The Press and Extreme Right

[Stella_Omega]

I always enjoy reading your thoughts...but I question your assertion that both sides are partly correct. As I have stated before, the base assumption of the Left, that individual rights can be sacrificed for the greater good, is, to me, a fundamental evil that cannot be comprised with.
.

I'm not impressed by your selfish assertion that the greater good must be sacrificed on your account.

I asked this earlier; If you are, as you say, an atheist, are you comfortable with saying "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance?

 

[amicus]

"The War on Christmas" is the title of a newly published book.

Nice to at least have on issue we can agree upon. I too, am apalled that parents teach their tiny children the fear of satan and hellfire burning forever and the crucifixtion idea. That is truly child abuse.

I also agree that it is a constitutional issue; I too would prefer to see all mention of and symbols of all religion removed from public/government display.

And I also feel alien when I cover high school sports as a reporter and have to listen to the prayers.

amicus...

 

[Stella_Omega]

"The War on Christmas" is the title of a newly published book.

Nice to at least have on issue we can agree upon. I too, am apalled that parents teach their tiny children the fear of satan and hellfire burning forever and the crucifixtion idea. That is truly child abuse.

I also agree that it is a constitutional issue; I too would prefer to see all mention of and symbols of all religion removed from public/government display.

And I also feel alien when I cover high school sports as a reporter and have to listen to the prayers.

amicus...

But aren't you interfering with individual rights now? Isn't it the personal right of those parents to abuse their children with their religious values however wrong we feel they are?
or- do you assume the individual right to pick and choose which "greater goods" should be abrogated in favor of personal opinions.

 

[amicus]

Stella Omega... "...I'm not impressed by your selfish assertion that the greater good must be sacrificed on your account.

I asked this earlier; If you are, as you say, an atheist, are you comfortable with saying "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance?..."


I am under no obligation to answer any question you ask, let alone a personal one.

Secondly, impressing you is of no importance to me whatsoever.

You might, however, use a dictionary and look up individual rights. You will discover that all rights are innate in the individual life and that the 'collective' group, or 'greater good' has no inherent rights.

You might even read Ayn Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness". You belong to a shrinking circle of socialists that define individual rights as those rights 'permitted' by the State.

You are so wrong.

amicus...

 

[oggbashan]

United Faith - locally we have a group who work together on charitable causes and against some of the ills of our society. Much of their work is behind the scenes and most is based on the idea that no one human is beyond reclaiming.

The group includes most Christian Denominations, the several Muslim communities, the Sikhs, the Buddists, the Synagogue, the Hindus and some others. Only two significant groups are missing - the Roman Catholics and the Evangelical Free Church. Neither believes that any other religious or Christian group is valid and only they offer the true religion. Several of the other faiths believe that too but it doesn't stop them working together for a worthwhile cause. The Catholics will help if asked and sometimes offer without being asked. They just refuse any formal link.

The Evangelical Free Church believes in the Bible as literal truth and that everyone else are unrepentant sinners who are irredeemibly damned. They will NOT work with anyone.

Different faiths working together are an example to the rest of us. The one group that refuses shows intolerance of anything except their narrow view. They worry me.

Og

 

[Stella_Omega]

Stella Omega... "...I'm not impressed by your selfish assertion that the greater good must be sacrificed on your account.

I asked this earlier; If you are, as you say, an atheist, are you comfortable with saying "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance?..."


I am under no obligation to answer any question you ask, let alone a personal one.

Secondly, impressing you is of no importance to me whatsoever.

You might, however, use a dictionary and look up individual rights. You will discover that all rights are innate in the individual life and that the 'collective' group, or 'greater good' has no inherent rights.

You might even read Ayn Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness". You belong to a shrinking circle of socialists that define individual rights as those rights 'permitted' by the State.

You are so wrong.

amicus...

It's always funny to me when a conservative, who accuses the libs of talking in generalities, refuses to speak in particulars.
High falutin' talk about "all rights are innate in the individual life" etc etc...

On the other hand, I don't mind telling you or anyone else- that I am an atheist, and I do not say "Under god" during the pledge of allegiance.

