Hey Wicher, Yeah, so?  Apples and apples, like Red Delicious and Green Delicious?  We can compare a free democracy like the United States where its guiding documents were carefully crafted to avoid religious verbiage except the First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the United States Bill of Rights that expressly prohibits the United States Congress from making laws “respecting an establishment of religion” or that prohibit the free exercise of religion, laws that infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to peaceably assemble, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.  So if a government embraces atheism, or one prohibits a national religion, what exactly is the difference except for a little different perspective?  I’ll answer.  It is “or that prohibit the free exercise of religion...” part that is the big difference.  One could rightly say they were both policies, China’s and America’s.

Re Shenonymous, September 21 at 10:45 pm #

A policy is a wide-ranging course of action used to guide a federal government in pursuing its goals.  China is a society which embraces a policy of “official atheism.” Unknown to many western readers of the popular press, China is drenched in movements like the Buddhist Falun Gong. Faith healing, apocalyptic sects and a myriad of assorted religious groups populate that huge country which is currently in the midst of a convulsive economic and social transition into contemporary times. China is also threatened with a political balkanization similar to which redrew the map of Europe; Muslim groups in the western part of the country are calling for secession. Within China itself, the warnings of Marx and Mao have taken on a peculiar relevancy, as an impoverished peasantry coexists precariously with a rising class of young technocrats
----------------------------------------------------
Shen,

So, China has a policy of discouraging ideologies which compete with the official state ideology which is still Communism, one of whose tenents is atheism. Compare that with the United States Constitution, the first ammendment of which succinctly state, run “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Tony Wicher, what exactly is the credo that China makes everybody say, i.e,, like the Apostle’s Creed, or the Athanasian Creed?  Atheism was a national policy in China, like the Council for National Policy (CNP), which is an umbrella organization and networking group for social conservative activists in the United States. It has been described by the The New York Times as a “little-known group of a few hundred of the most powerful conservatives in the country,” who meet three times yearly behind closed doors at undisclosed locations for a confidential conference.

A policy is a wide-ranging course of action used to guide a federal government in pursuing its goals.  China is a society which embraces a policy of “official atheism.” Unknown to many western readers of the popular press, China is drenched in movements like the Buddhist Falun Gong. Faith healing, apocalyptic sects and a myriad of assorted religious groups populate that huge country which is currently in the midst of a convulsive economic and social transition into contemporary times. China is also threatened with a political balkanization similar to which redrew the map of Europe; Muslim groups in the western part of the country are calling for secession. Within China itself, the warnings of Marx and Mao have taken on a peculiar relevancy, as an impoverished peasantry coexists precariously with a rising class of young technocrats

By Shenonymous, September 21 at 12:58 pm #

China did not and does not have an atheist ‘religion.’ Such a thing does not exist.  Taken from the following website:
http://www.cbbc.org/china_guide/religion.html
Religion in China is a complicated matter. The Chinese Communist Party - the ruling party in China - for a long time discouraged the practice of religion, officially because it was atheist but in reality because it believed religion was a dangerous alternative credo to communism.
---------------------------------------------------
You call Communism a “credo”, as opposed to a religion?  Would you accept this way of putting it: Communism is an atheistic “credo” which is still the official state credo. Perhaps it is not taken seriously anymore in China. In our Constitution there is no statement of either the existence or the non-existence, but rather concerns rules of conduct to which all must adhere regardless of their religious affiliation or non-affiliation.

Do you think there were any parents who were atheists (raging or not, that wasn’t my question anyway) that put their children in the educating care of your Christian school

I am not sure, and since someone who remembers the families pretty well says ‘No’, then I will have to agree. 

But I dare say I know firsthand of home schooled kids who could not even get their foot in the door of a college without remedial or supplemental courses to bring them up to standard

Absolutely. So test them to find out!

If they do well on the SAT in English, then do not ‘remediate’ them simply because you dont agree with the homeschool (or Christian school) English text book that was used.

If homeschool (or Christian school) kids do poorly on the SAT in whatever subject then of course they need remediation. In short, treat them like other kids. No favors and no penalties.

Anything else looks like discrimination. Which is what I think happened. 

Given that Christian schools have a dogma to which students are taught, just as they would claim secular public schools follow the scientific-based curricula as dogmatic

I would not claim it is thoroughly scientific based. Particularly History and English. How could the public schools teach a ‘scientific based’ History class?

Could you give me an example of a Great Question please?

I know it happened. Just like I know they said funny things. Just like I know everyone laughed. But I dont remember what the jokes were. Not a single one. I am not trying to evade your question, I just dont remember. 1/2 hour every day of small group bible study with 8th graders. that alone offered plenty of chances for Great Questions. But I dont remember a specific thing that they or I did.

You may think Christian schools are freer philosophically speaking than public schools that teach the secular world view but as you say, it is only philosophically speaking and I highly doubt it is in reality speaking.

I see what you mean, but I think it was real. For example, my 8th grade science kids had to understand evolution. You cannot sweep things under a carpet. Or reject a theory that you dont understand. They had to know it better than the public school kids.

I gotta go!

China did not and does not have an atheist ‘religion.’ Such a thing does not exist.  Taken from the following website:
http://www.cbbc.org/china_guide/religion.html
Religion in China is a complicated matter. The Chinese Communist Party - the ruling party in China - for a long time discouraged the practice of religion, officially because it was atheist but in reality because it believed religion was a dangerous alternative credo to communism. Despite this, people in China continued to practise their religious beliefs - often at great personal risk. During the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s, large-scale religious persecutions were carried out and thousands of temples and churches destroyed.

