Fifth Grader refuses to say the pledge due to discrimination against homosexuals. [Archive]

johnperkins21

11-23-2009, 10:16 AM

I discovered this story when Adam Baldwin (aka Firefly's Jayne Cobb), linked in Twitter to a blog post he'd written where he argued that the pledge should be mandatory and children should be forced to recite it. Funny actor, but it's a shame he holds that view.

As for the kid, good for him. Future generations will be taking up gay rights as a very important cause in their lives. Gives me hope.

Was there no sarcasm in his blog post? If not, that's incredibly sad. The pledge should be done away with completely. Children should not be brainwashed into blind allegiance to their government, especially in elementary school.

Edit: Holy cow, I just read his blog post. I had no idea he was insane.

I think future generations will be taking up more than just gay rights as an important cause, as this kid actually points out. It's more about equality for all, than just one specific group. His point isn't that there isn't liberty for gays, but that there isn't equal liberty for all, and he uses gay marriage as an example.

Ink Asylum

11-23-2009, 10:30 AM

Was there no sarcasm in his blog post? If not, that's incredibly sad. The pledge should be done away with completely. Children should not be brainwashed into blind allegiance to their government, especially in elementary school.

No sarcasm at all. Here's the tweet:

What values should the patriotic exercises in public schools inculcate in American students? http://tinyurl.com/ygxwly5

And from the blog post. (http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/abaldwin/2009/11/20/pledge-of-allegiance-to-dissent-an-intolerant-excess-of-liberty/)

The Pledge itself takes all of fifteen seconds to recite — which is likely a main reason most states and public school boards ascribe it for compliance with their respective education codes, policies and regulations — yet the Pledge, as with standardized patriotic exercises, is designated to inculcate patriotic values upon our nation’s children.

These values — i.e., love of and devotion to country — include American Exceptionalism, which secures even the Liberty and human rights to dissent against that very love and devotion.

MachEnergy

11-23-2009, 10:33 AM

I was rather impressed with this interview. It featured a young kid, and it didn't really go out it's way to talk down to him. Awwww, who's the widdle boy taking such a big stand? Yeah, none of that. Amazing.

As for the content, I'm surprised this is a national story, however, being a supporter of GLBT rights, I'm glad this has made it's way into the public forum.

Generation ABXY

11-23-2009, 10:45 AM

I'm not sure if that kid has been coached or not, but he seems intelligent enough.

I couldn't quite decide on that point either, but either way it is drawing some attention to the cause. I also support those people who've decided to stop paying taxes until they get equal rights (assuming of course, that is the real reason).

As for the pledge, I'm not sure I find anything wrong about it, but I certainly wouldn't make it mandatory.

His point isn't that there isn't liberty for gays, but that there isn't equal liberty for all, and he uses gay marriage as an example.

I wonder what other inequality he sees here. Right now, gay rights seems like the last clear injustice, but I could be overlooking something...

Ultima Thulian

11-23-2009, 10:46 AM

Surprisingly cool. Got bad news for him though, if he plans on sitting down because the country doesn't live to the standards of the pledge, he's gonna be sitting for a looooooooong time.

Even so, I dig it. Doesn't seem to coachy, and I loved it when he "solemnly" said "With all due respect, you can jump off a bridge."

Wasson_

11-23-2009, 10:46 AM

"Because I want to be a lawyer". Boom, there's your problem right there.

this just makes me fucking sick.

Ink Asylum

11-23-2009, 10:49 AM

Surprisingly cool. Got bad news for him though, if he plans on sitting down because the country doesn't live to the standards of the pledge, he's gonna be sitting for a looooooooong time.

Nothing wrong with that. Plenty of civil rights progress was won by people who sat down, either in places they weren't allowed to sit, or in non-violent protest.

roboninja

11-23-2009, 10:53 AM

"Because I want to be a lawyer". Boom, there's your problem right there.

this just makes me fucking sick.
What about it makes you sick?

Wasson_

11-23-2009, 11:05 AM

1. The fact that you all get swooned by a fucking fifth graders opinion, why just because he's on fucking CNN?

2. The fact that he refuses to recite the pledge of allegiance on grounds that are not nearly as relevant as everyone seems to think they are, especially not to a 5th grader. The plight of gays in America...not as bad as seem to think it is, or have been taught it is. Just use your own fucking eyes and ears, look to your own surroundings and not the TV for once.

3. As a member of armed forces, I have taken a real oath to defend this country like many before and hopefully many to come. Something that isn't just a bit of ceremonial semantics to start the day off in elementary school... Now...maybe i'm just some kind of conservative asshole, but the look of "beaming pride" on that kids pudge-fuck of a father's face filled me with complete disgust.

Serapth

11-23-2009, 11:10 AM

I find the pledge of allegiance to be questionable in the first place and that it's manditory is irritating. On the same level I was delighted when we got rid of the lords prayer in schools. I ask our UK members, do school children still pledge to the queen?

That said, there is a time and place for protest and this isn't one. By the smug look on the fathers face during the interview ( I saw on The Daily Show, in case it was a different one ) I am almost positive the kid was put up to it.

Using your kids as proxies to push your political agenda is disgusting, regardless to the cause you are fighting for.

Shadowstorm

11-23-2009, 11:13 AM

If this isn't set up, I don't know what is. So obvious.

Serapth

11-23-2009, 11:13 AM

Also, this is a problem I have with most protestors... I so often wonder how many of them do it for the way it makes them feel as opposed to any particular cause. I knew a bunch of idiots that got involved in G8 protests in Canada ( because of a Che wannabe friend of mine ) and in talking to them, the vast majority if not all were in it because of group think and "the chance to be on tv!"... their words.

Generation ABXY

11-23-2009, 11:16 AM

I find the pledge of allegiance to be questionable in the first place and that it's manditory is irritating.

Is it mandatory? Even though the school did it every morning, I know I was never required to take part (and I managed to sit out quite a few without drawing media attention).

MachEnergy

11-23-2009, 11:18 AM

2. The fact that he refuses to recite the pledge of allegiance on grounds that are not nearly as relevant as everyone seems to think they are, especially not to a 5th grader. The plight of gays in America...not as bad as seem to think it is, or have been taught it is. Just use your own fucking eyes and ears, look to your own surroundings and not the TV for once.

Use my own fucking eyes and ears? Like I did when a good friend of mine was turned away from the hospital because he wasn't "immediate family" when his partner was severely injured in a car crash? Or, like I did when I saw good friends of my wife break down and sob because only one of them would be able to legally be their new child's mother.

That's a pretty insensitive way of life you are projecting in here. I don't disagree with your right to say the things you've said, and I more than welcome an opposition to a side during any discussion. Still, this is a pretty big fucking deal to a lot of people. I'd lay off the high horse attitude if you want to carry out a reasonable discussion.

Ink Asylum

11-23-2009, 11:24 AM

1. The fact that you all get swooned by a fucking fifth graders opinion, why just because he's on fucking CNN?

I see nothing sick about approving of a young person recognizing that one of the best things about America is our right to protest for our beliefs. I'm hardly "swooning" by giving the kid a pat on the back on an internet forum.

2. The fact that he refuses to recite the pledge of allegiance on grounds that are not nearly as relevant as everyone seems to think they are, especially not to a 5th grader. The plight of gays in America...not as bad as seem to think it is, or have been taught it is. Just use your own fucking eyes and ears, look to your own surroundings and not the TV for once.

I use my own fucking eyes when I look at my brother and his partner of ten years, who despite their love, devotion, and dedication, are denied hundreds of rights, large and small, which would improve their lives.

A generation ago gays were routinely jailed simply for being gay. Today they are still persecuted in many ways simply for expressing their love. Some are beaten or killed. Some are denied visitation rights to their children. Some are harassed out of their jobs. Some are still singled out by law enforcement in more conservative areas of the country. Some are denied their chance to serve their country.

The plight of gays today isn't as bad as it used to be but they are far from having equal liberty and justice in America. His objection is completely justified.

Serapth

11-23-2009, 11:29 AM

Is it mandatory? Even though the school did it every morning, I know I was never required to take part (and I managed to sit out quite a few without drawing media attention).

I actually don't know ( I'm Canadian ), given the number of lawsuits and legal challenges against it ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance#Criticism_of_requiring_or_pro moting_the_Pledge ) leads me to believe it is.

Serapth

11-23-2009, 11:32 AM

I see nothing sick about approving of a young person recognizing that one of the best things about America is our right to protest for our beliefs. I'm hardly "swooning" by giving the kid a pat on the back on an internet forum.

No, but when you look at how he was treated in the larger context ( Jon Stewart was pretty much swooning for him ), Wasson has a point.

The plight of gays today isn't as bad as it used to be but they are far from having equal liberty and justice in America. His objection is completely justified.

This is pretty hyperbolic. There are already laws in place to prevent discrimination based on sexuality and in fact, special protections being afforded in their favor. About the only equal right they don't have is the right to marry ( and the attendant legal status ). They are no more persecuted than polygamists.

Kielaran

11-23-2009, 11:41 AM

They are no more persecuted than polygamists.

And this is a good thing?

Voodoo

11-23-2009, 11:45 AM

I actually don't know ( I'm Canadian ), given the number of lawsuits and legal challenges against it ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance#Criticism_of_requiring_or_pro moting_the_Pledge ) leads me to believe it is.

As long it is done in a non-disruptive manner a student is acting well within his Constitutional right and he may not be compelled to participate by either the school, or the state. - Virginia Board of Education vs Barnette (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0319_0624_ZO.html)

Now it is of note that teachers may not choose to not lead the pledge. - 2004 Case (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1624.ZC.html)

-found these on Baldwin's blog.

Serapth

11-23-2009, 11:51 AM

And this is a good thing?

No, just a matter of establishing scope. Gays not having the right to marry ( imho ) sucks, but isn't a brutal repression of civil rights that people make it out to be.

Frankly, it has only a few real world ramification.
- tax laws, which should be abolished anyways
- visitation rules at hospitals, which is quite frankly put forward as an example of how horrible things are, where in reality, most hospitals will already make an exception or have already changed their rules. This can easily be fixed without changing marriage laws.
- parental custody laws. This is one of those areas that needs to be updated and in many states, already have.

Frankly, thats about it. Any one of those will only affect a very small subset within the gay community ( people who adopt/have children in states that don't accommodate same sex custodians and people who have serious injuries at a pig headed hospital. ).

Don't get me wrong, if I was in any of these situations I would be miffed. That said, saying they have a far way to go for equality... like I said, pure hyperbole.

Oh, and for the record, I have the same beliefs that polygamists should be extended marriage rights if the rules are going to be redefined. I personally have nothing against either demographic.

Generation ABXY

11-23-2009, 11:56 AM

As long it is done in a non-disruptive manner a student is acting well within his Constitutional right and he may not be compelled to participate by either the school, or the state. - Virginia Board of Education vs Barnette (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0319_0624_ZO.html)

Now it is of note that teachers may not choose to not lead the pledge. - 2004 Case (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1624.ZC.html)

-found these on Baldwin's blog.

I was getting ready to quote that, too (now that I got a chance to read it). Makes me wonder why exactly this got the attention it did in the first place...

civil

11-23-2009, 11:58 AM

Before I saw the video, I was pre-emptively annoyed at the idea of a parent putting their child up to an agenda and using them to publicize it. But watching the CNN video it's clear to me that the boy is just a bright kid and the father is trying his damnedest to keep up with him. There's some good parenting lessons to be learned in that video, actually. Just forget the nervousness of the father and the obvious attempt to seem as articulate as his son.

More power to the kid, I say. Though I personally find precocious children annoying as fuck.

