Fastbreak

With all due respect the "parents" are nuts and the child should be removed from their custody (and yes I would feel the same way if it was a traditional family). They say that the child started saying he was a girl at age 3 and give that as reason for doing this. Raise the child as a boy which is it's biological sex and then when he's and adult if he wants to self mutilate and have the surgery go for it.

Only had to read three posts to find a winner... :thumb:

New drinking game: Drink a shot every time a candidate mentions Ronald Reagan.

 

Get yourself a designated driver though.

Justy don't do it everytime someone mentions Herman Cain's Tax Plan... you'll end up in the ICU...

Can you tell me specifically what passage that is? I'd like to read it.

Revelations 3:15-16

 

Here it is in context: 15 I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! 16 So, because you are lukewarm--neither hot nor cold--I am about to spit you out of my mouth. 17 You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. 18 I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see. 19 Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent. 20 Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me. 21 To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne.

As for myself, if I didn't openly acknowledge that I'm an atheist people would not even know.

In this regard, you're not all that different from people who profess to be Christians, but live up to the highest Pagan ideals. By this I mean, if they didn't tell someone they believe in Jesus Christ, you might not know by their actions.

 

I respect your ability to offer an honest appraisal of your heart and beliefs. I would encourage you to continue to pursue God with your honest questions. I'm not attempting to twist your arm or proselytize. I just know that regardless of the weaknesses of all His flawed followers... He is willing and able to endure our sincere questions. :thumb:

It's all you'll have in your pocket...

Apparently, I have a head start. I'm there already...

Not arguing, just stating what I read. The posts in this thread lead you to believe that teachers aren't allowed to bow their heads when they pray, but that's not how I understood the actual article.

Nor was I being contentious with you, but simply adding to the dialogue. Your comments are great... keep 'em coming! :thumb:

I understand your doubt. All we can do is Hope.

...for CHANGE...

I thought the article said that they weren't banned from bowing their heads, but rather they weren't allowed to participate in a student-led activity. It is supposed to remain a student-led activity and the teachers are not to participate and, in effect, endorse it. Basically, they cannot endorse the student-led activity.

 

It sounds like to me they could have bowed their heads and silently prayed along as long as they weren't actually joining in the group (I picture a big group circle). So, for example, had the teacher stood some distance away, could they not have bowed and prayed along separately?

 

:idunno:

We can have a male teacher posting photos of two men kissing on a board in his German Language classroom under the guise of "World Events" and go all Vesuvius on a student for telling a fellow student that he felt homosexuality was wrong, but we cannot allow teachers to be seen praying by students?

 

And we wonder why things are so screwed up???

 

I would laugh at the absurdity of it all... if it weren't so sad and patently destructive.

:lol: :lol:

 

I was as shocked as you are.

I slept with one eye open last night looking for the first horseman of the Apocalypse... :lol:

I cannot say I fully agree with you. Our government was never meant to provide us all services. It was meant to be as small as possible. It was designed for a people who were self governed and self sufficient. Charity for those in need was voluntary and through the local church and community, and never meant to be the governments responsibility.

Amen...

If that is the issue, then I suggest moving to a desert island where you don't have to rely on anyone else for any services. In other words, you MUST trust government with some of your money if you want to live in their borders.

VOR, few if any of us have a problem ponying up our fair share for truly essential government services such as legitimate national defense, roads, bridges, etc. Our problem is with non-essential aid and services that become permanent entitlements. Some of us have a problem with creating a new trillion dollar entitlement in Obamacare, that is already costing many of us around 10% more on our existing health care... an entitlement that all are supposed to help shoulder, but some have received a Royal Exemption from participating in...

 

We have half the citizens of our country paying 97% of the cost of running things... and another 50% paying little or no income tax at all. Do you honestly believe that a politician whose seat of power and privilege relies upon the voter support of the bottom half of income earners will genuinely labor diligently to see their numbers reduced?