With the gradual liberalisation that developed with Deng Xiaoping’s open door reforms, religion was no longer proscribed. In 1982, the constitution was amended to allow Chinese people considerable freedom of religion.

The three main traditional Chinese religions are Daoism, Confucianism and Buddhism. Islam and Christianity have also been present in smaller numbers in China for centuries. The government is still anti-’cult’. This stems from the large numbers of cults which helped to bring down past Chinese governments - the Boxers, Yellow Hats and so on.  (If I may comment here that a key point to note) is that the communists are suspicious of any group that could claim people’s loyalty. Religions fall into that category. The Falun Gong remains banned.

Also taken from http://www.cfr.org/publication/16272/
The Council on Foreign Relations

Religious observance in China is on the rise. According to a survey published in a state-run newspaper, 31.4 percent of Chinese adults are religious, a figure that is three times the initial government estimate. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is officially atheist, but it has been growing more tolerant of religious activity for the past twenty years.

Some people think anything, rightly or wrongly.  Atheism is not a religion.  It is ridiculous to say that.  Banning religion may be due to atheistic beliefs (belief that it is impossible to prove the existence of a god), one must be clear to see the distinction.  Some people are unable to make such distinctions.

Re: Tony

“First of all, my point concerned state sponsored religion, not religion in general. I pointed out that China’s official state religion is atheism, and that they have persecuted non-atheists, such as Tibetan Buddhists and the Falun Gong, in precisely the same manner as state religions have always persecuted people of other religions, including atheists.”

~~~~~~~~

I didn’t know this!!! I definitely didn’t know that China’s ‘official state religion was atheism.

Now that IS very interesting, (Shenonymous can provide the scoop on this far better than I) because my own ‘concept’ of atheism has never been as a ‘religion’ in and of itself.

Now I know that China doesn’t like ANY organized religion, but I never considered dismissal of all religions to be a religion itself. In fact, I’ve always believed their own policy about religion to be similar to Saddam’s, or any other country that is autocratic or otherwise. Bottom line, all forms of religion, (in the opinions of many social scientists) are a form of social control. Dictatorships rarely want to compete with any other entity for control of the population. So, anyone representing or even speaking of a religious affinity is persecuted in China. And, yep, that includes Chinese people. Like I said, they don’t just hate foreigners, they won’t tolerate anybody who might disrupt the social order of the state mandate.

Still, it’s an interesting topic to consider atheism as a religion unto itself, and if China actually states atheism as their ‘official’ religion, it would be interesting to explore that more. (probably not now, seeing as we’re going to hell in a handbasket, and China is as they’ve always been, so that’s probably not gonna change anytime soon).

Wait a minute OzarkMichael.  Apples and oranges syndrome.  Asking questions and being grateful to be in a Christian school are not even closely related.  Neat shift there, sign of a skilled con artist.  Do you think there were any parents who were atheists (raging or not, that wasn’t my question anyway) that put their children in the educating care of your Christian school (we will limit it to your school as it would be unfair for you to speak for all Christian schools.  One sample however does not give a clear picture of the quality of Christian school education.), especially since the doctrines would be infused in the teachings? 

I’m not saying your school isn’t a good school. Also many people home school and do a superb job, their kids get into colleges.  I know some.  But I dare say I know firsthand of home schooled kids who could not even get their foot in the door of a college without remedial or supplemental courses to bring them up to standard. 

Many public school children are also put into Catholic schools, and by the same token, many Catholic schooled children are put into public school.  All school environments and curricula are not the same. I also know this first hand being a public school teacher and having taught in two different states.  Also children are put into school environments for various reasons a lot have to do with behavior problems or learning disabilities, not for economic reasons as private schools are expensive, but probably proximity to residences.

The answer to my hypothetical is not quite answered.  I have had a lot of experience with children, and adult students as well (a University prof for many years).  Most children, students in general, do not like school and being made to learn anything.  It is difficult for most.  There are the few that do.  Whatever is the case, most of them do respect authority (although there are the few that do not), and if told they should be grateful their parents might be sacrificing for them to be in a school they may understand that or they may not and behave accordingly.  Children’s minds are very malleable.  Hence the very reason for childhood education.  Not many, if any, would ask searching questions.

Could you give me an example of a Great Question please?  And possibly how it would be answered?  Given that Christian schools have a dogma to which students are taught, just as they would claim secular public schools follow the scientific-based curricula as dogmatic, there is likely to be some disparity when Christian-schooled children get to colleges that are secular.  Also, what agency provided the standardized tests?  A fair question.

You also say the Christian school teacher has the freedom to discuss secular views.  But in fact do they?  Would it not be most difficult to hold a secular position objectively for rational discussion?  You may think Christian schools are freer philosophically speaking than public schools that teach the secular world view but as you say, it is only philosophically speaking and I highly doubt it is in reality speaking. 

Fact is that every public school I have taught in, all secular, a Bible was found in every classroom, but of course no Qur’an.  So on that score, I would say there was some non-objectivity.  Of course, Bibles are not supposed to be there either.  I cannot count the number of classrooms I have been in and taught classes in. 

But I thank you for this discussion.  It is quite civil and appreciated.

the original question: Can raging atheists or moslem’s and other faiths attend the Christian schools? Not that they would want to...