Zero

11-23-2009, 11:59 AM

Gay rights are a big thing right now, and really how often do you hear of a little kid doing something like this in response to a subject that is usually outside of their scope?

Ink Asylum

11-23-2009, 12:01 PM

This is pretty hyperbolic. There are already laws in place to prevent discrimination based on sexuality and in fact, special protections being afforded in their favor. About the only equal right they don't have is the right to marry ( and the attendant legal status ). They are no more persecuted than polygamists.

Discrimination protections based on sexuality are not universal at either state or federal levels. Whenever someone tries to add "sexual orientation" language into existing discrimination laws it is fought tooth and nail by anti-gay groups. And even when they do have rights on the book that doesn't stop law enforcement from ignoring or participating in continued persecution. That's where "equal justice" comes into play.

I don't know what these "special protections" are. Protection of sexual orientation will protect straight people as well as gays. It's just that straights don't need as much protection, so they may not notice.

All of this isn't even getting into how transgendered people are treated, which is much worse.

Ink Asylum

11-23-2009, 12:09 PM

- visitation rules at hospitals, which is quite frankly put forward as an example of how horrible things are, where in reality, most hospitals will already make an exception or have already changed their rules. This can easily be fixed without changing marriage laws.
- parental custody laws. This is one of those areas that needs to be updated and in many states, already have.

I think you would be more than "miffed" if you were denied the right to be by your wife's side while she was sick or dying. Or denied access to your child.

And it's not "easily fixed" without changing marriage laws. Giving gays a "separate but equal" union inevitably leads to inequalities, either legal or through ignorance. Often it is done despite the laws, where even when the gay partner has visitation rights under civil unions they are still denied access by unknowing or ignorant hospital employees. When you may only have hours left with your loved one you shouldn't have to get a lawyer or cop in to explain that your civil union is the same as a marriage.

To say that the "only" things gays have to be upset about are taxes, visitation rights, and kids, as if those things aren't incredibly important to families, is to be incredibly blind to how gays remain treated as inferior citizens in a multitude of ways, both legally and socially.

Serapth

11-23-2009, 12:09 PM

I don't know what these "special protections" are. Protection of sexual orientation will protect straight people as well as gays. It's just that straights don't need as much protection, so they may not notice.

Any such protection laws are enacted is to protect the exception from the norm. To ignore such laws as examples is to be more than a bit cheeky. Its about on par with the argument that "gays have the same rights to marry as straights do". You know both are being intellectually dishonest.

Ink Asylum

11-23-2009, 12:12 PM

Any such protection laws are enacted is to protect the exception from the norm. To ignore such laws as examples is to be more than a bit cheeky. Its about on par with the argument that "gays have the same rights to marry as straights do". You know both are being intellectually dishonest.

Naturally such laws are enacted more to protect the exception from the norm, because that's where the vast majority of abuses occur. The laws still protect the norm from the exceptions, but such cases are incredibly rare because such abuses occur much less frequently.

Serapth

11-23-2009, 12:13 PM

I think you would be more than "miffed" if you were denied the right to be by your wife's side while she was sick or dying. Or denied access to your child.

How often do you think this actually happens? Really, this is a boogey man example more than something that happens on a daily basis. This is a matter of hospitals having outdated rules on the books and a militant idiot somewhere in the middle.

Hell, as a straight person I ran into this, having trouble visiting my pre-wife ( wife before marriage ) in the hospital because it was family hours only. After about 20 seconds conversation with a non-idiot and I was granted access. I have to imagine 99.9% of the time, this is how it works for gay couples as well, except perhaps in your most redneck states.

Generation ABXY

11-23-2009, 12:14 PM

I have to imagine 99.9% of the time, this is how it works for gay couples as well, except perhaps in your most redneck states.

And by that, you mean California, right? ;)

Ink Asylum

11-23-2009, 12:19 PM

How often do you think this actually happens? Really, this is a boogey man example more than something that happens on a daily basis. This is a matter of hospitals having outdated rules on the books and a militant idiot somewhere in the middle.

It happens far more than it should in America, which is exactly what the young boy is protesting. We should be better than dismissing injustice and inequality, no matter how rare, as acceptable. We should always be striving to be better.

Hell, as a straight person I ran into this, having trouble visiting my pre-wife ( wife before marriage ) in the hospital because it was family hours only. After about 20 seconds conversation with a non-idiot and I was granted access. I have to imagine 99.9% of the time, this is how it works for gay couples as well, except perhaps in your most redneck states.

And in those redneck states? Sucks to be gay, move to California?

Serapth

11-23-2009, 12:20 PM

And by that, you mean California, right? ;)

I do not, on my most lucid or insane days, try to understand the happenings of California.

Oh, and for the record, the hospital ban is a semantic problem of existing rules. Gays are not denied access to their partners, just by default language, they are not considered partners.

http://www.hrc.org/issues/marriage/domestic_partners/5433.htm

You can get around such issues by filling out a form. I mean, yeah, it sucks you have to go through such a process, but this is the extent of the discrimination going on here.

Serapth

11-23-2009, 12:23 PM

And in those redneck states? Sucks to be gay, move to California?

With the way your legal systems work and how much power you leave at the state level, to be honest, yes. I mean, if you were anti church, would you live in Utah? The US really is like 50 different little countries, by design apparently.

Voodoo

11-23-2009, 12:26 PM

With the way your legal systems work and how much power you leave at the state level, to be honest, yes. I mean, if you were anti church, would you live in Utah? The US really is like 50 different little countries, by design apparently.

That is a very basic description of the states. In Florida, for example, a 50 mile drive west from Miami will get you into some extremely redneck areas that you definitely don't want to have a purty mouth in. This circumstance exists in just about every state.

Serapth

11-23-2009, 12:26 PM

Oh, and for the record, the discrimination of gay couples when it comes to hospitals is no different than the discrimination of non married couples. Yet another example illustrating why I think existing marriage laws need to be axed ( as per my comments in a much earlier thread where I oppose different rules for married vs non-married couples being the more fundamental problem ).

diablopath

11-23-2009, 12:28 PM

1. The fact that you all get swooned by a fucking fifth graders opinion, why just because he's on fucking CNN?

Fuck us for recognizing a fifth grader who's starting to pay attention to the world, right? This fifth grader didn't do anything to inspire me or some such, but I do find it neat that somebody so young is getting involved.

2. The fact that he refuses to recite the pledge of allegiance on grounds that are not nearly as relevant as everyone seems to think they are, especially not to a 5th grader. The plight of gays in America...not as bad as seem to think it is, or have been taught it is. Just use your own fucking eyes and ears, look to your own surroundings and not the TV for once.

As previous posters have said, it being "not as bad" as some make it out to be is no reason to not address it at all. Injustice is injustice. I think it's a pretty simple bottom line - not everybody has equal rights in this country. I have a problem with that.

3. As a member of armed forces, I have taken a real oath to defend this country like many before and hopefully many to come. Something that isn't just a bit of ceremonial semantics to start the day off in elementary school... Now...maybe i'm just some kind of conservative asshole, but the look of "beaming pride" on that kids pudge-fuck of a father's face filled me with complete disgust.

Hey, you said it, not me. The fact that you sound so hostile towards a lack of patriotism disgusts me, sir.

Generation ABXY

11-23-2009, 12:35 PM

I do not, on my most lucid or insane days, try to understand the happenings of California.

The way I see it, Californians don't either. :D

Yet another example illustrating why I think existing marriage laws need to be axed ( as per my comments in a much earlier thread where I oppose different rules for married vs non-married couples being the more fundamental problem ).

Ultimately, I think this is what will happen.

Serapth

11-23-2009, 12:37 PM

The way I see it, Californians don't either. :D

That they would elect the Arnold as their supreme leader.... yeah, they are a people at war with themselves. ;)

Ultimately, I think this is what will happen.

And that will be a good day, for all involved. Well, except of course for those people who want to deny marriage to Gays on the pure grounds of "sticking it to them", which I hope is a small subset of the population, but wouldn't surprise me if it wasn't.

Serapth

11-23-2009, 12:45 PM

Hey, you said it, not me. The fact that you sound so hostile towards a lack of patriotism disgusts me, sir.

This exchange is getting dangerously close to being direct personal attacks. I am not insulting or warning you specifically diablopath and frankly I was tempted to say something after the original antagonistic tone of wassons post ( as baiting ).

Let me take this moment to point out, as the new moderator of these forums, I am going to be pretty tolerant of emotion in posts as I know these are heated topics and frankly, a that is a big part of the appeal to such debates. That said, I will have zero tolerance for personal attacks. This conversation hasn't reached that level yet, but lets keep it that way.

Again, this post was not directed at you diablopath, just a general warning for all participants involved. No personal attacks and no baiting, period.

Hawkzombie

11-23-2009, 12:46 PM

All I can say is Good for him....Alec Baldwin. I swear, I have a problem with people who have a problem with the pledge. It's less about brainwashing and more about tradition than anything else.

I also hate how 'equal rights' is simply about marriage right now, and it seems that's going back and forth so much it's insane. I have nothing against gay people at all, honestly. I just hate how their equal rights seem to trump my own in the fact that a lot of them seem to want MORE THAN equal rights.

Oy...I'm not even getting into this more than I have. The kid seems coached, but the whole issue is stupid.

Generation ABXY

11-23-2009, 12:55 PM

And that will be a good day, for all involved. Well, except of course for those people who want to deny marriage to Gays on the pure grounds of "sticking it to them", which I hope is a small subset of the population, but wouldn't surprise me if it wasn't.

Indeed. I'd love to think they could settle their differences amicably, but I don't see that happening anytime soon (well, not soon enough for one side, and too soon for the other). In the meantime, the easiest thing to do is just to remove the point of contention - much as I love debate, I don't think I could take decades of it. :p

Ink Asylum

11-23-2009, 12:55 PM

All I can say is Good for him....Alec Baldwin. I swear, I have a problem with people who have a problem with the pledge. It's less about brainwashing and more about tradition than anything else.

Traditions shouldn't be forced upon people by the state just because they're traditions. Even, or perhaps especially, when they're kids.

I also hate how 'equal rights' is simply about marriage right now, and it seems that's going back and forth so much it's insane. I have nothing against gay people at all, honestly. I just hate how their equal rights seem to trump my own in the fact that a lot of them seem to want MORE THAN equal rights.

Could you specify what rights you think gays want that you don't have?

roboninja

11-23-2009, 12:56 PM

meh, to me the pledge of allegiance seems very....desperate. Cannot watch the video at work, so I cannot chime in on the sincerity of the kid.

Generation ABXY

11-23-2009, 12:59 PM

meh, to me the pledge of allegiance seems very....desperate.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that.

Ink Asylum

11-23-2009, 01:04 PM

diablopath

11-23-2009, 01:12 PM

This exchange is getting dangerously close to being direct personal attacks. I am not insulting or warning you specifically diablopath and frankly I was tempted to say something after the original antagonistic tone of wassons post ( as baiting ).

Let me take this moment to point out, as the new moderator of these forums, I am going to be pretty tolerant of emotion in posts as I know these are heated topics and frankly, a that is a big part of the appeal to such debates. That said, I will have zero tolerance for personal attacks. This conversation hasn't reached that level yet, but lets keep it that way.

Again, this post was not directed at you diablopath, just a general warning for all participants involved. No personal attacks and no baiting, period.

I was merely quoting!