You are making quite a few assumptions, here. And you are not even taking the time to find out for sure if you are right.

You are so wrong.

 

[rgraham666]

Stella, it's one of the more amusing dichotomies of the revolutionaries posing as conservatives.

They always claim that they are in favour of personal liberty.

The next sentence out of their mouths is that something must be done because there is no choice.

Don't bother arguing with our 'friend'. He has one of the worst cases of information disease I've ever seen.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Stella, it's one of the more amusing dichotomies of the revolutionaries posing as conservatives.

They always claim that they are in favour of personal liberty.

The next sentence out of their mouths is that something must be done because there is no choice.

Don't bother arguing with our 'friend'. He has one of the worst cases of information disease I've ever seen.

Okay, back to writing smut!

 

[rgraham666]

Okay, back to writing smut!

Always a wise choice.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Hello Colleen...nice piece....

"Character is built by the use of two small words: Yes and No."

Sign on a church billboard hereabouts.

I must disagree with your contention that financial conservatives actually own most of the media outlets. Consider Ted Turner and Jane Fonda, the founder of CNN and part owner of the New York Times newspaper. I don't have more examples of just 'who' owns various media outlets, but I think Murdoch might be viewed as the Hearst empire was, 'sensationalists', doing what ever sold papers or acquired listeners.

And logically, can you imagine a right wing conservative businessman tolerating left wing propaganda machine operating under his auspices?

For those who hate the very concept of business, I suppose an answer might be that a business man is amoral, will take any position for a profit motive.

Right wing talk radio is predominant as the liberal left simply cannot debate on an open forum. As is evident here, the left cannot rationally defend their base assumptions of social control and abridgement of individual rights.

I always enjoy reading your thoughts...but I question your assertion that both sides are partly correct. As I have stated before, the base assumption of the Left, that individual rights can be sacrificed for the greater good, is, to me, a fundamental evil that cannot be comprised with.

I like to play Whack a Mole, with left wingers and bang em on the head everywhere and everytime the pop up.

amicus...

I can easily concieve of a right leaning bussiness man tolerating a left wing propaganda machine under his roof. Provided it was selling news papers. You've been in broadcast journalism Amicus. Surely you noticed the only rule that matters is get the ratings? Even in something as remidial as the college radio station, the shows that got the advertising were the ones people listened to.

That is to say psuedo-satanic maniacs making their instruments produce sounds that the poor things were never meant to make, Also known as headbanger's ball, in the very favorable Friday night 10 to 12 slot, got advertising. Predomiantly the Pizza places and the all night buffet at Quincys. Never mind that on this same facility a movement of concerned state citizens nearly produced a dress code on hem lines. Politics is politics, but bussiness is bussiness and in bussiness, what sells is king.

If there wasn't an audience for rall and barry, they'd be gone. Coulter and Buckley live in the same enviornment. You rpolitics can be as wildly skewed as that butthead professor from Colorado, as long as enough people find entertainment value in your opinion, you'll have a job.

I was under the impression turne and Fonda split? Also that turner sold out to time warner and now only had a seat on the board with reduced editorial input? I could be out of date, since I live in TV hell and don't get any of the turner channels any more.

Please notice I said both of you could be right on the media. I didn't address the deeper question of left/right ideology.

 

[R. Richard]

My real problem with the news is not so much the slant that most news outlets have, it is the news they choose to omit. If they decide to expose someone who got caught with his hand in the till, so be it. However, that creates a sort of obligation to expose everyone who got caught with his hand in the till.

JMHO.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Stella, my dear, there are so many things that are more worthwhile than paying attention to amicus' rants...

...like, for instance, staring at toilet paper.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Don't take the Happy Fun Ball seriously. It's just a Happy Fun Ball. Just pat it on the head, take a spin bouncing it against the Ideology Wall and have fun with it. It's here for our amusement.