my answer was: I can answer the question about who was admitted to it and who was not.
Anybody could attend, including atheists.

Shenonymous asks: Did that ever happen?

my answer: No. No parent went so far as to identify themselves as atheist or Moslem for the 2 years that I was there.

However, some of the parents were not interested in the Christian part at all, but chose us because we were a good school. The parent checking us out asked, “Will college accept the graduate? Will the kid get good SAT scores? If I bring my kid there and then next year take him out, will the public school accept the year the kid was at the Christian school?”

We had records of twice yearly standardized tests to prove to them that our school was much better in advancing students than the public school. Kids who went back to public school invariably noticed that it was easier, that they ‘already knew everything’, and so even the families who left would admit we were educationally superior. They were our best advertisements.

Many parents with public school failing/expelled kids ended up at our door. They never announced themselves as athiest, but neither did they self identify with Christian beliefs. We did those kids a lot of good.

Shenonymous: I would have to ask a hypothetical, if one did attempt to attend and was allowed entrance, what would your school have done if a challenge were given to the instructor and/or school doctrines?

well, the hypothetical isnt so hypothetical, because kids ask questions. But frankly, most kids are grateful to be in a Christian school because they know that their parents are sacrificing for it. Furthermore, most children everywhere go along with what they are taught, and do not rage against the system. True?

But sometimes Great Questions were asked. When questions were asked with the impetus of budding reasoning behind them, asked with the sincerity that impresses any teacher anywhere, everything else stops and we discuss it. We Christians believe that our worldview is coherent and reasonable. I never saw any child’s question shut down. I never saw a child disrespected for disagreeing.

By contrast in secular public schools there are questions and discussions that might have to be shut down in order to maintain secularity. True?

The same sort of authority of a public school teacher to teach the secular world view is found in the Christian school teacher to teach a Christian worldview. Plus we had the freedom to discuss secular views. So philosophically speaking we were freer than the public school.

OzarkMichael says. I taught at a Christian school so I can answer the question about who was admitted to it and who was not.
Anybody could attend, including atheists.
Shenonymous asks: Did that ever happen?  Did an atheist ever attend classes at your Christian school?  If so, what happened when the atheist challenged the teachings?  If not, it was an irrelevant answer.  Or did you mean there was nothing ever written that said atheists could not attend.  Then I would have to ask a hypothetical, if one did attempt to attend and was allowed entrance, what would your school have done if a challenge were given to the instructor and/or school doctrines?  And of course, it could logically be assumed as certain (in a non-Cartesean manner) that would happen.

Wicher.  Of course belief is subjective, that is its definition, being a mental act of acceptance, whether it is true or not since truth has no relationship to belief.  What you have described is relativism in beliefs.  And you are right, there is nothing provable in beliefs except some beliefs are based on a pile of scientific research and are more legitimately believable than others.  Belief in god(s) is not one of the latter kind.  Atheists do not go about trying to prove god does not exist.  Believers are simply unable to prove god does exist.  But again I agree free thinking boat floating is the appropriate sailing disposition in a guaranteed free society.  The only action atheists take is to defend their unassailable right to not believe what another does.

Re cyrena, September 17 at 11:35 pm #

Tony,

I generally share your mindset on most things, but I definitely do NOT perceive atheism as just another religion. I’m an atheist myself, though agnostic may be more appropriate, (I have a tendency to get hung up on the definitions) since I do believe in a “Higher Power.”

But, that’s it. I can’t say that I believe in God, and neither do atheists. Like Shenonymous says, there might be degrees, (and definitely distinctions) of those who claim to be atheists. But I’ve never come across any atheists with any dogmatic ideology that lends to their non-believe in God. That’s kind of like trying to prove a negative.

Atheists don’t try to prove that God doesn’t exist.
----------------------------------------------------
cyrena,

This should be an interesting discussion. First of all, my point concerned state sponsored religion, not religion in general. I pointed out that China’s official state religion is atheism, and that they have persecuted non-atheists, such as Tibetan Buddhists and the Falun Gong, in precisely the same manner as state religions have always persecuted people of other religions, including atheists. So what’s the difference? Whether you want to call it a religion or not, the result is the same.

Atheism is defined as the belief that there is no God, whatever “God” means to the believer. Another believes there is a God, whatever that means to him. It’s merely a subjective belief in either case. Obviously there is nothing scientifically provable here. Whatever floats one’s boat, is what I say, as long as people don’t impose their beliefs on each other.

By Leefeller, September 18 at 5:15 am #

All thanks for the input and comments, sorry I may have not made myself clear, I was focusing on the Fundamental Christian Colleges which supplied Bush’s incompetent support for the attorney generals office.  We had heard some flap about this during the Valerie Plane episodes.

~~~~~~~

Ah Leefeller...I missed this. I understand now. You’re right of course...the Monica Goodling type...there were lots of them. (Remember she questioned one applicant on whether or not he had ever cheated on his wife...he should have slapped her - Monica that is, not his wife).

Anyway, with THOSE schools, I think it would be impossibly to get in, unless one was a fundamentalist Christian. But, who would WANT to?

Liberty University is the main supplier of the White House and Justice department staff, and that’s a Pat Robertson school. (I think, I could have him mixed up with another one of those whackos). Anyway, Liberty University is like next to the bottom of the bottom of so-called accredited schools. So, the only thing anyone could do with a degree from that school, would be to work for the Bush-Cheney Admin.

Or, maybe they could move to Alaska and work for Palin.