 

Seriously?

 

It’s time to stop the insane spending. It’s time to stop allowing power warped politicians to buy votes. It’s time to quit trying to level the field by tearing down the successful. The only way we do it and survive is by lifting those who struggle. We need a new and more successful middle class.

Yea, I don't see the sun rising tomorrow because I'm with mt ref. The not bowing your heads part is absurd.

 

:eek: :eyeonyou: :scared: :confused:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:lol:

They aren't restricting teachers from praying though. That's why what you're saying doesn't fly.

 

Is bowing one's head a necessary requirement for prayer nowadays?

 

Like I said, I think it's extreme, and it won't actually accomplish anything, but it's not violating anyone's rights. It's not hindering anyone's ability to pray if they so choose, so why the outrage?

I started to be lazy and type UKMF, but wasn't sure how that acronym might be construed... lol... I guess I'll stick with UKMustangFan...

 

I do not always kneel, prostrate myself, close my eyes, wear a yarmulke or other head covering, or any number of other things people of all faiths do when they pray. In fact, I'm one of those weirdoes they make fun of on Saturday Nigh Live for praying to God throughout the day, about everything. I generally consider it unsafe to bow my head or close my eyes while driving. I don't always bow my head or close my eyes when praying in thanks for meals. I generally don't think it's a good idea to draw attention to one's self when praying, tithing, fasting or doing good deeds. That's something I believe should be between us and God.

 

So to answer your question, "No, I do not feel it is necessary to bow one's head when praying" although I often do in the appropriate setting. In fact, I believe that some of our greatest prayers wouldn't even look like prayers to the casual viewer... because some of them take days, weeks, months, even lifetimes to complete.

 

On the other hand... let's flip your argument around. If the teachers are permitted to pray... why is it anyone's business to tell them how they may and may not do so? I mean, the key point here is THE TEACHERS ARE PRAYING... right? As long as they are not igniting some Druidic bonfire or doing genuine harm in the method of their prayers... as long as they are not shrieking and wailing and deliberately putting forth a huge disruption of the peace... why does it matter whether they bow their heads or kneel or stand on their heads for that matter?

 

How dare we grant our government (at any level) the imputed right to such arrogance?

You say I'm bowing my head, I say I'm looking at the ground... Prove I'm not! :lol:

Too funny... :thumb:

The teachers are still allowed to pray before school. How are their rights violated?

 

All it says is they're being asked to not bow their heads for prayer in front of students. I didn't know bowing one's head was a requirement to pray. :idunno:

The concept of being "allowed to pray" in America is astounding to me. This flies in the face of how and why this nation came to be in the first place. The Establishment Clause in the Constitution is there entirely for the purpose of protecting our religious freedoms... to prevent government from telling us how, when, why or to whom we should direct our worship. It is there to protect rights of atheists and agnostics as well as the faithful of all denominations.

 

It is not there to prevent Christianity - or any faith - from influencing our government, schools, or culture at large.

 

For any society that permits whack jobs like Fred Phelps and his brainwashed adherents to protest at the funerals of fallen soldiers, or GLAAD and NAMBLA to march proudly down Main Street for all to see, or bare breasted PETA believers to draw attention to their cause, or, or, or... it is a reach of monumental proportions to restrict teachers and coaches in the manner described in this situation.

This is absurd.

 

At a time when our young people... and society in general desperately need positive direction... we must hide the One True source.

 

I understand all the arguments for separation, and the need to avoid forced religion. I do not want my children to be forced to worship or pray in a manner inconsistent with our beliefs, but this is ridiculous.

 

Our culture is tripping all over itself to bring all kinds of garbage out of the closet, while we do everything possible to stuff God in a closet.

 

We are a nation of PC fools.

More accusations of racism....for accurately reporting a speech.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/associated-press-transcription-obama-cbc-speech-racist-173438340.html

 

Apparently, I speak with "an African-American linguistic style" on a daily basis... :lol:

Barring some miraculous turnaround, Mr. Obama is toast... and no, I believe that election rigging, at least in the presidential election is a popular myth.

