"Disinformation Without Challenge??"
So claims Carol Towarnicky in today's version of her perversely-named "The Common Good" column in the Daily News.
Her column starts off not to praise Jerry Falwell, but to bury him. I really didn't support Falwell and have no opinion, good or bad, about him. It rapidly spins out of control from there:
In the middle of Ronald Reagan's first term: Rush Limbaugh was just beginning his national radio career and his imitators on conservative talk radio had yet to turn on their microphones to broadcast disinformation without challenge.
Disinformation without challenge?? WTF do you call NPR? That's government-backed disinformation! What about the visual aspect of our broadcast media?? SeeBS? CeeNoNews?? MSMSNBC, in all its various forms??
This is then followed by an even more obscenely-humorous charge:
Yet last weekend, unannounced Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich exhorted the graduates of Falwell's Liberty University to continue the fight against "radical secularism," that is, apparently, a government that adheres to the First Amendment.
No, Carol, a government that adheres to the First Amendment would allow the use of the word God in the public venue. It would allow creches and menorahs to be displayed, side-by-side, in the appropriate season without a lawsuit from the "radically secular" ACLU!
For the uninformed, like most Dumb-o-crats, the First Amendment simultaneously provides for the free expression of religious beliefs, while prohibiting the government from being ruled by only one religious faith or belief system. It is only over the years that the "radically secular" liberals have perverted the First Amendment to quash any and all expression or utterance of the word God in public.
Next time, get your head out of your ass and get your facts straight!
Labels: Liberals Suck, Lies-Lies-Lies
posted by TheBitterAmerican @ 9:12 PM
8 comments
8 Comments:
As I understand it even Larry Flint whom Falwell had one heck of a relationship with and went to the Supreme Court over (I remember that whole thing lol) it was really quite funny, but even Flint had nice things to say about Falwell, I wonder if Flint went to the Funeral.
With regards to the first amendment and your apparent displeasure with what you see as the removal of god from public life at the hands of "radical secularists", how do you propose to balance that situation when this country is not monotheistic and ultimately, I suppose, one would assume that you wouldn't want anyone else to feel offended, ignored, or left out, much in the way you seem to feel?
How would you respond to someone taking an oath of office on a Qu'Ran, Buddhist texts, Wiccan manuscripts, or even a bowl of pasta, if you want to get silly about it?
Faith is personal and if I choose to worship an inanimate object such as a small piece of rock, don't I have as much of a right to have a public display of "my" god as you do or do see problems with that?
How would you respond to someone taking an oath of office on a Qu'Ran, Buddhist texts, Wiccan manuscripts
I would have no problem with that. I believe I've already covered that - the US government is forbidden from acknowledging only one "state" religion. That's what separates us from, say, England, where the Queen appoints the Archbishop of Canterbury, the titular leader of the Anglican Church.
Faith is personal and if I choose to worship an inanimate object such as a small piece of rock, don't I have as much of a right to have a public display of "my" god as you do or do see problems with that?
You do and I have no problem with it. But there are certain groups in our country that wouldn't allow you even that courtesy, and they are sponsored by, or given tacit approval by liberal elements of our political system.
Fair enough.
How do you view Bill O'Reilly's supposed War Against Christmas? I bring it up because as an agnostic myself, personally I don't care about public displays in store fronts and such.
What I do take issue with is religion in schools, specifically, prayer in public schools and the reason is this.
I've attended public school all my life except for 8th grade, where I went to a Catholic school in CT. While the education was really good (aside from mandatory Spanish at a time when French was my second language) and I in fact brought notoriety to my school by taking home 1st prize in a regional science fair, I was required to attend mass with the school, my graduation was in a church with a mass, communion, etc and for me, it was very awkward and as an agnostic with no religious faith, I was often ridiculed as such.
Now, that aside, I can understand how groups of faithful in public schools might feel when they're denied the ability to practice faith, have prayer groups, etc. but the problem I have is that both the faithful and the non-faithful have pre-conceived notions about the other group and often, seclusion, exclusion, and prejudice occur, especially among youth.
As an agnostic, I feel (and have come to understand through asking questions and interpretations) that religion is really a personal matter, something that ties "some" members of communities together but it is my personal experience that by integrating religion into public life, in a manner of speaking, it is simply continuing on the atmosphere of inclusion and exclusion, depending on who you are.