Continuing with my pig metaphor:  Here are a couple to chew on…

“A pig has its own nature; no one can take that away from him, it can’t be changed, why blame the poor thing?”

“Good manners are spoiled by wrong relationships; don’t make friends with pigs!”

Hacking emails and publishing them on the Internet is pig behavior.  It doesn’t help the cause at all.  It gives justification for the Patriot Act, fools!

I see this thread has wandered off into a religious/metaphysical bent, so I offer this:

“There was a door to which I found no key,
There was a veil through which I could not see.
A little talk awhile of thee and me,
There was… and then no longer any talk
of me and thee.”

All thanks for the input and comments, sorry I may have not made myself clear, I was focusing on the Fundamental Christian Colleges which supplied Bush’s incompetent support for the attorney generals office.  We had heard some flap about this during the Valerie Plane episodes.

Leefeller,

I can’t answer for all, but I can weigh in to ditto Ozark Michael about my own experience. I attended Catholic School (yeah, they are Christians) grades K through 12. Non Catholics were accepted and perfectly welcome.

Tony,

I generally share your mindset on most things, but I definitely do NOT perceive atheism as just another religion. I’m an atheist myself, though agnostic may be more appropriate, (I have a tendency to get hung up on the definitions) since I do believe in a “Higher Power.”

But, that’s it. I can’t say that I believe in God, and neither do atheists. Like Shenonymous says, there might be degrees, (and definitely distinctions) of those who claim to be atheists. But I’ve never come across any atheists with any dogmatic ideology that lends to their non-believe in God. That’s kind of like trying to prove a negative.

Atheists don’t try to prove that God doesn’t exist.

Leefeller, some people are capable of making distinctions and others are not.  When it comes to atheists, there are different species as much as there are different cults and sects of over 400 religions recorded as existing in the world today.  Anyone who considers atheism a religion is ignorant of both atheism and theism and cannot speak intelligently of either.  These uncultivated should rightly be ignored. 

“If it looks like a pig, sounds like a pig, acts like pig, don’t be mistaking, it is a pig!”

A She modification:  If it looks like an atheist, sounds like an atheist, acts like an atheist, don’t be mistaking, it is definitely an atheist!

Tony Witcher,

Yes, you made yourself clear, thank you.

OM, Thanks for your reply.

By Leefeller, September 17 at 2:20 am #

Also I find it amusing, you corn holed the atheists and not the religions?
----------------------------------------------------
To me atheism is just another religion as dogmatic as the rest and state-sponsored atheism is no better and no worse than any other state-sponsored religion, Christian, Jewish, Muslim or other. Do I make myself clear?

I taught at a Christian school so I can answer the question about who was admitted to it and who was not.

Anybody could attend, including atheists.

Tony Witcher,

I was not promoting a state religion, my question was asking would the Christian schools allow, non fundamental Christian members in.

This reminds me of the big flap about the air force academy and its alleged Christian fundamental demands on it’s students.

It is very hard to get to the truth even on TD.

Also I find it amusing, you corn holed the atheists and not the religions?

Tony Witcher,

I was not promoting a state religion, my question was asking would the Christian schools allow, non fundamental Christian members in.

This reminds me of the big flap about the air force academy and its alleged Christian fundamental demands on it’s students.

It is very hard to get to the truth even on TD.

Also I find it ammusing, you corn holed the artists and not the religions?

She seems quite a cannibal I would say
Looks like Ms. Piggy of Muppet fame
Loves her pork, just the same

Wicher - there are atheists and there are atheists.  They are not all of one stripe.  Please make distinctions, thank you.  Or maybe you don’t know enough about atheism to say much.

By Leefeller, September 16 at 9:44 am #

OzarkMichael,

Can raging atheists or moslem’s and other faiths attend the Christian schools? Not that they would want to and I know it is not the same thing, but just curious.
----------------------------------------------------
Leefeller,

Let us not forget that atheism was the official state religion of the Soviet Union and still is the official state religion of China. It is just as oppressive as any other state religion.

OzarkMichael:  ”If you approve of this attack on the Christian school, what is to prevent the State University of California from ‘finding’ that the Catholic schools are ‘deficient in critical thinking?’ Certainly an atheist could have the opinion that there is some lack of critical thinking in Catholic schools. Catholic school textbooks in some subjects(maybe all subjects) arent completely secularized, are they?” Shenonymous; Yes, that would be an atheist’s argument when it comes to scientific matters.  Particularly if these students brought the bible in as truth to science classes, but I haven’t heard that the catholics do that.  Have you?  I would say there is some lack of critical thinking in Catholicism in general.  But you know where I’m coming from.  I’d say that is even more descriptive of Islam and Evangelical Christians.  So there you go, three with one blow.  I need to get a belt to notch.

OM “.....outperform the public school kids in everything.” Shenonymous:  Everything?  Where do you get your statistics on this?  I’d be very interested in seeing them.

OM But an unproven belief is a prejudice no matter how educated someone claims to be. And to act upon that prejudice is discrimination. Shenonymous:  Agreed.  All religions are based on unproven beliefs.  For McCain and Palin to keep lying about Obama is prejudicial discrimination.