EDIT: @HawkZombie. Prepare to go off-topic: I don't think that a vigorous defense of tradition is the wisest thing to embark on. Tradition isn't necessarily something that should be upheld, especially in situations like this. Doing something *just because* it is tradition can lead to some pretty terrible things. In this situation, I think it kind of comes down to a tradition of pride. Blindly pledging allegiance to a flag (or a country), for instance, can lead to a sick kind of nationalism.

As others have said, pride, if it does exist, should come from actual knowledge of a history and current events. Digressing a little, I want to make a reference to my schooling. I'm not sure what the general opinion is, or how other countries do it, but our ancestors did some pretty terrible shit that I wasn't informed of until later in my education. Even in recent history up to the current time, our country is still engaged in terrible shit. This history shook, and continues to shake, my foundation of pride pretty roughly.

In elementary school, and especially in high school, I was told that "America is the best country in the world!" As a child, I said whatever, my dad's in the Army, so we must be pretty awesome. However, once I started learning about some of the stuff that has happened (and I'm continuing to learn more about it), I kind of brought that pride into question. Do I still believe that America is the greatest country? Do I take great pride in America's contributions to fighting Hitler? I'm not so sure about that. Am I ashamed of America's dealings with Native Americans? I'm not so sure about that, either. The ultimate conclusion I've come to is that I didn't participate in any of those, and therefor I take neither pride nor shame. I've started to try and view history more objectively, and rather then take pride or shame from it, to just learn from it to make my life, and hopefully, in some way, others' lives, better. (I would like to point out that I see a difference in having pride, and being proud of. I do feel a distinct difference in being proud of my father for his service and being proud of America and "what it stands for" itself.)

I don't think questioning tradition is anything particularly selfish or disrespectful, but comes with an attempt to better understand history and our part in it. Sorry for going off topic slightly, but I wanted to make a specific point, and I hope I made it clearly.

TheEpicOfTyler

11-23-2009, 01:18 PM

I don't think I had ever heard a very energetic reciting of the pledge of allegiance ever in my days of school. Just a low murmur of mumbling kids wondering why they are being asked to stand up at 7 in the morning.

Serapth

11-23-2009, 01:19 PM

I was merely quoting!

Again, not specifically addressed at you. I was watching since that original post, to see if there were any reactions and how those reactions went. Frankly, it was a recipe for disaster and I merely wish to nip such a conversation in the bud before it got personal.

Generation ABXY

11-23-2009, 01:38 PM

I was merely quoting!

Beware! Serapth rules with an iron fist, and there are already those of us planning his assassination. It may seem premature, being his first day and all, but shoot me a PM if you want in. ;)

diablopath

11-23-2009, 01:43 PM

Beware! Serapth rules with an iron fist, and there are already those of us planning his assassination. It may seem premature, being his first day and all, but shoot me a PM if you want in. ;)

I plan to just openly mock him, much as I did the school safety patrol when I was younger.

"D'awwww, he thinks he's enforcing traffic."

Voodoo

11-23-2009, 01:49 PM

Beware! Serapth rules with an iron axe (Voodoo), and there are already those of us planning his assassination. It may seem premature, being his first day and all, but shoot me a PM if you want in. ;)

...added a little bit of detail. :D

Serapth

11-23-2009, 01:58 PM

I plan to just openly mock him, much as I did the school safety patrol when I was younger.

"D'awwww, he thinks he's enforcing traffic."

Ah, you are bringing back my childhood memory of all those kids I pushed under the wheels of the bus :)

Shieldmaiden

11-23-2009, 03:50 PM

I ask our UK members, do school children still pledge to the queen?

Hell no. I don't think I've ever heard anyone talk about it, though I do recall seeing it on some really old movie or something.

The queen was mentioned when I used to be a Scout, but that's just the general "Insert reference to appropriate country and/or religion" thing.

Personally, the whole thing makes me uncomfortable. Instilling patriotism, or any kind of beliefs/values into children before they're old enough to make up their own minds is, in my opinion, wrong.

Ultima Thulian

11-23-2009, 05:41 PM

Schools have always been, and always will be, indoctrination camps. It's old hat, folks.

Saladin

11-23-2009, 06:09 PM

What I don't get, is that Mick Foley pledged to beat down anyone that bad-mouthed the kid, yet not half an hour later Colbert did exactly that and got away with it!

Generation ABXY

11-23-2009, 06:59 PM

Wasson_

11-23-2009, 07:17 PM

holy shit, nice post ABXY.

roboninja

11-23-2009, 08:26 PM

Ultima Thulian

11-23-2009, 09:35 PM

Somewhat off topic, and I rarely mention Facebook on CoG, but I posted this vid on my FB and my dad said the following about it. Direct quote, weird grammar errors and all,

I say,, take all the gays & lesies,,, put them all on an island,, give them a can of aids,, & a can opener,, & let them screw each other to death!!!!!

Obviously, he's very open minded. I love my dad...but goddamn...

CAN OF AIDS!?

Wasson_

11-23-2009, 10:19 PM

You are right, as it is I really have no problem with it. My reservations are mainly towards histrionic assertions that anyone that would not want to recite the pledge is a terrorist/communist/boogeyman-of-the-week. Sometimes that gets muddied with the pledge itself.

People just need to stop acting like they're the first to ever say "no", or at the very least the news also needs to stop treating them as such.

Really, what it all boils down to what rally bugs me is exploiting a rather contrived "controversy" for the sake of publicity, and then I see a bunch of people just open wide and take it in as if it has any real significance on ANYTHING. It kinda just freaks me out*

but then, it really does go back to what ABXY said in how what the flag represents is indeed the choice NOT to pledge allegiance to it...because you have the freedom, the inalienable right to do so at your own whim, it seems sort of pointless to make a stand with...
IDK, it's sort of like, America the mum is extending to you a big hug, you can hug her if you like, or you can do what this kid does and kinda ignore her and pout since she didn't buy the right "justice cereal" yesterday... Either way, she doesn't care, she still loves you. And maybe next week she can placate to his whim and just upset one or some of her other kids.

txshurricane

11-23-2009, 10:27 PM

Ultima Thulian

11-23-2009, 10:31 PM

txshurricane

11-23-2009, 10:43 PM

Translation: Hey, everyone is pretty much in agreement but I disagree. As such, I'm gonna bitch that not enough people agree with me and chalk it up to partisanship when I'm ironically yet predictably displaying similar partisanship in my post. I'm then going to make an unnecessary movie reference and end it in a snarky comment without even considering that the reason why so many people disagree with my view point may be in the way I present them (i.e. like an asshole).

Just trying to help folks, carry on.
Gee, that wasn't snarky in itself or anything... ;)

I don't see where I was looking for agreement from you or anyone else. Doesn't matter to me. Every week new threads pop up on CoG displaying some new dramatic situation that someone needs advice on, and then those same people are flashing their Politics Police badge in the P&R forums. Someone agrees with me, be it a fellow Cogger or the woman sleeping next to me...and that's good enough.

Read my edit and reply again if you'd like to. Sometimes I can't pass up the opportunity to comment on threads like these, and I've grown to enjoy it when someone else takes the time to type a demeaning post (in the name of tolerance, no less). Observing humans is fun, especially in "serious" mode on the internet.

Ultima Thulian

11-23-2009, 10:48 PM

Don't fool yourself. I don't post demeaning posts in the name in of tolerance. I do it for lulz. Amusing myself is one of my greatest goals in life. And I'm very goal oriented.

But yes, people tend to flash their political ideologies and bias in a POLITICAL forum. True story.

As for your edit: Obvious flamebait is obvious. Try harder.

txshurricane

11-23-2009, 10:51 PM

Xerxes

11-23-2009, 10:54 PM

What the fuck is up with is shoulders?

Expugnare

11-23-2009, 11:38 PM

I knew this was going to be a hot issue at CoG, and I gotta say I'm not surprised that a fifth grader is being hailed as competent enough to exercise rights that are reserved for adults.

So because he supports gay marriage, he should be old enough to choose a partner and get married, right? Right?
So by this logic, the Christian kid mentioned in your next paragraph should be able to get married to a nice hetero mate? Your logic here makes no sense.

Let's put this intelligent kid up next to the hundreds of thousands of high-IQ fifth graders that attend Sunday school every week and believe the scriptures. This thread would contain more mentions of the word "brainwashed" than the script notes for The Manchurian Candidate. My my my, what an interesting thing a clear partisan agenda is.

No, I believe that most would call him an unfortunate case of ingrained bigotry. Religious beliefs aside, this is a matter of civil rights. You can believe that midgets, redheads, and people with large ears are the embodiment of sin, but it is no reason for them to be denied rights afforded to every other citizen of the United States.

Political mumbo jumbo aside: this kid needs a good harsh spanking. He obviously has no respect for authority and his priorities are out of whack. Someone needs to take away his sudoku puzzles and show him how to treat other people, particularly adults.

So questioning authority and exercising a right that ironically he is supposed to be pledging to its existence for everyone, is now wrong because he is a kid and should be whipped into shape? While I would not say the pledge itself is indoctrination, that most definitely is.

On topic, I'm with the kid but he is certainly not unique except about making a fuss over it. As a high school student, I haven't said the pledge since I could understand what I was saying. I still stand for respect (unless I have something more important, like for instance, schoolwork) but I see no reason why I have to give my allegiance without reservation. I am an atheist who does not believe that the US has achieved equal rights and that plans on living abroad at some point. I like America and the opportunities that it has offered me, but I do not see it as a golden ideal standing above everything else. If America sunk to a level that I could not morally support it anymore, I would gladly leave it behind with no allegiance holding me back.

Dorkandproudofit

11-24-2009, 01:15 AM

Somewhat off topic, and I rarely mention Facebook on CoG, but I posted this vid on my FB and my dad said the following about it. Direct quote, weird grammar errors and all,

Obviously, he's very open minded. I love my dad...but goddamn...

CAN OF AIDS!?

I think we just found the source/cause of Ultima's huge ego.
Being smarter than his father, he must have extended his psychological self-image of superiority to the rest of humanity.

Any other childhood secrets you wish to divulge, Ulty? Please, sit on this couch and tell me about your mother. :D

Loki

11-24-2009, 02:50 AM

I knew this was going to be a hot issue at CoG, and I gotta say I'm not surprised that a fifth grader is being hailed as competent enough to exercise rights that are reserved for adults.

So because he supports gay marriage, he should be old enough to choose a partner and get married, right? Right?

So why is the freedom from the establishment of religion and the ability to freely exercise one's own religion reserved to those that are of legal age? At what point would the opinion of the state on religion, gay rights, and 'respecting the authority' be superseded by your own? At 15? 17? Or perhaps at the second blue moon past your 18th birthday if, and only if, you have taken a test that demonstrates your lack of belief in the 'big brother knows best' guidelines proposed by the state.

Let's put this intelligent kid up next to the hundreds of thousands of high-IQ fifth graders that attend Sunday school every week and believe the scriptures. This thread would contain more mentions of the word "brainwashed" than the script notes for The Manchurian Candidate. My my my, what an interesting thing a clear partisan agenda is.

If a child of another faith had issues with the pledge of allegiance, regardless of how much a belief that they held in the religion, and refused to recite it, I wouldn't find it any different. There exists a freedom for any child, regardless of how young or 'indoctrinated', to not recite a pledge that is nothing more than pomp, tradition, and nationalistic. I would support any other child who had problems with it.

Political mumbo jumbo aside: this kid needs a good harsh spanking. He obviously has no respect for authority and his priorities are out of whack. Someone needs to take away his sudoku puzzles and show him how to treat other people, particularly adults.