If religion is a private and personal aspect of one's life, then what's wrong with A) having various dedicated communities for said beliefs, i.e. church, CCD, faith groups, etc and B) exclusion of all religions in certain public environments, such as school?
School is there for students to learn the skills and tools they will need to carry them far in life, earn gainful employment, and excel at their position and hopefully contribute something to soceity
Religion can be a tool to help round a student to receive certain moral groundings with and a strong conscience to make proper judgements such as ethics, community standards, how to treat each other, etc.
But one does not neccesarily depend on the other and can clearly and easily be demonstrated.
It is not up to me to indoctrinate my child in a certain belief such as a god just at it is not up to me to tell my child there is no god. That is up to my child to determine and he may seek it for himself when and if, at a certain stage of understanding in his life, he determines to seek that information out.
But by including religion and a belief in a god (again, which god?) as part of the public education curriculum, I feel it only will bring abut more seclusion and exclusion for non-like minded individuals in an environment where learning physical marketplace skills should be the primary focus and an environment of awkward exclusion for anyone seeks to take away from the learning environment.
I'm interested to hear your take on the aspect of religion in public school, however, as without it, it's hard to continue explaining my POV.
Lastly (since I have to run at the moment but is certainly something we can discuss), the notion that religion and god are being pushed out of society by secular liberals can be countered by the notion that radical [insert religion here] fundamentalist are performing the same mirror charge by saying we need more religion, prayer in school, public displays, that this is a Christian nation [again, not for everyone and as such, a statement as such only seeks to divide and exclude others].
Do you see how the non-faithful might see a push to flood society with symbols of god/religion/faith of [insert particular religion or god here] as the same actions the faithful see the non-faithful as performing by the removal of god?
Look forward to your response [possibly not today, though] and I'll try to keep my temper to the side.
;p
One other point as I review your reply one last time.
"You do and I have no problem with it. But there are certain groups in our country that wouldn't allow you even that courtesy, and they are sponsored by, or given tacit approval by liberal elements of our political system."
Regarding the notion of the US being a [insert religion] nation, can't I not argue that this is also "and they are sponsored by, or given tacit approval by conservative elements of our political system.?"
How do you view Bill O'Reilly's supposed War Against Christmas? I bring it up because as an agnostic myself, personally I don't care about public displays in store fronts and such.
1 - A personal opinion of one pundit.
2 - The United States, while Constitutionally secular, is still predominantly Christian. O'Reilly's view is that Christianity, and any public display, are being pushed aside in favor of liberal secularism and massive commercialism. I agree with him on those points.
Do you see how the non-faithful might see a push to flood society with symbols of god/religion/faith of [insert particular religion or god here] as the same actions the faithful see the non-faithful as performing by the removal of god?
You can make that point, but to be honest, our society accepts symbols we are comfortable with. You don't see many Stars of David or menorahs in predominantly-black/Christian West Philadelphia, but they are quite prominent in parts of Lower Merion, Upper Dublin and Northeast Philly. You also would NEVER see a swastika on display, because, while a figure representing a cult belief system, no one would feel comfortable displaying it in public.
I'm interested to hear your take on the aspect of religion in public school, however, as without it, it's hard to continue explaining my POV.
Religion has no place in public schools are a part of the learning environment. Public schools are an extension of the local governments, and as such, forbidden from acknowledging one faith system. That said, there's nothing against teaching children the history of religions as part of their curriculum.
FWIW, I also don't believe in the public school system. Parents should have a choice of where they want there children to be educated, and if that means sending them to a Catholic school, an Episcopalian school, a Hebrew school, or a madrassa, so be it.
I'll have more later but just glancing over your comment, I want to hit on one point.
"FWIW, I also don't believe in the public school system. Parents should have a choice of where they want there children to be educated, and if that means sending them to a Catholic school, an Episcopalian school, a Hebrew school, or a madrassa, so be it."
Outside of public schools, what do you offer as an alternative to religiously-based education? I'm going to assume charter schools and such, but I'll see what you say.
Secondly, with regards to public education, doesn't the government have an inherent interest in providing quality education for it's citizens to improve it's overall stature around the world?
I mean...otherwise, isn't it then that those who can't afford the private schools simply....what, don't get educated in a typical school environment?
OK,...this discussion, while stimulating, has gone wa-a-ay off the original topic.
Sillys**ts, save your ideas for another, more appropriate time and venue.
Thanks.
Post a Comment
<< Home