Was not aware that there was/is a mechanism in place to keep them from paying more than required in taxes.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

 

What is wrong with reducing spending?

For the record, I think Morgan Freeman is a fantastic actor. I actually enjoy his work on screen. I have no qualms about seeing more of his work.

 

He is certainly entitled to his opinion and feelings. I am entitled to disagree with him and point out the holes in his argument. :thumb:

Fastbreak, I'm not supporting or validating Freeman's comments. I'm simply saying that, give his background, I can see where he would believe there is some bigotry behind the Tea Party movement.

You know, I've reflected upon this over night, and to be far more concise than is my nature:

 

Slandering a person or an entire group of people, based upon nothing more than the accused's appearance and the accuser's background, fears and beliefs is precisely the core of true RACISM. For Mr. Freeeman to do this based entirely upon his background, fears and beliefs (without forwarding one tangible objective shred of proof to support his assertion) is exactly the same stuff that RACISM is made of.

 

It matters not whether the accuser is an Academy Award winning actor, a Nobel Peace Prize recipient, or some half-baked, southern redneck sharecropper.

 

Did anyone see "To Kill a Mockingbird"?

 

Can no one see this?

 

Mr. Freeman is doing exactly what he is accusing the Tea Party of doing.

 

AND for supposedly CREDIBLE journalists to accept and forward his opinion without an objective balance is precisely why many of us believe that true journalism in this country is dead.

Fastbreak, I'm not supporting or validating Freeman's comments. I'm simply saying that, give his background, I can see where he would believe there is some bigotry behind the Tea Party movement.

From my POV, Mr. Freeman asserting that a group of people are racists based upon nothing more than his background/beliefs/suspicions about them... no matter how sincere those beliefs may be... is no better than the racism he is accusing them of. Slandering an entire group of people because it just stands to reason that statisically at least a few of them are bound to be racists is wrong. It also weakens the impact of legitimate claims of racism.

 

What some seem to forget in the story of the boy who cried "Wolf"... the wolf does in fact eventually show up and eat the boy.

 

All these hollow claims of racism are doing nothing but innoculating people to the genuine article.

This thread isn't about the Left. It's about whether or not Freeman's comments on the Tea Party are understandable and/or justified.

I respect you entirely too much to accept intellectual laziness on this matter. This is entirely a left/right matter. You introduced the notion that "the Tea Party movement plays on people's fears and prejudices in galvanizing opposition to him (Obama)." The Tea Party representing the ultra-right bogeyman, I simply pointed out that the left does EXACTLY the same thing. To go the next step and label it as RACISM is disingenuous, lazy and a feeble cop out to detract from the fact that there is apparently no better argument.

 

I don't know anyone on this board that claims the Tea Party is inherently racist, but it's ridiculous to act as if there isn't a tinge of bigotry within some parts of the movement.

I would be willing to wager that there was FAR MORE legitimate RACISM inherent in the founding of Planned Parenthood than there ever was or will be in the Tea Party. There's a tinge of bigotry in virtually every large organization including GLAAD, ACORN, ACLU, MoveOn, NARAL, People for the American Way, etc., etc. I am a Christian. I believe that the Bible is our most reliable source of truth and instruction for how we should live... and yet there are idiots like the Westboro Baptist Church that go out and spew hatred that I (and a vast majority of true Christians) believe is abhorent. There have been some that have killed abortion doctors in the name of Christianity. There are strippers for Jesus. I cannot find any Biblical support for any of them.

 

My point is, regardless of what a handful of idiots do in the name of whatever organization they claim to support, it boils down to "Are their actions in line with or approved by the factual foundational beliefs of that organization?" If not, this argument is nothing more than a convenient straw man.