That's ridiculous. His discretion to other people holds no bearing to him not wanting to recite the pledge of allegiance. Even if it did, lack of respect towards a teacher or an adult should not automatically mean that corporal punishment is to be levied, especially if it is done in a manner that most would consider civil. He did not attack, he did not strike anyone, and he did nothing that neither you nor I would do in a similar situation although we are 'adults'. Just because he is in fifth grade and under the age of 18 does not mean that he is to be treated as a mule who wouldn't listen to its owner.

txshurricane

11-24-2009, 06:19 AM

boratika

11-24-2009, 07:08 AM

Good on him, whether or not the media attention is justified.

For a bit of context on my opinions. We don't have a pledge of allegiance here (there's an immigration oath and probably one for when you enter the armed forces, but that's it) and the idea pledging allegiance to a flag in this country would seem to most like pledging allegiance to a toaster, or a mossy rock or a half-drunk banana smoothy. It just wouldn't make sense. I get that it is about what the flag represents...but still...I just feel like the flag wouldn't care if I talked to it or not. It's a bit like how prayer would be to an atheist.

Perhaps also worth mentioning is that I routinely got detention for talking during the national anthem during school assemblies (Australia's national anthem does need to die though. I feel vindicated in my post school days by the inability to find someone to properly defend it, even among politicians.) If fact I essentially got expelled for it. I never really cooperated with anything school tried to force us to do that had no bearing on my education. I was also very good student.

That said, the way I see it is that my country (or anyone's) should earn my allegiance, not demand it.

I don't mean to get all leftard, but isn't the foundation of democracy exploring dissenting views. Every change to policy was unthought of at one point and minority opinion between then and now. But that's why these ideas need to be discussed, and judge on their relative merits. It's only through critical reflection of faults that things can be improved.

One of the problems (as I perceive it) with many democratic nations presently is apathy and lack of participation in. If this kid wants to buck the trend then I hope he goes for it. And you're never too young to exercise that critical faculty (sure his is underdeveloped physiologically, but I imagine that the exercise now will benefit it later.)

And personally I feel authority figures should always be questioned.

As for how I feel about my country, there's things I love about it and things I despise about it. In short it isn't perfect and as such, I wouldn't pledge unconditional allegiance to it.

But, you know, perhaps I'm just a turncoat. I've got my dual citizenship (Aus/UK), despite having only spent a month in the UK. Not because I have any affinity for the motherland, but it does let me travel pretty fluidly throughout the EU.

I think what he means is that it's kind of desperate to need a pledge to instill patriotism. We should be able to inspire our youth into patriotism through the actions of our country. Make them actually proud to be an American because of what our country does instead of trying to instill an instinctive reaction at the sight of a flag or the sound of the anthem.

It's like the stupid flag pin nonsense these days. People who have honest, real pride in their country don't need to feel obligated to wear a flag pin or recite the pledge to show it.

I'm just going to quote the above rather than type out something that effectively says the same. Which is to say: those are exactly my sentimonies.

Ink Asylum

11-24-2009, 07:23 AM

This kid is probably more politically knowledgeable than most, if not all, of his classmates. He'll likely continue as such and become more involved in politics as he gets older. That alone is more patriotic than a million rote recitations of the pledge of allegiance.

MachEnergy

11-24-2009, 07:35 AM

I think what he means is that it's kind of desperate to need a pledge to instill patriotism. We should be able to inspire our youth into patriotism through the actions of our country. Make them actually proud to be an American because of what our country does instead of trying to instill an instinctive reaction at the sight of a flag or the sound of the anthem.

It's like the stupid flag pin nonsense these days. People who have honest, real pride in their country don't need to feel obligated to wear a flag pin or recite the pledge to show it.

I'm going to comment on this post before reading the rest of this thread, so I apologize if I'm overlapping with anything after post 47 :D

I agree with this statement, and I also think the very same thing about religion. Coming from a Christian upbringing, I will use that as my example. The large amount of ritual group chants; the wearing of paraphernalia to display your affiliation/pride. It's constant indoctrination and mental conditioning. If the society around me behaves this way, and they expect me to behave this way, then maybe I should, and maybe I will like it.

There is a deep seeded union between human beings when we enact these types of rituals en mass. It gives us connection and purpose.

That said, I don't believe any of it is really necessary. Brainwashing is not the right way to get people to believe your message. Actions are. Raise a child with strong analytical thinking and compassion for their fellow man, and they'll end up doing the right thing no matter what. In the end, isn't it more fulfilling to examine a situation on your own, make your own educated decision, and follow through on it?

Or we could just follow tradition....ya know, just because.

EDIT: and of course, immediately after I post this and read post 47, diablopath went into detail about tradition. sigh, I knew I should have read ahead....if at least just by ONE post :)

Superman's Dead

11-24-2009, 07:44 AM

The child is getting too much credit. Loki, you picked the best word possible when you mused about him being a mule. That's exactly what he is. Adam Lamberts of the world rejoice, for you have the attention and moral support from fifth graders.

Ironically, at least some gay people I know had their statuses as something similar to "Adam Lambert fucked up" recently.

While this is an interesting story, it can reduce the level of dialog because now one side can go straight for the "5th grader". It's like in a Batman vs. Superman debating bringing up the fact that Alfred guards the cave with a shotgun. It's not the point.

roboninja

11-24-2009, 08:13 AM

RandoM51

11-24-2009, 08:30 AM

"Because I want to be a lawyer". Boom, there's your problem right there.

this just makes me fucking sick.

Look on the bright side, if we started exporting lawyers it might help with the balance of trade.

cppcrusader

11-24-2009, 08:42 AM

That kid is way too articulate for me to believe he wasn't coached.

Slack3r78

11-24-2009, 09:15 AM

I think there would probably be room to argue that if it were mandatory. I mean, hell, the fact that you can choose not to is one of the reasons I probably would choose to. Also, the current divisiveness regarding the pledge seems proof that we don't have much to fear from indoctrination by it.

Two things:

Saying 'the kid can opt out' really isn't fair or realistic when we're talking about this age group. Young kids have little to no concept of their own autonomy and there is enormous social pressure on them to conform here. The students may technically have the right to sit it out, but I saw more than one of my peers take flak from teachers and administrators for trying to exercise that right during my time in school. Even in cases where they weren't told outright they couldn't, they were usually interrogated about why and made to feel as though they're doing something wrong. That's a big deal when you're talking about what's essentially a surrogate parental figure for a child still very early in their development.

Second, I strongly disagree that the political climate today indicates indoctrination isn't a problem. In fact, it's my belief that the deep anti-Soviet indoctrination of my father's generation (the Boomers) is at the heart of the low level of political discourse today. It frankly disturbs the hell out of me the way I come across people of that generation who hear the words 'communism' or 'socialism' and just completely shut down the rational thinking centers of their brain. Watching what I consider an otherwise intelligent man be completely unable to rationally evaluate an idea if he's heard it described as socialist scares the hell out of me, and I think speaks a lot to the power of early indoctrination and, even more importantly, its power as a tool of manipulation later on.

Finally, I seriously question what value the pledge has beyond blind indoctrination. It was written around the turn of the century by Francis Bellamy. The words "under God" were added in the 1950s, again, as part of the campaign of anti-Soviet indoctrination.

This is the salute Francis Bellamy intended to accompany the pledge:

http://imgur.com/mkJOg.jpg

Those are American school children, circa 1942.

Really? Is this what we want to be teaching our children?

LordDon

11-24-2009, 09:29 AM

Second, I strongly disagree that the political climate today indicates indoctrination isn't a problem. In fact, it's my belief that the deep anti-Soviet indoctrination of my father's generation (the Boomers) is at the heart of the low level of political discourse today. It frankly disturbs the hell out of me the way I come across people of that generation who hear the words 'communism' or 'socialism' and just completely shut down the rational thinking centers of their brain. Watching what I consider an otherwise intelligent man be completely unable to rationally evaluate an idea if he's heard it described as socialist scares the hell out of me, and I think speaks a lot to the power of early indoctrination and, even more importantly, its power as a tool of manipulation later on.

Spot on Slack3r78, exactly this.

txshurricane

11-24-2009, 09:49 AM

And personally I feel authority figures should always be questioned.
Questioned, yes. But defied and told to "jump off a bridge"? Tell that to a cop and see what happens. I guarantee you won't get a CNN interview.

Unless you get tasered.

Third, spank the kid now?!? Respect for authority? Here's the type of histrionics I was speaking about before. I can always count on txhurricane.
Well, I am dependable in that regard. You can always count on me to disagree with anyone who preaches tolerance from one side of their mouth and condemns an entire subculture of people based on the actions of a few.

Ironically, I don't have to return the same ignorant assumptions, because there are enough people here defending a fifth grader from his own teacher that my case is made before I ever step foot into the thread.

txshurricane

11-24-2009, 09:54 AM

This is the salute Francis Bellamy intended to accompany the pledge:

Those are American school children, circa 1942.

Really? Is this what we want to be teaching our children?
Nah, we've moved beyond that.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/graphics/anthem.jpg

See?

Slack3r78

11-24-2009, 10:00 AM

Nah, we've moved beyond that.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/graphics/anthem.jpg

See?
The fact that you completely miss the irony of your own post is kind of what I'm getting at, though. How is a symbol of blind adulation different just because we replaced one with associations to the 'bad guys' with a different one?

The Bellamy salute wasn't replaced until after WW2 because the fact that it had also been used by the fascist movement made us uncomfortable with the blind acceptance it represented. What's the fundamental difference between one and the other though?

roboninja

11-24-2009, 10:06 AM

Well, I am dependable in that regard. You can always count on me to disagree with anyone who preaches tolerance from one side of their mouth and condemns an entire subculture of people based on the actions of a few.

Can you point me to where that was happening here?

johnperkins21

11-24-2009, 10:08 AM

Brilliance.

I wholeheartedly agree with the Slack Man.

txshurricane

11-24-2009, 10:24 AM

The Bellamy salute wasn't replaced until after WW2 because the fact that it had also been used by the fascist movement made us uncomfortable with the blind acceptance it represented. What's the fundamental difference between one and the other though?
There isn't a difference. It's a sign of respect in both cases.

Can you point me to where that was happening here?
No, because there isn't an example in this thread. Check out the front page of the P&R forums for 2 or 3 examples. Easy as pie.

LordDon

11-24-2009, 10:29 AM

Questioned, yes. But defied and told to "jump off a bridge"? Tell that to a cop and see what happens. I guarantee you won't get a CNN interview.

That's the one problem I had with the way he handled the situation. I don't care how smart a kid you are, you don't speak to an adult that way without punishment. You can refuse to say the pledge all you want and state your reasons but he should definitely be punished for that remark.

Then again it doesn't seem we, as adults, move much past the "jump off a bridge" sentiment very often.

Slack3r78

11-24-2009, 10:33 AM

There isn't a difference. It's a sign of respect in both cases.
But why is it necessary to train our children to engage in a rote daily ritual of adulation? Repetition performed as a matter of course like that is a tool used to gain blind allegiance. I don't view that as the same thing as simple respect.

txshurricane

11-24-2009, 10:40 AM

But why is it necessary to train our children to engage in a rote daily ritual of adulation? Repetition performed as a matter of course like that is a tool used to gain blind allegiance. I don't view that as the same thing as simple respect.
Maybe I misconstrued what I was trying to say...if the pledge of allegiance was removed from schools, I would consider that a good thing overall. As it stands right now, I think it's harmless. But removal would be probably a good thing for unity.

However, it's one thing for adults to campaign against it in a political environment, and something else entirely to encourage young children to fight our battles. Children need to be taught to treat other people with respect first, so that they can respectfully disagree later. Blind vehemence is just as dangerous as blind allegiance.