The Pig
The Pig, if I am not mistaken,
Gives us ham and pork and bacon,
Oil drilling subsidies and bridges that go nowhere.
Let others think his heart is big,
I think it deceitful of the Pig.

by Ogden Nash with some slight modification by Shenonymous

OzarkMichael,

Can raging atheists or moslem’s and other faiths attend the Christian schools? Not that they would want to and I know it is not the same thing, but just curious.

per shenonymous:Catholic schools get their students into big four year colleges and UC all the time, so it isn’t Christianity per se. It was particular Christian schools that are deficient in their teaching of critical thinking skills...

I remind you that these kids have fine SAT scores and that children from this school had done just fine at the U. of C. in years previous. These children were accepted to U of C. But when they showed up their counsellor informed them they needed remediation because of the school they came from.

If you approve of this attack on the Christian school, what is to prevent the State University of California from ‘finding’ that the Catholic schools are ‘deficient in critical thinking?’ Certainly an atheist could have the opinion that there is some lack of critical thinking in Catholic schools. Catholic school textbooks in some subjects(maybe all subjects) arent completely secularized, are they?

So the State University could decide to ‘remediate’ the catholic school students. Nevermind that these Catholic school kids(just like the independant Christian school kids) outperform the public school kids in everything and never had problems performing in college in previous years.

I remind you that it wasnt just creationism. It was history and even english that all these Christian school kids have to be ‘remediated’ in. Not because their scores in science or history or english were low. No. For no reason except that some atheist faculty member didnt like the Christian message in their history and english textbooks.

Were American people really so poorly educated 100 or 50 years ago before the public schools were secularized? Would you not say instead that American education generally and critical thinking in particular has taken a nose dive since our education went secular?

So is this really about critical thinking or is it about something else?

The idea that education from a christian worldview produces poor scholarship or leads to fascism is becoming prevalent, even though it is easily proven false. Yet the teachers at the state University of California teach it in their classrooms. Dont misunderstand, they are free to do so and i want them to have that freedom. And they are free to write books about it. And you are free to believe it.

Its all good.

But an unproven belief is a prejudice no matter how educated someone claims to be. And to act upon that prejudice is discrimination.

She,

Biden is waiting and going to pounce on her like a polar bear. He will surround her like a pack of wolves and devour her like a lame over weight carabu, where only her bones will be left for the buzzards, (do they have buzzards in Alaska)?. 

On the other hand, Biden may be quite the gentleman and help her into her new tanning machine at the cozy Trollup office.

Sorry I couldn’t help myself, the hell with the olive branch, gloves are off. My word and promises are useless, she is just made for funning at, I hope she wins, I will be glued to Comedy Centrist and the other reality shows for the next four year and I do not usually watch he Telie.

Beerdoctor,

” McCain’s face reddened and he responded “At least I don’t plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt.”

Thanks for that, I had the whole quote out of context, I thought he called her a F-ing C. word instead of trollop, so it was not near as bad as I thought.  Now his face turning red may be more important and have a connotative connection.

Where is Biden in all of this?  Why isn’t he counteracting with forceful issues and arguments to Palin?  Does he think he will just pounce at the debate?  That will make him look contemptible (there are other words but I just washed out my mouth).

re: Cyrena, Leefeller

from 1913 Webster’s: Trollop Trol"lop, n. [from Troll to roll, to stroll; but cf.also Trull]
A stroller, a loiterer; esp., an idle, untidy woman; a slattern; a slut; a whore.