On topic: The fact that there was such a upswell of letters is proof that such articles need to be in that paper. If people do not understand a foreign religion, they will continue to fear, misinterpret, and demonize it. While it won't reach all and while in many cases it won't work it's way through the bigotry and the "I already know all I need to" bullshit, it'll reach some and they can go, huh, what a weird little thing (but inoffensive) and go their merry way not paying it no nevermind.

On a separate note: It is an interesting note of mine that the people who complain the loudest on things such as this lack the faith they parade around so strongly. A man of strong faith and convictions when confronted with an alternative way of looking at the world will look, consider, and dismiss knowing that they themselves believe. They will not begrudge the speaker for speaking about their religion because they know it doesn't affect what they know they believe.

However, people who don't have faith or don't believe are heavily affected by learning about a foreign faith and whatnot because it does affect them, it does confuse them, because they're faith isn't strong. It's the same principle as what is behind homophobia. They fear the gays and hate all knowledge of them, because they are not 100% confidant in their own sexual identity (not to say they are closet queens, only that they are not confidant that they are straight or "straight" to the degree their peers tell them to be).

The people who know what they are, who got a handle on themselves could care less about this shit. It is "and so be it, moral reservations are solely personal, no need to force, and I continue my merry way, thank you."

As it right well should be.

 

[Lord DragonsWing]

I find the rants of Amicus quite amusing. Especially considering everyone considered me to Right during the last election because I supported Bush.
Amicus, let me say this. I don't care what you believe in or not. The problem is a newspaper is writing about other religions. The response they get is that the Religion section belongs to ONE religion. That is christianity. Which we all know is the most violent religion in the history of mankind.
Responses such as has taken place to the paper shows that the Christian right wing is not about to separate church and state. They plan to control the state. That leaves one basic principle of our country at risk. Freedom of Religion. To the Christians, there is no other religion. In our middle American town they are showing their true colors.
But don't worry, it only starts here. It's probably already in your town you're just in the denial stage. Or perhaps you support the belief of one religion, one state?
It doesn't matter. Either way, there is a battle ahead to protect all religions in this country. The Christians are making their move to burn everyone again at the stake. The Burning Times are about to begin anew.

 

[rgraham666]

Luc, one thing you didn't note in your trenchant post is not only do the fundies fear other religions, they fear God.

From what I can understand, the God of the fundies is a wrathful, angry God who does not, ever, forgive sin or sinner. And that God makes no distinctions among sin. Whether you're Josef Stalin or somebody who broke down for a moment and played cards, you go to Hell. Forever.

So the fundies have to keep every temptation, most especially the temptation to think, far away from themselves.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Luc, one thing you didn't note in your trenchant post is not only do the fundies fear other religions, they fear God.

From what I can understand, the God of the fundies is a wrathful, angry God who does not, ever, forgive sin or sinner. And that God makes no distinctions among sin. Whether you're Josef Stalin or somebody who broke down for a moment and played cards, you go to Hell. Forever.

So the fundies have to keep every temptation, most especially the temptation to think, far away from themselves.

Fundamental or anachronistic?

It seems to me fundamentalists, whether Christian or islamic or Zorastic, are no better grounded in the fundamentals of a religion. what they are, is unable to accept chageing times. They don't want a dynamic religious doctrine, they want a dogmatic one.

Saying the can't think or won't think is akin to saying all Japs were shot, had buck teeth and wore glasses pre WWII. It's just as much demonizing the enmy as their depicting pedophiles as "typical" of homosexuals is.

They can think, if you think abou tit, it takes a great deal of thinking to rationalize abortion is outlawed. You have to jump through tremendous hurdles as well as rationalizing away passages in your holy book whre God personally ordered the killing of unborn children.

I have no sympathy for them and consider them quite ignorant. But being ignorant dosen't indicate an inability to think. It represents a refuslal to do so. That's quite different.

 

[rgraham666]

You're quite right Colleen. I stand corrected.

And what you said about fearing changing times isn't limited to religion. Most economic and political doctrines are reactions to changes that people don't want to have happen.

 

[H Dean]

Omega

But aren't you interfering with individual rights now? Isn't it the personal right of those parents to abuse their children with their religious values however wrong we feel they are?
or- do you assume the individual right to pick and choose which "greater goods" should be abrogated in favor of personal opinions.