What's scary is that people are taking the child's side just because they agree with his ingrained political views. As adults, we should be more concerned that this kid's father is using his punishment as a way to get on the air...and we should be supporting the teacher's authority, who for all we know disagrees with the pledge also but is a prudent public servant.

Ink Asylum

11-24-2009, 10:49 AM

I would support the kid's right to not say the pledge even if he were doing it for a reason I disagreed with, like if he were anti-Obama.

Slack3r78

11-24-2009, 10:52 AM

What's scary is that people are taking the child's side just because they agree with his ingrained political views. As adults, we should be more concerned that this kid's father is using his punishment as a way to get on the air...and we should be supporting the teacher's authority, who for all we know disagrees with the pledge also but is a prudent public servant.
Why should I blindly take the teacher's side? I agree that the kid should show the teacher respect as a person, but by the same token, if the kid really has the option to opt out, the teacher should have respected that as well.

Also, I've finally taken a minute to watch the video and the fact that this was spawned by a substitute teacher is really unsurprising. The kid's story that he was harassed for several days about this before the kid lost his patience and talked back. The kid could have handled it better, sure, but he's freaking ten years old and the teacher overstepped her bounds.

Also, while it's possible the kid was coached, having been that awkward, smart 10 year old when I was growing up, the way he spoke reminds me of myself at that age in a scary way. Big ups to the dad for "Just because he's 10 years old doesn't mean he doesn't have opinions."

Slack3r78

11-24-2009, 10:54 AM

I would support the kid's right to not say the pledge even if he were doing it for a reason I disagreed with, like if he were anti-Obama.

This. I think I've made it pretty clear I'm firmly against the pledge being used as a daily school ritual, and in term I'm pretty much in favor of anyone who wants to sit out for whatever reason they want.

Generation ABXY

11-24-2009, 11:14 AM

Finally, I seriously question what value the pledge has beyond blind indoctrination. It was written around the turn of the century by Francis Bellamy. The words "under God" were added in the 1950s, again, as part of the campaign of anti-Soviet indoctrination.

This is the salute Francis Bellamy intended to accompany the pledge:

http://imgur.com/mkJOg.jpg

Those are American school children, circa 1942.

Really? Is this what we want to be teaching our children?

So, you hate that the idea that a conversation can begin and end with a mere mention of socialism or communism, and yet you count on the very same sort of blind reaction by posting that picture. I’m not sure txshurricane is the only one who doesn’t understand irony around here.

But to sort of piggyback on that, I will say, I think mindless subservience is more likely to come about from making a people dependant on their government than it is a reminder of where we set our standards. I mean, if this kid really decided to do this on his own, than he is upholding the very same principles the pledge asks him to. The flag is a symbol of our ideals, not our nation.

Ultima Thulian

11-24-2009, 11:20 AM

I think we just found the source/cause of Ultima's huge ego.
Being smarter than his father, he must have extended his psychological self-image of superiority to the rest of humanity.

Any other childhood secrets you wish to divulge, Ulty? Please, sit on this couch and tell me about your mother. :D

My mom is the best person on the planet. I'm dead serious.

As for my dad, he's alright and can be very trig sometimes. But he's so close-minded and bigoted. Oh well. We all got our flaws. *shrugs* Nah, my huge ego is more a joke than anything. :p

Slack3r78

11-24-2009, 11:28 AM

So, you hate that the idea that a conversation can begin and end with a mere mention of socialism or communism, and yet you count on the very same sort of blind reaction by posting that picture. I’m not sure txshurricane is the only one who doesn’t understand irony around here.
Actually, I'm counting on people not having ever stopped and thought about the implication of what these gestures that have been ingrained into them actually mean and imply. We're raised to think that we're totally different from the communists, the Nazis, whoever, but half the time they don't stop to think and realize that they're sometimes promoting the exact same tactics that the 'bad guys' did.

My point is that mindless indoctrination is bad. Period. Teaching kids to act without thinking about why they're doing it is something I oppose regardless of which flag the people doing it they wrap themselves in.

My reason for choosing the Bellamy salute as an example was absolutely because of the overtones nearly anyone raised in the United States in the past 60 years is going to associate with it. I chose it specifically because I feel what that type of indoctrination implies isn't any different just because we now put our hands over our hearts instead of outstretched into the air.

The flag is a symbol of our ideals, not our nation.
I agree. So why do we feel it necessary as a society to teach our children to pledge allegiance to it as a matter of daily ritual? Shouldn't we simply be teaching them those ideas and how to live up to them rather than using social pressure to force an oath on them?

Ultima Thulian

11-24-2009, 11:31 AM

Maybe I misconstrued what I was trying to say...if the pledge of allegiance was removed from schools, I would consider that a good thing overall. As it stands right now, I think it's harmless. But removal would be probably a good thing for unity.

However, it's one thing for adults to campaign against it in a political environment, and something else entirely to encourage young children to fight our battles. Children need to be taught to treat other people with respect first, so that they can respectfully disagree later. Blind vehemence is just as dangerous as blind allegiance.

What's scary is that people are taking the child's side just because they agree with his ingrained political views. As adults, we should be more concerned that this kid's father is using his punishment as a way to get on the air...and we should be supporting the teacher's authority, who for all we know disagrees with the pledge also but is a prudent public servant.

I personally didn't take the kids side because he shares my views (cause he probably doesn't). I support him because what he did took some moxie. He didn't compromise. It's a rare thing to see, and I do enjoy seeing it when I do.

As for respect? It's earned. It shouldn't be handed out based on position. If respect where that easily doled out, it wouldn't have any meaning behind it whatsoever. But that's just my two cents.

Voodoo

11-24-2009, 11:40 AM

This is the salute Francis Bellamy intended to accompany the pledge:

http://imgur.com/mkJOg.jpg

Those are American school children, circa 1942.

Really? Is this what we want to be teaching our children?

That case that I linked earlier effectively removed that salute from the pledge. I'd imagine that since that case was also in 1942 that the elimination of the salute happened soon after.

Slack3r78

11-24-2009, 11:43 AM

That case that I linked earlier effectively removed that salute from the pledge. I'd imagine that since that case was also in 1942 that the elimination of the salute happened soon after.

Sure, but my point is that we just replaced it with a different salute. I don't see how that affects the meaning of the gesture.

Voodoo

11-24-2009, 11:45 AM

Sure, but my point is that we just replaced it with a different salute. I don't see how that affects the meaning of the gesture.

It doesn't. I was just pointing out the time frame of the change is all. I've got no dog in this fight except to mention that too many people put too much faith in government, no matter which political side they may be on.

MachEnergy

11-24-2009, 11:50 AM

I know it isn't entirely reflective of the story in this thread, I wanted to post this video as my father had recently sent it to me.

LPbIls0iOnI

txshurricane

11-24-2009, 12:16 PM

I’m not sure txshurricane is the only one who doesn’t understand irony around here.
How do you figure I don't understand irony?

Using what you consider to be a misdirection as a mule to condescend someone else - in a thread discussing how a father promoted his son's actions amidst the biggest fake roll of the eyes and face/palm combo I've ever seen - is ironic.

Seriously, ABXY...you went all Jay Phillips on us.

My point is that mindless indoctrination is bad. Period. Teaching kids to act without thinking about why they're doing it is something I oppose regardless of which flag the people doing it they wrap themselves in.
What exactly do we owe children that as their parents we should not teach them our principles? You know that kid who throws temper tantrums in the grocery store and flips the middle finger in family photos? That's the same kid that is allowed to wear diapers too long and eat his food with his hands.

Of course it's good to teach a child why when possible, but when they're telling a substitute teacher to "jump off a bridge" over a simple, trivial instruction...the time for explanation is over. "Because I said so" is as good a reason as any.

Kids don't need to know why we use a fork or a toilet, because at that age they don't understand. Likewise, it doesn't make sense to allow a child to use the system against his teacher for a little CNN facetime, especially in this context. I really would like to see a conversation where someone explains what makes a homosexual different from a heterosexual, and then see where he takes it. ("They put what...where?!")

And we wonder why kids stay up after midnight on Halo 3 and insult each other for fun.

MachEnergy

11-24-2009, 12:24 PM

What exactly do we owe children that as their parents we should not teach them our principles? You know that kid who throws temper tantrums in the grocery store and flips the middle finger in family photos? That's the same kid that is allowed to wear diapers too long and eat his food with his hands.

That's a huge leap you made right there. Teaching values != mindless repetitive chanting. You can teach values via numerous other methods than just repeating phrases.

Besides, it doesn't even work. Kids will go along with the motions but not really "feel" it. I said the pledge EVERY SINGLE DAY, and as an adult, I have been ashamed of my country. I said the Lord's Prayer and often conducted the prayer before family dinner EVERY SINGLE DAY, and as an adult, I am consciously without religion. And I know that I'm not atypical.

Slack3r78

11-24-2009, 12:41 PM

What exactly do we owe children that as their parents we should not teach them our principles?
We owe it to them to teach them our principles in a thinking manner. I mean, the idea that kids can only learn and appreciate our values by way of rote, unthinking repetition seems to be selling both our kids and our values massively short.

Of course it's good to teach a child why when possible, but when they're telling a substitute teacher to "jump off a bridge" over a simple, trivial instruction...the time for explanation is over. "Because I said so" is as good a reason as any.
You don't see the disconnect here when an adult has berated a child for several days in a row over the values their parent has instilled in them? Those "simple, trivial instructions" violated the values that child has learned from his parents. I mean, the dad in the video says that the kid shouldn't have been rude to the teacher, but what about how the teacher treated the kid?

I really would like to see a conversation where someone explains what makes a homosexual different from a heterosexual, and then see where he takes it. ("They put what...where?!")
Conversely, how many 10 year olds are aware that heterosexual marriage involves coitus? Does that mean they can't understand the concept of marriage as love between a man and a woman either?

Shieldmaiden

11-24-2009, 12:44 PM

Conversely, how many 10 year olds are aware that heterosexual marriage involves coitus?

Hopefully, all of them who haven't had a ridiculously sheltered upbringing. Ten is about the age that kids need some basic sex ed, before those strange urges and physical changes actually start happening.

Slack3r78

11-24-2009, 12:47 PM

Hopefully, all of them who haven't had a ridiculously sheltered upbringing. Ten is about the age that kids need some basic sex ed, before those strange urges and physical changes actually start happening.

You forget that we're talking about the US where sex is an incredibly taboo subject. 5th grade is around the time they generally get some very basic "here's what puberty is" education, though. In the interview they discussed that the kid didn't really have any idea what it meant when his peers called him a "gaywad."

Ink Asylum

11-24-2009, 12:53 PM

I really would like to see a conversation where someone explains what makes a homosexual different from a heterosexual, and then see where he takes it. ("They put what...where?!")

Considering that many children grow up into adults that want to put their "what" into a woman's "where" it's a concept they apparently grasp eventually.

If you've gotten to the point where you're explaining the actual physical nature of modern sex to a child there's going to be a lot of weird looks. I'm sure you'd get a similar reaction describing oral sex.

MachEnergy

11-24-2009, 12:56 PM

You forget that we're talking about the US where sex is an incredibly taboo subject. 5th grade is around the time they generally get some very basic "here's what puberty is" education, though. In the interview they discussed that the kid didn't really have any idea what it meant when his peers called him a "gaywad."

My parents taught me and my sister about sex before 5th grade. As far back as I can remember, I have understood the physical act and the biological events that go into procreation. It was very odd for me, in 5th grade, to be about to watch our school sex ed video. I was making insertion jokes, and it was going right over the heads of most of the other kids. Even after the video, it wasn't much more clear to anybody.