“I thought trollop’s lived under bridges, but maybe I have got it wrong.”

~~~

Oh Leefeller, you’re thinking of TROLLS, not trollop’s. It’s TROLLS that live under bridges.

Oh Shit! I may be wrong myself. That was in the old days. THESE DAYS...any and everybody lives under bridges..or freeway overpasses, or trees, or apartment complexes, (the parking garages) or on the side of the highway, or....

It’s not just for trolls anymore....

re: Leefeller

(from 1992) At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain’s hair and said, “You’re getting a little thin up there.” McCain’s face reddened and he responded “At least I don’t plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt.”

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/McCain_temper_boiled_ove r_in_92_0407.html

In Praise of a Pig
A pig is a jolly companion,
Boar, sow, barrow, or gilt --
A pig is a pal, who’ll boost your morale,
Though mountains may topple and tilt.
When they’ve blackballed, bamboozled, and burned you,
When they’ve turned on you, Tory and Whig,
Though you may be thrown over by Tabby and Rover,
You’ll never go wrong with a pig, a pig,
You’ll never go wrong with a pig!

Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow

Hold on, everything has changed, McCain has just announced or admitted that Obama did not call Pailin a pig, don’t you feel better now?

Beerdoctor,

When did McCain use the word trollop?  Palin has come on board all of a sudden the word appears? I thought trollop’s lived under bridges, but maybe I have got it wrong.  Trollop: A women perceived as sexually disreputable or oozing fertility? Not sure if this is correct, but does sound like someone in the news recently.

It ain’t no trick to get rich quick,
(even when the Dow, et al falls down)
If ya Dig, Dig, Dig on Wall Street with a shovel or a pick…
...Or an oil rig…
Or in a mine, in a mine, in a mine,
In a mine where a million backs sweat to make your pocketbook fat.
Shine, F’sure...Shine On Columbia,
We Dig, Dig, Dig, Dig Dig, Dig, Dig, Clicking our tongues to the beat of… politics?  Though We Don’t Know What We Dig For. WHO GETS THE BUZZ?
We Dig to our Souls’ content, while The World Is Dying...and People.
A Thousand Reasons A Day are given us to keep the faithby Those who are safe in white houses, American classical domes, and five-sided compounds.  Why?  For the sake of belief!  For what other reason?
The Hollow Sound Never Stops As We...We Dig, Dig Dig-A-Dig, Dig

HEIGH-HO, HEIGH-HO
HEIGH-HO, HEIGH-HO, HEIGH-HO
IT’S HOME FROM WORK WE GO .

Ideas are something not important to people who have their own comfort zone, enamored in their own belief system one that uses religion to guide them to make decisions.  People who feel threatened by logic and reason, instead they drape themselves in the flag and accept war as normal. Surrounding themselves in like thinking people pursuing a similar agenda.  A way to live ones life with a certain feelings of security by attacking differences of ideas with gusto.

No, ideas are not even in the room with these people and when they see something that even looks like and idea, it is perceived as a threat.

re: Cyrena

Thank you Cyrena for picking up on what I was pointing out. It is indeed troubling that someone within the McCain/Palin team is enamored of Pegler, rather archaic come to think of it, like John McCain’s use of the word trollop.
Peace and blessings.

Good morning, We shall be civilized! (my new bumper sticker)

I think libertarian you are onto something.  And this is the first time I have ever agreed with a libertarian of any kind.  But then, these are desperate times.

I trust while I am off to work today HEIGH-HO, HEIGH-HO
HEIGH-HO, HEIGH-HO
IT’S OFF TO WORK I GO… y’all will keep this forum red hot, ya hear?!

We dig, dig, dig, dig dig, dig, dig
in our mine of politics
we dig, dig, dig, the whole day through
to dig, dig, dig, dig dig dig is what we like to do on Truthdig,
dig, from early morn ‘til night
we dig, dig, dig, dig dig, dig, dig up…
everything in sight,.

Next verse next time.

OzarkMichael writes in response to thebeerdoctor:

“…my comment: Lets see if I follow it.
“op-ed piece by NY Times guy quotes some other guy from the WSJ… who identified(whatever that means)… a portion of Palins speech(an idea? a phrase?)… by Westbrook Pegler… Westbrook Pegler?… Westwood Pegler?… my dad said… a columnist...nasty piece of business… opposed unions… hated FDR… like Senator McCarthy… theres always somebody needing deportation.”
Aside from the meaningful father-handing-knowledge-down-to-son part, what did it all mean?
~~~~~~~
OzarkMichael,

Here’s my interpretation of what thebeerdoctor wrote:

Sarah Palin’s speech at the RNC was PLAGIARIZED. I suspect that it probably wasn’t plagiarized by her directly, because as I believe cann4ing pointed out, it’s unlikely that she wrote any of the speech. It’s unlikely that Sarah Palin writes ANY speeches. (or as unlikely as it is that GW Bush writes any of *his* own speeches). So, that’s the ONE thing that I picked up from thebeerdoctor’s comments.

He may also have been relaying a secondary message regarding the ideology of whomever put the speech together, that Sarah Palin was perfectly willing to regurgitate. Now since Obama has already been accused of repeating a single phrase from the speech of a friend and colleague, (with the permission of the friend/colleague) that really would be enough to slam onto Palin, if there were not far more serious things to be concerned about with her. And, that was, I suspect, thebeerdoctor’s other point. Maybe even his main point.

The ideologies that are borrowed, coined, plagiarized from ANYONE, ARE in fact important for the population to know about in selecting a president or other political leader.

The addition of Sarah Palin to the republican ticket has literally scared the shit out of me for two very serious reasons. First, her personal ideology is life threatening to our overall society, because we know that she could not govern detached from it. Maybe even more frightening is that fact that she could not govern, AT ALL. Not the US of the 21st Century. Maybe Wasilia, Alaska, (though I understand she’s had troubles with even that) but not the USA at the Federal level.

Ozark Michael, I say this with ALL sincerity, *I* could do a far better job than either McCain or Sarah Palin, and I’m willing to bet that there are at least 100 million other natural born US citizens over the age of 35 that could as well.

Re: By Dan M, September 14 at 1:43 pm
1 of 2

• “…and there we go again pointing fingers at each other, all the while forgetting that the ones who made out could care less about political parties and boundries but more about lining there own filthy pockets out of greed.”

Dan, you seemed to hit it right on the head with this, and this has been often voiced on these forums here. (well, at least I have…some others as well). In the lead-up though, you say that such blame cannot be placed on specific *political parties*. I can sort of conceptually agree with that, at least in part. It would be true to say that at least here among the masses of us, the greedy that you describe are certainly as scattered among parties, or not connected at all. In short, they’re just greedy, and it has nothing to do with anything but them.

However, that isn’t the case with the ones who REALLY ‘made out’. IOW’s, the guy you know fixing the mortgage loans because ‘everybody does it’ is a lightweight. Like the difference between holding up a 7-11 or a Wells Fargo truck. The ones who have ‘really made out’ have managed to do the equivalent of draining Ft. Knox, or whatever else it is that the real loot is stashed. That they’ve actually looted the national treasury is somehow scarier, (for me) because it just shows how overwhelming the swindle has been. THIS has been accomplished by a Cabal of the Elite, and the bottom line is that most of them ARE republicans, and are involved as actors in US political affairs, and have been for decades. And, if we had to come up with a list, I’m willing to wager that we could keep it at or under 100 names, and still cover most of the ones that have benefited from what has been nothing more than a PLANNED GRAND HEIST!!!