The US COnstitution guarantees us the right to be free from religion. When a parent influences his childs religion by making them attend a religious ceremony they are in violation of that childs right to be free from religion. Parents do not have the right to impose their religion on their child. This is the logical and proper interperetation of the 1st Amendment - not to be confused with practicality.

 

[cantdog]

The US COnstitution guarantees us the right to be free from religion. When a parent influences his childs religion by making them attend a religious ceremony they are in violation of that childs right to be free from religion. Parents do not have the right to impose their religion on their child. This is the logical and proper interperetation of the 1st Amendment - not to be confused with practicality.

Actually, the document merely prohibits Congress from imposing a religion. There are no other guarantees.

Similarly, the State constitutions may have clauses prohibiting the States' legislatures from the same thing. At the time the Constitution was ratified, some States required oaths that one was Christian, oaths that one believed in God, or more stringent doctrinal statements, before one was allowed to take a public office in that State. It was better than two decades later that these were expunged, but it was not always done in the categorical and inclusive language employed by the 1st Amendment.

 

[H Dean]

Regarding Amicus

Despite Amicus' crude delivery (or maybe because of it) I must say that his words appear to be quite correct in many respects. However, it is not just the media which is controlled by left leaning activists. The ACLU happens to be such an organzation, as well. More to the point, they get much press and do appear to be anti-religious and anti-America. They also get a substancial amount of vocal support from the media.

It is these left leaning organizations which pick and choose which Constitutional Rights to support. It is this that makes them appear to be anti-America. To illustrate, these litigate against any public display of any religious symbol (see the cross on the Ca. State Seal) no matter how historically legitimate it is.

On the other hand, while supporting and litigating for the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, they seem to refuse to support the 2nd Amendment. This is almost universal with the left leaning side of the political spectrum and, especially, with those who get press and support from the press.

Just in these two items one could conclude that the left leaning organizations are anti-American. They are against freedom of religion and they want to disarm the public.

So, again, I agree with amicus - why is there any surprise that the religious fundamentalists reacted as they did?

More importantly, be glad they have the right to react that way. Support them. Not supporting them in this would be un-American, after all.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

The US COnstitution guarantees us the right to be free from religion. When a parent influences his childs religion by making them attend a religious ceremony they are in violation of that childs right to be free from religion. Parents do not have the right to impose their religion on their child. This is the logical and proper interperetation of the 1st Amendment - not to be confused with practicality.

I disagree. The first amendment isn't concered with your religion or with your freedom, to be honest. It's concerned with making sure there is no Church of The U.S.A. a la Church of Enland.

The constitution is not an empowering document. It's a limiting document. the assumption it is based on is right there in the preamble. It isn't granting you rights, you were born with those rights. they pre date the document. Everything in the constituion was about limiting the government's ability to curtail those rights.

The framers didn't care if you were Catholic, or Presbyterian, luteren or Scientific Diest. They didn't care about your state or municipality requiring church membership to hold office or enjoy certain freedoms. They cared only to allay the suspicions and fears of those who came here as religious dissenters from the Anglican church. They allayed those suspicions by formally refusing the government the right to ally itself with a state church.

To read anything in the original document as pertaining to you as an individual is missing the point all together. You are born with every right. Your government for the protection of society at large must curtail some of those rights. The document is concerned wholly with enumerating which rights the governemt could not infringe upon for any reason and the degree and conditions to which it could infringe upon others.

If a parent sends his/her child to sunday school the constituion is wholly indiferent. If a parent joins a cult and moves into the compund and his or her kids just get dragged along, the constituion is wholly indifferent. State. local, and even federal reulatory bodies, bearuas and even legislators may take an interest. But as long as Bush Co. dosen't try to form an allaince with a specific church. mixing spiritual and temporal authority, the constituion is indifferent.

The idea of imbuing the amendments with personal guarentees is relatively new. You can pretty well trace it back to the amendments added after the Civil war. the intent of those amending the Constition was wholly different from that of the framers. they were providing personal guarentees.

