a lot of money on beer, just have to drink half of one a day to keep a nice buzz on and then I'd never get drunk.
scotmanster
scotmanster
39 months ago: One drink does equal intoxication in NY. Go buy a breathalyzer pound a beer and read your BAC it will be over the intoxication limit of .08% in NY.

".08% of one gram of alcohol per liter in one's bloodstream"
scotmanster
scotmanster
39 months ago:
I will agree that the way the laws regarding alcohol are being enforced due to fanatical pressure

No the laws are being stiffened becuase of the number of fatalities on the road involving drunk drivers. Spin it all you want you are in denial with the repercussions that come with drinking.
39 months ago: Well I lived in Texas some years back and now me thinks I should not have left.
scotmanster
scotmanster
39 months ago: Yea to be honest I think it is to be legally intoxicated depending on weight it could be anywhere from 2-3 beers in a 3 hour period but if you had 1 beer in a 15 minute period, jumped in the car and was pulled over 10 minutes later it would show up on the breathalyzer. NY is seriously tough on drinking and driving my uncle spent 7 years in jail after his second felony dwi. They have a three strike rule here in NY the first two are misdemeanors and third is considered a felony.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
39 months ago: All DUI's in Illinois are felonies. But 1 beer will not get you to .08 unless you are literally 4 feet tall and weigh 37lbs.
39 months ago: Scot, you could drink that beer in your 15 minute period and drive all you want, even if you get stopped and tested you still won't blow over the limit unless there is something physically wrong with you. It just doesn't work that way. Now if you injected that same amount of alcohol into your blood stream, you might get a quicker reading, but you would still not have enough alcohol to raise your BAC to DUI limits, just not enough in one beer. Three beers in an hour and yeah you are pushing the limits. I consider one per hour to be well within legal limits and usually more than I personally consume and if someone out there with the credentials will back me up, not enough alcohol to be near 0.05% much less 0.08%, considering my body make up, maybe 0.03%.

I have many hours of "training" in the negative effects of alcohol; you don't spend 20 years in the military without going through several versions of the same class and multiple versions of even more classes, all mandatory.

According to one version, if you take a drink of alcohol on your birthday, every year, you are an alcoholic, even though that is the only drink you ever take, just the one, regularly.

Doesn't mean I condone drinking and driving, just means I know something about alcohol and the human body.
scotmanster
scotmanster
39 months ago: "blood alcohol concentration (BAC) level of .08. A 120-pound woman can reach a .08 BAC level after only two drinks and a 180-pound man can be at .08 after only four drinks."

I was off by one drink big wip..just shows you it doesn't take extreme over indulgence to be legally intoxicated which was my point.

http://alcoholism.about.com/od/dui/a/imp...
scotmanster
scotmanster
39 months ago: Plus the breathalyzer does not measure the blood it measure how strong the alcohol odor comes out of your pie hole. So if you pound a beer and breathe into a breathalyzer it will record a high reading. But this is all petty, I am simply showing you to be considered intoxicated does not require over indulgence.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
39 months ago: Is that a mixed drink? Beer has significantly less alcohol in it than does liquor. Not to mention that people develop a tolerance to alcohol over time.

But yes, I agree. you can get "intoxicated" with out drinking a whole keg
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
39 months ago: How about just one shot of 190-proof Everclear - bet that would warm you up.
scotmanster
scotmanster
39 months ago: Yea it didn't say but glad we can agree it does not take a whole lot.

But do I think drinking is morally wrong? No I don't. Do I think over indulgence is wrong? Yes I do. Are these based on my religious beliefs? No.

Finally I certainly see more harm that comes from alcohol than any good just like drugs. Look at all the kids that die from illegal drug use, all the broken families and HIV caused from sharing needles. That is enough to curtail my ideals and stance on it.

I would be all for it seeing mandatory for cars manufactures to be equipped vehicles with breathalyzer technology to prevent people from driving drunk. That way it not only saves the person a costly ticket and or jail time but will save lives on the road. But I think you will never see that as long as the states are raking in money on DWi charges.
scotmanster
scotmanster
39 months ago: In my drinking days I could but not anymore. That stuff will make you go blind.