IOW, I don’t see this depression as the standard cycle in what has been a ‘free market’ economy. I’m also not an expert the topic of economics, though I do know the fundamentals. Political theory is something I’m far better at though, and I can say that what has occurred has been the victimization of 300+ million Americans, at the hands of less than 1% of the population, and that IS political. The measures that have been taken in order to accomplish this Grand Theft, are very dependant on the manipulation of our political system. Because, at the foundation, the *economy* of any society is ALWAYS part and parcel of the political system, regardless of what form the political system takes.

2 of 2

Be that as it may, I understand the Catch in the attempt to make this upcoming presidential election ‘about’ the ‘economy’, because while I could argue that there HAVE been some elections where the economy has been a primary factor, (and more recently than 8 elections ago) I still don’t believe that it is the ‘economy’ itself that has collapsed. Others might argue otherwise, because of inflation, and the restrictions on lending. Add to that the highest unemployment we’ve had in decades, the collapse of not just the housing industry, but the overall infrastructure and the transportation (air and rail) industry collapse. Then there is the huge trade deficit, (we import nearly EVERYTHING now, exporting only weapons and related components) which all signals a bottomed out economy.

Still, this isn’t the same as the fundamental cyclical nature of a free market economy, or even the economy as it has existed in the US. It’s not your standard ‘recession’, because it’s a Grand Theft!! We are actually far closer to the conditions of a depression, but not because the market has crashed in the manner it did in the early decades of the 20th Century. No, this has been far more manipulated as a mechanism to enrich a few by obscene measures, at the expense of the rest of us, and an entire system.

The Wars have been just one vehicle by which they’ve managed to do this. The outsourcing of the Corps, (NAFTA is *very* POLITICAL, and so is the IMF and the World Bank) and the swindling in the banking/housing/energy industries have been other vehicles of the same grand heist.

re: OzarkMichael

To clarify. I do not think Governor Palin even knows who Westbrook Pegler was. The reason she inserted his comment about the kind of people we grow in small towns, reveals that some hired gun speech writer does. In other words, she is just mouthing what is put in front of her. Rather fraudulent wouldn’t you say? At least when Senator Obama uses the phrase “the fierce urgency of now” he acknowledges that the source was Dr. King.
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2008/09/sarah-palin-and-w estbrook-pegler.html

You are too fast, I couln’t get away...oh oh oh too bad for me.
I thought facts weren’t necessarily what swings voters but that emotional values issues do. And since the measure never made it out of the Illinois Senate committee I guess distorted facts can qualify for false truth but then false truth is a truth of a sort in the realm of truths by some distortion of logic. And we are all becoming expert at distortion of truth, aren’t we?  Doanchaluvit?

Truth not a false truth: Fact: Bill 0099 was a sex-education bill introduced in Illinois, which Mr. Obama did not sponsor and which never became law.  See the NYTimes article for reported truth (whatever that could be).  Already cited by me below at.

Emotion:  At that time, Mr. Obama stated that he understood the main objective of the legislation, as it pertained to kindergarteners, to be to teach them how to defend themselves against sexual predators. 

Fact:  {The McCain} advertisement, then, also misrepresents what the bill meant by “comprehensive.” The instruction the bill required was comprehensive in that it called for a curriculum that went from kindergarten and through high school, not in the sense that kindergarteners would have been fully exposed to the entire gamut of sex-related issues.” Emotion:  Let’s get real here.  If reality is what you want.  Otherwise stay in your fantasy land of distortion.

So!  What IS the truth?

I’m outta here til dark.

As we look at the current state of the union, we find ourselves at idealogical crossroads. The three current problems facing our nation economically are: Housing, Fuel and War. Please note that a lot of people will put in the mix that the presidential race also has a lot to do with the economy, but I am going to dismiss that idea as studies have shown that our economy in the last 8 elections did not suffer.
I am of the opinion that two of the three problems we face are a direct result of greed, and that no political party is more or less absolved of the nature of these crimes.
The war in itself is a political bombshell, and as it progresses, we fall deeper and deeper into debt. This, of course, hurts our dollar and so forth it goes.
As I stated earlier, fuel prices are killing our economy, heck, even Starbucks is feeling the affects of this. People are actually foregoing their morning cup of java for the extra gallon of fuel they will get. Fuel prices have already taken their toll on almost every business in America.
Now, couple this with the housing industry collapse. I remember Alan Greenspan commenting a few years back that the collapse of the housing market would shake the very foundations of our nation (I am ad libbing here as I am not going to do the research to bring his exact statement for your eyes).
You cannot blame a political party for what has taken place. The “free” market was in place and the end results are from that process. Should it have been put in check while it was happening? Yeah, it should have, but it didn’t because of greed. Now, I know the liberals will say the current administration should have stepped in long before the problems got out of hand and the conservatives will say that initiatives were presented in congress but nothing could get through and there we go again pointing fingers at each other, all the while forgetting that the ones who made out could care less about political parties and boundries but more about lining there own filthy pockets out of greed.
I know personally of mortgage lenders falsifying loan applications so they could get their reserves (the amount over their buy rate at the banks)because “everyone else is doing it”.
While all this is going on real estate prices were soaring and Americans left & right (pun intended) were out there re-mortgaging their own homes and spending like never before. Greed, pure and simple, where in the heck was common sense? How could the property you lived on for 10 plus years all the sudden be worth twice it’s value? And there they went...into debt.
Fuel, now there’s a hot bed. How can a futures broker make over a billion dollars in one year? If you can’t answer that question then go ahead and google “Mafia Oil”, and then follow the links. When our own Attorney General comes out and states that there is a definite link between oil speculators and the mob, and within three or so days later has his Assistant Attorney General counter those statements. It’s the money. Billions and billions of dollars are traded in oil each year. If you don’t think that a horses head could wind up on somebody’s bed you would be sadly mistaken.
It’s time we all got together and stood united in the fight against corruption on both sides of our political system and stopped our own rhetoric about who’s damn lipstick we should we be wearing.