You could call the argument raging now over the separation clause a battle between purists and reformers. Purists want the amendment to be enforced only as it was intended, to prevent a state chruch, reformers want to retroactively imbue the original amendments and document with the more personal intent of later amendments.

One reason you get mini wars on the SCOTUS is beacuse this ideological divide is, to some extent, also part of the ideological divide between liberals and conservatives. It has yet to be decided if this more personal application will win out.

 

[H Dean]

Not quite

Actually, the document merely prohibits Congress from imposing a religion. There are no other guarantees.

Similarly, the State constitutions may have clauses prohibiting the States' legislatures from the same thing. At the time the Constitution was ratified, some States required oaths that one was Christian, oaths that one believed in God, or more stringent doctrinal statements, before one was allowed to take a public office in that State. It was better than two decades later that these were expunged, but it was not always done in the categorical and inclusive language employed by the 1st Amendment.

Properly interpereted the US Constitution states that Congress is prohibited from passing any law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. This not only guarantees, constitutionally, freedom of religion, but also freedom from religion. Freedom from religion is necessarily inclusive because one cannot have freedom of religion without possessing freedom from religions.

The Fourteenth Amendment states "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

Article IV, Section 2 States: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

The Tenth Amendment:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

Following this logical position it is clear that no individual has the right to violate another individuals rights. Therefore, if an individual has the rights to freedom of and from religion, no parent has the legal authority to force a religious belief onto their children.

 

[H Dean]

Colleen

I disagree. The first amendment isn't concered with your religion or with your freedom, to be honest. It's concerned with making sure there is no Church of The U.S.A. a la Church of Enland.

The constitution is not an empowering document. It's a limiting document. the assumption it is based on is right there in the preamble. It isn't granting you rights, you were born with those rights. they pre date the document. Everything in the constituion was about limiting the government's ability to curtail those rights....

It has yet to be decided if this more personal application will win out.

Please see my above posting. I will agree with your final statement - it has yet to be ruled on...at least logically.

 

[H Dean]

1st Amendment

I did not post the 1st Amendment in it's entirely as it pertains to religion. An error on my part and should have read as follows:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

This establishes that the poeple of the US have the right to excercise freedom of religion and, necessarily, is inclusive of the right to be free from religion as one cannot excercise freedom to choose religion if they are not free from religion.

My apologies for the error, I hope this clarifies the logic behind my position.

 

[oggbashan]

The 'Established' Church of Englnad

The need for the Church of England to be 'established' in terms of our democracy ended a long time ago when atheists were allowed to 'affirm' an oath or 'affirm' as a witness in a court of law.

Since then it has not been a requirement for a politician or holder of a public office to be a member of the Church of England, nor of any church or religion.

Her Majesty The Queen is the Head of the Church of England, a role she takes very seriously, but for most practical matters it is the Church that is affected, not the State.

There have been discussions about whether the Church could be 'disestablished' and what the pros and cons are of being 'established'. Given the normal rate of change in the Church of England I do not expect anything to happen in my lifetime.

There are the Lords Spiritual in the House of Lords. Given the lack of powers that Chamber has, and the reluctance of the Lords Spiritual to enter debates, their affect on our legislation is probably less than a columnist in a newspaper. They are listened too when legislation is considered about religion and religious activities. Their usual stance is for tolerance and inclusion.

The majority of religious bodies in this country, of whatever religion, advocate tolerance and harmony between peoples of different faiths. As usual the minority of bigoted and hothead clerics get the publicity and the concensus is ignored.

Political correctness is the worst example of religious intolerance. It has been used to justify schools being required to include the celebrations of all faiths EXCEPT Christianity. That is beginning to change slowly. I hope a reasonable balance can be achieved. Local children have far more understanding of Jews, Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus than their parents had and are much more tolerant about differences.

The problems between races and religions occur in areas of deprivation when one group considers itself less valued than another. That occurs even where the groups have no common race or religion, just a sense of grievance. It is a symptom of lack of hope, not genuine hatred.

Og