I feel very comfortable with the topic of sex (from an educational and clinical background) and will be most definitely teaching my children once they are old enough to comprehend.

But like you said, even without the understand of a couple's physical love, a child can easily understand the emotional love between two people.

txshurricane

11-24-2009, 01:04 PM

We owe it to them to teach them our principles in a thinking manner. I mean, the idea that kids can only learn and appreciate our values by way of rote, unthinking repetition seems to be selling both our kids and our values massively short.

You don't see the disconnect here when an adult has berated a child for several days in a row over the values their parent has instilled in them? Those "simple, trivial instructions" violated the values that child has learned from his parents. I mean, the dad in the video says that the kid shouldn't have been rude to the teacher, but what about how the teacher treated the kid?
As I said before, that battle is for the parent to fight. No child is EVER going to have enough influence in a school system to be able to defiantly stand up for a political or moral view alone. There is a reason why parents are required to sign off on which movies their kids are watching in homeroom. Whether or not the Pledge of Allegiance is appropriate for a child to recite is up to that child's parents...not himself and a forum full of anons.

Conversely, how many 10 year olds are aware that heterosexual marriage involves coitus? Does that mean they can't understand the concept of marriage as love between a man and a woman either?
To be honest, I don't have children at that age yet (mine are only 1 year old and due-in-6-months), but I distinctly remember finding out at the age of 11 and being thoroughly disgusted for some time. Love was lost on me for even longer, and I'm still learning in that department.

So no, I don't believe that it's reasonable to expect children to make that distinction. If they can, that's great...but it's not their place to defy their teachers for any reason. Children come up with all kinds of reasons to twist the classroom to their favor, many times to the detriment of their own education. Just because a large population agrees with one of those reasons one time shouldn't excuse the child's behavior.

If mine ever, ever insults or defies a teacher on the basis of what she learned from Mommy, Daddy, Pastor, or anyone else...I am telling you right now with firm resolve that the punishment will be swift. And while I may examine the teacher's methods on my own as a protective measure, my children will never be allowed to use the excuse that "my teacher hates me" if I determine that the classroom is appropriate for them as a learning environment. That's my job...the child's job is to get her schoolwork and chores done.

Slack3r78

11-24-2009, 01:20 PM

As I said before, that battle is for the parent to fight. No child is EVER going to have enough influence in a school system to be able to defiantly stand up for a political or moral view alone. There is a reason why parents are required to sign off on which movies their kids are watching in homeroom. Whether or not the Pledge of Allegiance is appropriate for a child to recite is up to that child's parents...not himself and a forum full of anons.
I'm just going to say again that I think you are selling kids short in an incredible way. That video really got to me because I remember exactly what it was like being that age, being well beyond most of your peers mentally, and nobody taking you seriously. I really don't think there's any way to relate just how frustrating that is as a child. I know for a fact that it stunted my development for years, and I'm just going to say that kid is incredibly lucky to have a dad that doesn't dismiss him as being unable to think for himself.

So no, I don't believe that it's reasonable to expect children to make that distinction. If they can, that's great...but it's not their place to defy their teachers for any reason. Children come up with all kinds of reasons to twist the classroom to their favor, many times to the detriment of their own education. Just because a large population agrees with one of those reasons one time shouldn't excuse the child's behavior.
So you're saying a child should be taught that their morals aren't something worth standing up for? Again, this is a ten year old who was hassled for several days on end about this. Either he's going to eventually get fed up, or he's going to decide that his values really aren't that important. Which is worse?

Shieldmaiden

11-24-2009, 01:28 PM

If mine ever, ever insults or defies a teacher on the basis of what she learned from Mommy, Daddy, Pastor, or anyone else...I am telling you right now with firm resolve that the punishment will be swift.

That's a pretty bold statement. Are you honestly saying that you will instill blind obedience to authority figures in your children over every single other value you wish to pass on?

I'd be furious if my little 'un ever insulted a teacher, but refusal to do something he isn't comfortable doing, that violates the morals and values my wife and I have instilled in him? I'd support him 100%.

Generation ABXY

11-24-2009, 01:36 PM

How do you figure I don't understand irony?

It was more a response to Slack3r78's accusation that you missed the irony in your post.

txshurricane

11-24-2009, 01:36 PM

I'm just going to say again that I think you are selling kids short in an incredible way. That video really got to me because I remember exactly what it was like being that age, being well beyond most of your peers mentally, and nobody taking you seriously. I really don't think there's any way to relate just how frustrating that is as a child. I know for a fact that it stunted my development for years, and I'm just going to say that kid is incredibly lucky to have a dad that doesn't dismiss him as being unable to think for himself.
No one told him not to think for himself. Thinking for yourself and irrationally acting on those thoughts are completely separate.

If it's appropriate for a child to refuse to recite the Pledge and to tell his teacher to "jump off a bridge", then it was appropriate for Joe Wilson to shout "You lie!" during a speech by the President. Right?

Myself, I say no. It's not the right thing to do in either case. Children need to be taught restraint as well as values.

So you're saying a child should be taught that their morals aren't something worth standing up for? Again, this is a ten year old who was hassled for several days on end about this. Either he's going to eventually get fed up, or he's going to decide that his values really aren't that important? Which is worse?
Letting him get away with an inappropriate reaction is not the correct thing to teach him, in my opinion. If he has the wherewithal to make a conscious decision about a mature topic, then he needs to be taught the responsibility of properly expressing himself and bringing teacher-student harassment to his parents.

Esquilax1138

11-24-2009, 01:36 PM

If mine ever, ever insults or defies a teacher on the basis of what she learned from Mommy, Daddy, Pastor, or anyone else...I am telling you right now with firm resolve that the punishment will be swift.

Just wondering, say there was a teacher that was going on about how god does not exist and the bible is a book of fairy tales, and your kid stood up and said no way my daddy and the pastor say god is real, you're on the teachers side an your kid is going to get punished? Or would that only apply if they were teaching views you believed in?

txshurricane

11-24-2009, 01:42 PM

That's a pretty bold statement. Are you honestly saying that you will instill blind obedience to authority figures in your children over every single other value you wish to pass on?

I'd be furious if my little 'un ever insulted a teacher, but refusal to do something he isn't comfortable doing, that violates the morals and values my wife and I have instilled in him? I'd support him 100%.
First of all, I highly doubt that little Will Phillips' parents are instilling pro gay marriage values into their child. He seems to be sharp enough to have picked that up on his own.

Second: reciting the Pledge of Allegiance does nothing to "violate" anyone's values.

But yes, I will do my best to teach strict obedience to authority figures foremost. Qualms with curriculum and classroom politics and morals are my department, not my child's.

Just wondering, say there was a teacher that was going on about how god does not exist and the bible is a book of fairy tales, and your kid stood up and said no way my daddy and the pastor say god is real, you're on the teachers side an your kid is going to get punished? Or would that only apply if they were teaching views you believed in?
Absolutely they'd be punished! That teacher has a responsibility to lead a classroom the best way they know how, and I have the responsibility to make sure it doesn't "violate my values" (as Jonno so well put it).

Just because I have an open opinion that I express to other competent adults doesn't mean that my child is allowed to disrupt a classroom. Punishment is in order for the disruption, and a transfer is the answer...not defiance. It is not fair to the parents of the other children if my little future conservative brings confusion to a group setting.

It was more a response to Slack3r78's accusation that you missed the irony in your post.
I see now, on both counts. Thank you.

Ultima Thulian

11-24-2009, 01:44 PM

Ink Asylum

11-24-2009, 01:47 PM

If it's appropriate for a child to refuse to recite the Pledge and to tell his teacher to "jump off a bridge", then it was appropriate for Joe Wilson to shout "You lie!" during a speech by the President. Right?

It can be appropriate for him to refuse to recite the pledge while inappropriate for him to tell his teacher to "jump off a bridge". It was also inappropriate for the teacher to harass him for multiple days when he was exercising his right.

txshurricane

11-24-2009, 01:51 PM

TX, you know the kid was actually respectful for over a week, right? He only snapped on the teacher after being harassed about it over a length of time. Any person's patience, especially a child's, is only so much. And I still say respect must be earned. That teacher was being disrespectful to him, so why is there a need to be respectful back? Just because some asshole passed a PRAXIS and has a Bachelor's? Whatever happened to treat people the way you want to be treated. Teach wasn't being very respectful, and he eventually managed to get a disrespectul tone outta the boy. A ten year old boy mind you. Is this truly surprising?

That being said, if it is coaching, and it may be, then I take back my praise. But in the vid, the father wasn't exactly approving of the boy's actions, TX. He said he should've been more respectful to the teacher, and even joked about the media attention. But he is his father, and wants to stick by his son. Nuttin' wrong with that, says I. Especially since all the kid did was sit down and offered one measly rude remark. Alert the Pentagon!

Shit, when I was in 5th grade, my primary concerns included Super Mario RPG and Cheetos. :D So mayhap the kid, if he ain't coached, deserves some credit, if for nothing else being uncomprimising enough to do what he thought was right even though it meant he'd be made fun of and possibly punished by the school or his family. Cut him some slack.
And yet so many people are ready to put his face on a t-shirt with Che Guevara's. :p

It can be appropriate for him to refuse to recite the pledge while inappropriate for him to tell his teacher to "jump off a bridge". It was also inappropriate for the teacher to harass him for multiple days when he was exercising his right.
That's according to the kid's story. No one cared to hear the teacher's side, because let's face it: that was CNN, and this is CoG. Even so, he went to the principal and the principal punished him. Is this a school-wide conspiracy :eek:, or maybe just a kid who saw a good opportunity to backlash for spite and get away with it?

Shieldmaiden

11-24-2009, 02:12 PM

First of all, I highly doubt that little Will Phillips' parents are instilling pro gay marriage values into their child. He seems to be sharp enough to have picked that up on his own.

Second: reciting the Pledge of Allegiance does nothing to "violate" anyone's values.

But yes, I will do my best to teach strict obedience to authority figures foremost. Qualms with curriculum and classroom politics and morals are my department, not my child's.

I'm not really talking about the kid, I just find your parenting priorities somewhat shocking. I'd go so far as to say unamerican and unchristian too. Blind, unquestioning obedience to authority figures is not a good thing, no matter how old you are. I'm pretty sure both the founding fathers and Jesus would say the same thing.

Showing respect and courtesy is a different matter entirely, I'd expect my boy to show his disagreement in a respectful manner and tell me as soon as possible so that I could take up the issue in a proper way, but I would never expect him to do something he doesn't agree with, or he believes is wrong, simply because an authority figure told him to do.

I vaguely recall a story from a couple of years ago where a teacher had encouraged the bullying of a particular child for some reason. Would you expect your child to participate in that behaviour because the teacher told them to?

Teach your children to respect authority figures, by all means, but don't encourage mindless obedience unless you want to be the father of a herd of little sheeple.

txshurricane

11-24-2009, 02:26 PM

I'm not really talking about the kid, I just find your parenting priorities somewhat shocking. I'd go so far as to say unamerican and unchristian too. Blind, unquestioning obedience to authority figures is not a good thing, no matter how old you are. I'm pretty sure both the founding fathers and Jesus would say the same thing.

Showing respect and courtesy is a different matter entirely, I'd expect my boy to show his disagreement in a respectful manner and tell me as soon as possible so that I could take up the issue in a proper way, but I would never expect him to do something he doesn't agree with, or he believes is wrong, simply because an authority figure told him to do.

I vaguely recall a story from a couple of years ago where a teacher had encouraged the bullying of a particular child for some reason. Would you expect your child to participate in that behaviour because the teacher told them to?