From the original document that Shenonymous took the time to link for everyone. Thanks to her we get to the bottom of things:

Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K (6 crossed out on the committee worksheet and ‘K’ underscored) through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread
of HIV AIDS... etc.

Technically the attack on Obama is factual, the words ‘comprehensive sex education’ are right there in front of grade ‘K’ on a piece of paper that came out of a committee that Obama worked on. He voted to approve that piece of paper. 

Even if he is the one who crossed out grade 6 and changed it to ‘K’, we all know Barack is a decent guy who wouldnt want anything inappropriate to be taught to kids. But a liberal’s interpretation of inappropriate might be different from the viewers and thats why the ad might work.

The Obama/kindergarten ad is the stuff that politicians throw at each other routinely. And its hard to put up with it when you are the one on the hot seat(except if its the other side. then its so true and funny that it ends up on Olberman’s Countdown and Truthdig!)

Whether these attack anything substantial is a separate issue from how factual they are.

It is on par with Gibson asking unanswerable questions to Palin in an interview. In both cases you can scream foul, but you are better off taking it as a test of your mettle. Explain or clarify or deny or ignore… its not easy to know how to handle it.

And I suspect that is what the moderates place alot of stock in, they watch for candidate’s reactions to ‘unfair’ attacks. And both sides will have plenty of opportunity to show how they deal with ‘false’ attacks in the next month or two.

Just one more pricklepost then on to more aesthetic endeavors, please indulge me:

Here is a good history of the creationist/evolutionist argument

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/HistoryID.cfm

If you think there is something wrong in this account please let me know. 

Bob, what makes you think Pelosi and Reid are there forever?  And you mistake trust for worship, you must be a true Republican.  Uh, why not let some of the wealth accumulated by the Massa-Successfuls pay a decent wage to the laborers who sweat at demeaning and lowpaying jobs just so they may continue to be successful?  The non-working is mostly that 6.1% now unemployed that your president and his administration has given us instead of a flourishing country we once had.  You mistake equitable and egalitarian society for failed communism, a picture you conservative would love to paint as the liberals, but you know what?  It just won’t work.  We out number you.

Our positive ideas are coming from the very bright Obama and too bad for you.

Lunch break and great topic!  Liberals rejoice indeed!
Here are the flaws in your argument OM.  Catholic schools get their students into big four year colleges and UC all the time, so it isn’t Christianity per se. It was particular Christian schools that are deficient in their teaching of critical thinking skills, and I can see why they do. Their own students would begin to question the bases of their creationist beliefs and that would undermine and cause to decay the entire fundamentalist right wing agenda of forcing an untestable theory. The arguments against teaching creationism in public school is now history and well documented. 

Second problem, the comparison is made for other student achievements is not comparable to Einstein who might have failed English since his skills in that subject was sorely lacking. Using Einstein as an example is good though since he represents what a genius is as one in particular subjects.  He most definitely was not a genius in language skills and while a musician was not a genius at music. We could give a fairly comprehensive list of things at which he was not a genius, but that distracts from the argument presented here.

Third, nothing wrong with ‘remedial’ courses, students do it all the time for various course material in which they are deficient. All graduating high school students who apply to college are not accepted.  Nothing new. The only problem is that conservative Christians are smarting because they are producing less than educated individuals who can think for themselves.  And that is too bad since the strength of any dogma is how well it can stand up to scrutiny. Even Catholics have the Jesuits who question their doctrines all the time.

Fourth point - there are plenty of religious people who would vote Democrat for the reasons that it is crucial to keep religion and the state separate and is precisely against why Ozark says some would vote Republican.  Hence, in effect that is not a good reason to reject progressivism.

Creationism is not an acceptable theory since it is not testable.  It is untested opinion not well argued.  When convincing argument happens then it should be included.  You obviously interpret the “founding fathers of democracy and the republic” a special way.  For there are those who wrote the documents that guided this country purposely to eliminate the tainting of religions, all religions, not just your flavor.

I suggest that if you want creationism to be acceptable at the university level that you provide supportable evidence that can stand up to similar tests in science to which all science is subject.  And like science has to accept that it could be wrong.  Science is always open to renewed vision based on new data.  Where in creationism is that permitted?

The old ideology of scientific creationism is now called creationism or intelligent design theory which are in effect anti-biblical accounts that explain the origins of the universe.  Biblical literalism can be disproved easily just by looking at what it is exactly that creationism wants people to believe.  Leaving aside the notion that the universe was created by a god, creationists demand that the world was created less than 10,000 years ago and in six 24 hours days all of life was created in its present form ignoring hundreds of years of archeological and anthropological evidence to the absolute contrary.  Do take a look at all the evidence for and against creationism not just take the word of someone who is emotionally attached to one side.

I declare right here and now that if any compelling argument could be made for both a supernatural god and creationist dogma to which I could not argue well against I would be willing to review my own beliefs and revise them accordingly.

OzarkMichael,

From what I understand Bush filled the Attorney Generals offic