 

I'm a 40-something mostly WASP, so I don't see the world through the same eyes that Morgan Freeman does. If he sees what he says he does, there is probably a reason for it.

I have no doubt there's a reason for it... I'm sure I can't imagine the garbage he has had to endure from idiots giving him grief for no other reason than the shade of his skin. I would not be shocked to learn that he has faced genuine racism in his life... but that doesn't automatically validate his assertions about the Tea Party.

 

Westy, you're too smart for this. Our country is TRILLIONS of dollars further in debt and economically worse off than it was three years ago... and this is with a House and Senate controlled by Democrats for two of the past three years. I would be unhappy with whoever was in charge, regardless of their flavor.

 

If you genuinely belive the Tea Party is filled with legitimate RACISTS out to condemn Obama simply because he is half African and half Caucasian, then do some research, dig up the incontrovertable facts, win a Pulitzer prize. If it's as bad as you suggest, it shouldn't be that hard to do. Make a positive difference through journalism and make a name for yourself in the process. :thumb:

 

As for me, there is one race... the human race. We all bleed the same blood. We may marry and have children together in any combination. There are only two subcategories IMO... the saved and the rebellious. I love and pray for members of both. The color of our wrappers has nothing to do with any of it. :thumb:

I'm not defending what Freeman said, but as far as I know, he's always been pretty level-headed about racial issues in the past.

 

However, maybe there is something he sees in the Tea Party movement that makes him sense that bigotry, perhaps of the racial and/or religious variety, comes into play with the venom that some on the Right use in attacking Obama and/or his policies. There have certainly been times that I think the Tea Party movement plays on people's fears and prejudices in galvanizing opposition to him.

Just as the left attempts to strike fear in the hearts of seniors by perpetuating the lie that republicans are out to take away their social security, Medicare and have them eating cat food sandwiches.

 

You of all people should understand the impact of words, and all the hyperbole about people being racists simply because they do not agree with the policies and agenda of a political leader... be he brown, pink, purple or green with big orange polka dots is a reach at best.

I thought he said the way to end racism was to quit talking about race, and then he turns around a accuses republicans and tea partiers of being racists for wanting Obama to be a one term president.

 

Hypocrisy... myopia... forget what I said before, what I really meant to say was...

 

Whatever...

 

Mr. Obama is equal parts caucasian and african. I could not care less if he was Edgar and Johnny Winters long lost sibling with pale skin and red irises. It is Mr. Obama's policies, lack of meaningful results, counterproductive ideology that the vast majority of sensible republicans and tea partiers find harmful and to be resisted. It has nothing whatsoever to do with his skin tone... and to constantly accuse those who disagree with him entirely because of his ideology is a worn out straw man. It is a cop out.

 

There are very many of us that resisted Mr. Clinton, and Mr. Carter, and Ms. Pelosi, and Mr. Reid, and Mr. Gephardt, and Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Frank, and Mr. Gore... Apparently, by Mr. Freeman's standards we are 99% anti-whitey, since we have resisted the policies and re-elections of many, many more white politicians and policies with whom we disagree than we have black politicians.

 

I know many pale-skinned republicans and tea partiers who agreed in large part with the pleas and teachings of Martin Luther King Jr. I agree with the foundation principles of his "I have a dream" speech... especially the part about people being judged not for the color of their skin, but for the content of their character. This is entirely how I live my life. If I am going to be given a pass to criticize the actions of Mr. Clinton just because he and I are more similar in external appearance, but I am criticized for disagreeing with Mr. Obama just because he has a better sun tan than me... how is that anywhere in keeping with Mr. King's dream?

 

I would absolutely love to have Alan Keyes, Herman Cain, J.C. Watts, Allen West, Condoleeza Rice, Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, Tim Scott... or any number of other conservative political figures with darker complexions than my own in the White House, Senate or House instead of many others or all skin tones on the left side of the aisle.

 

So maybe I am a racist... I don't like all the liberal crackers trying to force government enforced socialism upon me.