Teach your children to respect authority figures, by all means, but don't encourage mindless obedience unless you want to be the father of a herd of little sheeple.
In reading my posts and yours, I can see that I'm choosing my words incorrectly. Blind obedience is not necessarily the ultimate goal. Utmost respect is. "Yes, sir." "No, sir." "Yes, ma'am." "No ma'am." That kind of thing.

According to Will's story, he was harassed for a week. If that's true, then it tells me that both he and the teacher were wrong for hashing it out without a parent's involvement.

Maybe I'm too harsh before the fact. I haven't been there yet. We'll see.

Shieldmaiden

11-24-2009, 02:46 PM

In reading my posts and yours, I can see that I'm choosing my words incorrectly. Blind obedience is not necessarily the ultimate goal. Utmost respect is. "Yes, sir." "No, sir." "Yes, ma'am." "No ma'am." That kind of thing.

Definitely. Respect and obedience don't have to go hand in hand. If I got called into school and told that my son had been rude or disrespectful, he'd be in more trouble than he's ever been in. On the other hand, I expect him to question (internally, of course) absolutely everything he's told. If there's one thing wrong with Britain, it's people's quiet acceptance of pretty much everything the government does, because it's the government doing it (as opposed to my outsider's perspective on the American problem, which is vehement rejection of everything the government does, because it's the government doing it.)

Things go wrong when people forget that authority figures are there to serve the public, not the other way around. It's not something I can really get across to a seven year old, but I can make sure he that he thinks about what he does and what he is asked to do. I can also make sure that when he disagrees, he does it as politely and respectfully as possible.

MachEnergy

11-24-2009, 02:51 PM

Shieldmaiden

11-24-2009, 02:55 PM

Man, I swear I'm trying to get involved in this discussion, but I must not say anything that riles up the need for a response. Too anecdote driven for you guys?? :p

I'm just kidding. I'm enjoying reading the different perspectives at play in this thread.

Hey, that's me a lot of the time. I've lost count of the amount of times I've made a quality, well-thought out post in a thread and had it completely ignored. Now I just resort to finding someone who appears to have a totally opposed viewpoint, but I know I actually share a lot of common ground with, baiting the hell out of them and then coming to the conclusion that we really agree. *Waves at txs* :D

MachEnergy

11-24-2009, 02:58 PM

Hey now that's a good strategy! Hahaha.

txshurricane

11-24-2009, 03:07 PM

Hey, that's me a lot of the time. I've lost count of the amount of times I've made a quality, well-thought out post in a thread and had it completely ignored. Now I just resort to finding someone who appears to have a totally opposed viewpoint, but I know I actually share a lot of common ground with, baiting the hell out of them and then coming to the conclusion that we really agree. *Waves at txs* :D
*wave!*

At the end of the day, this is a gaming forum and we already all have something in common. :D

Generation ABXY

11-24-2009, 04:15 PM

At the end of the day, this is a gaming forum and we already all have something in common. :D

Too much free time? :p

Superman's Dead

11-24-2009, 04:43 PM

This may sound silly, but even when I was a little kid I was always proud to say the pledge. I understand that it's your right not to should you choose, and everything, but..."under God" or not, views on homosexuality whatever they may be, I think it's pretty awesome that we have a republic where this discourse can happen...which is kind of the point.

I'm not saying that ours is the only one, or that this situation has been handled well, just...I'm a fan of America.

Shrinn

11-24-2009, 11:35 PM

I really would like to see a conversation where someone explains what makes a homosexual different from a heterosexual, and then see where he takes it. ("They put what...where?!")

Maybe that's how the adults should approach the problem. Let's stop looking at them as people who want to stick things in strange places and remember that they're still PEOPLE. If this child can see the purity of their relationship because he doesn't understand anal sex what does that say about the criticism and problem with gay marriage?

ShivaX

11-25-2009, 12:36 AM

Maybe that's how the adults should approach the problem. Let's stop looking at them as people who want to stick things in strange places and remember that they're still PEOPLE. If this child can see the purity of their relationship because he doesn't understand anal sex what does that say about the criticism and problem with gay marriage?

I think we should remove the rights of anyone who has anything other than vaginal sex. Sodomy is sodomy. If you get a blowjob or give one you should lose all your rights to be married to someone else and everyone should beat the shit out of you for it.

Whats that we already tried that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas)? Well shit... I think the founding Fathers would be horrified.

txshurricane

11-25-2009, 01:39 AM

I'm a fan of America.
Me, too!

Maybe that's how the adults should approach the problem. Let's stop looking at them as people who want to stick things in strange places and remember that they're still PEOPLE. If this child can see the purity of their relationship because he doesn't understand anal sex what does that say about the criticism and problem with gay marriage?
That it's too complicated for a child.

Shieldmaiden

11-25-2009, 04:05 AM

For the record, I'd like to state that my seven year old understands the basic principle of intercourse and that sometimes men love other men and women love other women, although I can't say that my wife and I have felt the need to go into great detail on either subject.

Crowe

11-25-2009, 04:18 AM

I would really like to love America, but you motherfuckers wear pads when you play football. So weak.

Shieldmaiden

11-25-2009, 04:29 AM

I would really like to love America, but you motherfuckers wear pads when you play football. So weak.

I just think it's rather odd that a nation that prides itself on its virility should feel compelled to strap on forty pounds of protective gear just in order to play rugby.

Sorry guys, I couldn't resist.

Ink Asylum

11-25-2009, 06:07 AM

That it's too complicated for a child.

What's too complicated for a child? Gay marriage or the criticism of gay marriage?

ShivaX

11-25-2009, 06:59 AM

What's too complicated for a child? Gay marriage or the criticism of gay marriage?

That two people can love each other and be different than other people?

I mean its not like most parents are explaining graphically how sex works to kids at this age when it comes to heterosexual stuff. Kids can understand the concept of "sometimes men like men and women like women" pretty easily. They really could give a crap until adults start making an issue out of it.

Its not like you need to get into details about how it all works. And its not like those details wouldn't be exactly the same in a lot of heterosexual scenarios.

Shrinn

11-25-2009, 07:11 AM

That it's too complicated for a child.

If, as you argue, his kid doesn't see or understand sex then his argument becomes more pure. He doesn't see man loving man or woman loving woman. He sees people being discriminated and treated unequally under the guise that there is equality.

Ink Asylum

11-25-2009, 07:32 AM

Kids have no trouble understanding same-sex relationships, just ask any kid who has gay parents or close relatives. Kids don't understand the unfamiliar, but what's familiar to a kid isn't born into them, it's determined by their upbringing.

That's what anti-gay groups really fear when they fight against the "gay agenda" being used to "indoctrinate" children. There's no risk that teaching children about gay people will make them gay. What will happen is that they'll be more accepting and tolerant of gay people. That's what has anti-gay groups worried the most. The more familiar kids and young people are with the concept of same-sex couples the less likely they'll be to hate and fear them like older generations do.

ShivaX

11-25-2009, 07:56 AM

That's what has anti-gay groups worried the most. The more familiar kids and young people are with the concept of same-sex couples the less likely they'll be to hate and fear them like older generations do.

Which is what will eventually happen, just like it did for blacks and everyone else.

I grew up thinking gays were bad. It as basically the way I was raised, though noone openly said anything bad about gay people my only exposure to them was Pride Parades and conservative talk show hosts. Suffice to say I didn't have a very high opinion of those "queers" running down the street in leather.

Then I met a girl who happened to have a gay friend. We hung out and whatever and I realized that gay people are just people. They're not these perverted hedonists that the Pride Parades make them appear to be. They're just people who aren't attracted to the opposite sex. Hell I ended up learning that my best friend in high school's mother was a lesbian. I had no idea, even though all the signs had been there, it just never occured to me. Probably because she was so cool and normal and it didn't jive with my notion of what a homosexual was.

So in my adult life I've actually gone from finding homosexuals distasteful to actively supporting them in any way I can.

Serapth

11-25-2009, 08:04 AM

They're not these perverted hedonists that the Pride Parades make them appear to be. They're just people who aren't attracted to the opposite sex. Hell I ended up learning that my best friend in high school's mother was a lesbian. I had no idea, even though all the signs had been there, it just never occured to me. Probably because she was so cool and normal and it didn't jive with my notion of what a homosexual was.

See, militant gays do more to hurt the cause than they ever help. Then again, I 've talked to a few gay people about these parades and protests and they absolutely hate them. I have also had gay people be so incredibly in my face to the point I want to hit them. As an example, I was at a house party a few years back and I was introduced to a group of people and frankly half the people at the party were probably gay. Anyways the one guy says "Im a fag! What do you think of that!!! I like to suck cock, you got a problem with that!" In the end, I guess it just proves gays have douchebags too, worst part is, if I hit him people would have probably thought it was because I am anti-gay, where in reality, I am just anti-asshole.

ShivaX

11-25-2009, 08:10 AM

See, militant gays do more to hurt the cause than they ever help.

Which is why I've always said that. I never really explained why, but I know watching that crap definately soured me on the whole movement and homosexuals in general until I learned better.

In the end, I guess it just proves gays have douchebags too, worst part is, if I hit him people would have probably thought it was because I am anti-gay, where in reality, I am just anti-asshole.

Well you could always grab a nearby dude's ass and make out with him after jacking the guy in the face.

MachEnergy

11-25-2009, 08:16 AM

See, militant gays do more to hurt the cause than they ever help. Then again, I 've talked to a few gay people about these parades and protests and they absolutely hate them. I have also had gay people be so incredibly in my face to the point I want to hit them. As an example, I was at a house party a few years back and I was introduced to a group of people and frankly half the people at the party were probably gay. Anyways the one guy says "Im a fag! What do you think of that!!! I like to suck cock, you got a problem with that!" In the end, I guess it just proves gays have douchebags too, worst part is, if I hit him people would have probably thought it was because I am anti-gay, where in reality, I am just anti-asshole.

It's funny how oppression, alcohol, and a safe environment can allow people to vent and get things off their chest. Not being at this party, I can't really respond to your situation. However, like you said, he could just have been the DB of the group.

Zero

11-25-2009, 11:02 AM

I think that kid and his Dad are customers at my store.

National Kato

11-25-2009, 11:46 AM

It's funny how oppression, alcohol, and a safe environment can allow people to vent and get things off their chest. Not being at this party, I can't really respond to your situation.

Me neither. I've had gay friends and family for over two decades, been to Backstreet Atlanta and the Charlie Brown drag show several times, and I've never once experienced anything like that example. And let me tell you: I've met some queens, baby.

It's a big, diverse world...full of all sorts of people.

Serapth

11-25-2009, 12:02 PM

Me neither. I've had gay friends and family for over two decades, been to Backstreet Atlanta and the Charlie Brown drag show several times, and I've never once experienced anything like that example. And let me tell you: I've met some queens, baby.

It's a big, diverse world...full of all sorts of people.

I would be willing to be its an issue of demographics. I have experienced it more than once.

Generation ABXY

11-25-2009, 02:25 PM

Suffice to say I didn't have a very high opinion of those "queers" running down the street in leather.

I still don't think I've moved past that, but, hey, if we give them equal rights, they'll have nothing left to protest and can just stay home like the rest of us. :D

Ink Asylum

11-25-2009, 02:37 PM

Generation ABXY

11-25-2009, 02:42 PM

I don't have TV, and I rarely go outside. :p

Serapth

11-25-2009, 03:51 PM

Because heterosexuals never flaunt their sexuality? You can't turn on the television or walk down the street without having flagrant displays of heterosexuality popping up in television shows, commercials, movies, billboards, music, etc. It's much more inescapable than the oft-complained about gay pride parades. But one makes straight men cringe and the other makes them cheer, so damn those "queers"!

You are completely missing the fact that a great many people do actually dislike the overwhelming amount of flaunted hetro sexuality. I really don't want to see couples making out in public, regardless to how they are coupled. Ditto, I don't want to see straight or gay men in full BSDM gear or hot pink codpiece.

I am, however, willing to make an exception for straight or lesbian women....

Generation ABXY

11-25-2009, 03:59 PM

Ditto, I don't want to see straight or gay men in full BSDM gear or hot pink codpiece.

That's pretty much it for me. I have no problem with outward shows of affection, but some things push the limit regardless of your leaning.

Ink Asylum

11-25-2009, 04:01 PM

You are completely missing the fact that a great many people do actually dislike the overwhelming amount of flaunted hetro sexuality. I really don't want to see couples making out in public, regardless to how they are coupled. Ditto, I don't want to see straight or gay men in full BSDM gear or hot pink codpiece.

Then those people have a problem with flaunted sexuality in general. However, there are plenty of people that single out gay males flaunting their sexuality as being a problem while they're perfectly fine with displays that they like.

Apparently there was a big stink raised this week because Adam Lambert, a gay singer, kissed a guy and performed sexually suggestive dance moves on an awards show late at night, the kind of thing that would hardly be mentioned were it a woman singer performing with men.

I am, however, willing to make an exception for straight or lesbian women....

I know you're making a joke here, but it's not that far from the way plenty of people actually feel.

Esquilax1138

11-25-2009, 04:03 PM

I've seen about the same type of debauchery from any Mardi Gras, Brazilian Carnival or Spring Break party as at the Gay Pride parades. Some people just like to get half naked and gyrate in crowds, straight, gay, no difference.

ShivaX

11-25-2009, 04:03 PM

Because heterosexuals never flaunt their sexuality? You can't turn on the television or walk down the street without having flagrant displays of heterosexuality popping up in television shows, commercials, movies, billboards, music, etc. It's much more inescapable than the oft-complained about gay pride parades. But one makes straight men cringe and the other makes them cheer, so damn those "queers"!

I have yet to turn on my television or go outside and see heterosexuals fucking each other or simulating it to the level you see at a pride parade. Generally you have to pay to see that.

And you're missing the point. Unless you think I'm homophobic or something, which would be fairly hilarious (at least to me).

Serapth

11-25-2009, 04:04 PM

Then those people have a problem with flaunted sexuality in general. However, there are plenty of people that single out gay males flaunting their sexuality as being a problem while they're perfectly fine with displays that they like.

Apparently there was a big stink raised this week because Adam Lambert, a gay singer, kissed a guy and performed sexually suggestive dance moves on an awards show late at night, the kind of thing that would hardly be mentioned were it a woman singer performing with men.

I know you're making a joke here, but it's not that far from the way plenty of people actually feel.

I know, the stink that happened when Adam Lambert kissed another guy then had a crotch rubbed in his face never would have happened in the hetrosexual world! I mean, lets say there was a wardrobe malfunction at a superbowl halftime and the world accidentally got a 1/2 second flash of Janet Jacksons nipple... I mean, the world would do absolutely nothing about that because its not gay... oh wait.

Face it Ink, North America just aint to big on public sexuality that isnt in advertising form.

Ink Asylum

11-25-2009, 08:01 PM

Yes, America went crazy at Janet Jackson but if it hadn't been for an exposed nipple no one would've made a peep about the rest of the routine. It was the nudity not the sexuality that caused such a fuss. If Adam Lambert had whipped out his dick you could make that comparison but otherwise it's a completely different story.

Heterosexual performers have been simulating sex on stage for years and no one has raised as big a stink as they did this week when a gay man dared to go that far.

Ultima Thulian

11-25-2009, 10:06 PM

Am I the only one who doesn't know who Adam Lambert is?

Crowe

11-25-2009, 10:09 PM

Britney spears gyrates on a male dancer at least 7 times a song. And then there's Lady Gaga....

Generation ABXY

11-25-2009, 10:12 PM

Am I the only one who doesn't know who Adam Lambert is?

No. And I still haven't plucked up the courage to find out.

Ink Asylum

11-26-2009, 12:55 AM

I didn't know who he was until someone brought him up earlier in this thread. I believe they said he did harm to the gay cause by acting like every hetero pop idol out there, or something.

Slack3r78

11-27-2009, 08:23 AM

Shieldmaiden

11-27-2009, 09:09 AM

Your new avatar forces me to read this in Bender's voice.

I am most pleased.

They should do a whole series of public service announcements with Bender.

Serapth

11-27-2009, 09:15 AM

I didn't know who he was until someone brought him up earlier in this thread. I believe they said he did harm to the gay cause by acting like every hetero pop idol out there, or something.

Bah, its not different then when Madonna kissed that (fucking annoying ) lesbian comedian in the 80s/90s. The bullshit shock performances have about as much to do with sexuality as FOX does to news.

Bandango

11-27-2009, 09:56 AM

The pledge was not mandatory in my highschool. In fact, most kids sat or talked through it which always pissed me the fuck off. Is it so hard to show one minute of respect? Sure there are things we don't agree with as citizens, but we all have food on our table and a roof over our heads, and we live in comfort under the rule of law. A lot of people in this world can't say that. I think we owe our country some gratitude, and I don't think it's unreasonable to remind children of that each morning before class starts.

That said, if someone wants to make a stand for something they believe in, that's one of the great liberties our country is founded on. That's worth a pledge on its own.

Ink Asylum

11-27-2009, 10:02 AM

Gratitude isn't gratitude if it's forced, nor is respect. Both are only meaningful if someone has the right to withhold theirs without being shamed, punished, or harassed.

Shieldmaiden

11-27-2009, 10:05 AM

I'm not a fan of the whole thing anyway, but people talking through it would really annoy me. Courtesy is free, respect and contempt are earned.

Stmfuller

11-29-2009, 08:35 AM

I saw the daily show and colbert report clips when they aired and was like "yeah, that's pretty cool". I guess I didn't really take into consideration if he was coached or not, but I also guess that even if he was he's learning an important lesson about injustice and having a differing opinion. In the end, the experience is not wasted and he's going to be able to look at life from multiple perspectives...cause he has an idea of what it's like to be hated because of his opinions.

As for the pledge, national anthem etc...we say it because it identifies us with our country. Is it indoctrination? A little bit, but I don't think it's really the "crazy robot" kind of indoctrination that people want to make us believe. I don't specifically have a problem with saying it.

Lastly homosexuality and kids. This is a tough subject because most people see it as "Just the sex". Unlike heterosexuality which is apparently multidimensional. It's been said already that children can identify love between people regardless of gender. I think that's important when we consider homosexuality. If we take sex out of it, we're down to two people that care about each other. Rightness or wrongness shouldn't matter since, honestly they don't really affect us (and they're not killing people or breaking the law).
Lastly, I know that fundamentalist Christians are the people with the most problem against it, don't they know that it's god's decision to punish the "evil" not them???

Ink Asylum

11-29-2009, 08:56 AM

As for the pledge, national anthem etc...we say it because it identifies us with our country. Is it indoctrination? A little bit, but I don't think it's really the "crazy robot" kind of indoctrination that people want to make us believe. I don't specifically have a problem with saying it.

What's robotic about it is that it's taught to kids who, at the time, barely comprehend the meaning. How often have you heard the gag where a kid mumbles through the pledge, replacing the unfamiliar words with familiar sound a likes? Kids rarely grow into really believing the pledge, either, they just become teenagers that mumble it in the morning.

Stmfuller

11-29-2009, 10:10 AM

What's robotic about it is that it's taught to kids who, at the time, barely comprehend the meaning. How often have you heard the gag where a kid mumbles through the pledge, replacing the unfamiliar words with familiar sound a likes? Kids rarely grow into really believing the pledge, either, they just become teenagers that mumble it in the morning.Yeah, well then it doesn't do its job. If you sit and ponder the meaning of the pledge it's basically a rah rah we are america hear us rawr kind of statement.
But as an indoctrination tool, it falls far short.

ShivaX

11-29-2009, 01:31 PM

Yeah, well then it doesn't do its job. If you sit and ponder the meaning of the pledge it's basically a rah rah we are america hear us rawr kind of statement.
But as an indoctrination tool, it falls far short.

Exactly. Its not like its "Deutschland über alles" or anything.

MagGnome

12-02-2009, 11:14 AM

This is pretty hyperbolic. There are already laws in place to prevent discrimination based on sexuality and in fact, special protections being afforded in their favor. About the only equal right they don't have is the right to marry ( and the attendant legal status ). They are no more persecuted than polygamists.

This is flat out not true. There are many, many areas of life in which sexual orientation is not protected in the same way that sex/gender, race, religion, and age are. Marriage is only the most blatant one. As others have said, issues of hospital visitation, adoption rights, hell even employment in some states.

Not to mention that gays are routinely beaten and killed for being who they are.

I commend this kid for "sitting down" for what he believes in. I haven't said the pledge in years, because I think pledging allegiance to a flag or country is a silly thing to do.

txshurricane

12-02-2009, 12:06 PM

Not to mention that gays are routinely beaten and killed for being who they are.
First of all, "routinely" is a bad word to use, unless you actually believe that.

Second: everyone is hated or attacked by someone. Women are raped because they're women. Black people are attacked because they're black. Native Americans were slaughtered because they were Native American. Christians are hated because they're Christians. And kids are given TV interviews because they're kids.

It's already illegal to beat someone or kill them, yet it happens every day for a variety of reasons. Just because the victim gay doesn't make it any worse or require harsher punishment.

MachEnergy

12-02-2009, 12:11 PM

First of all, "routinely" is a bad word to use, unless you actually believe that.

Second: everyone is hated or attacked by someone. Women are raped because they're women. Black people are attacked because they're black. Native Americans were slaughtered because they were Native American. Christians are hated because they're Christians. And kids are given TV interviews because they're kids.

It's already illegal to beat someone or kill them, yet it happens every day for a variety of reasons. Just because the victim gay doesn't make it any worse or require harsher punishment.

Honestly, I find it pretty sickening that you are trying to deflate his comment. Do you honestly think that Christians are beaten and sometimes killed MORE than gay people are? What you did was list off a bunch of unequal things in attempt to make it sound like gay people don't get physically accosted often enough for it to be an outrage.

I'd be curious as to which high schools beat up more Christians than gay people.

For fucks sake, man...

Serapth

12-02-2009, 12:16 PM

MachEnergy

12-02-2009, 12:22 PM

Don't get me wrong, I don't deny that there exists violence against gays, I am just saying, it isnt exclusive by any means.

And who IS arguing that? There are numerous attempts being made to polarize the discussion. Shit tons of people are discriminated against, ie there are shit tons of reasons to protest the statement "and justice for all". This kid chose gay rights as his reason, and people are saying that gays don't have it that bad because other groups are also oppressed. I'm so unbelievable sick of that argument tactic.

Serapth

12-02-2009, 12:44 PM

And who IS arguing that? There are numerous attempts being made to polarize the discussion. Shit tons of people are discriminated against, ie there are shit tons of reasons to protest the statement "and justice for all". This kid chose gay rights as his reason, and people are saying that gays don't have it that bad because other groups are also oppressed. I'm so unbelievable sick of that argument tactic.

The argument is a classic issue of slippery slope. Why not extend protection to gingers? More so, by increasing the punishment for certain minorities, arent you by nature lessening the punishment against the majority. ( hint, you are ).

You may not like the argument, but that doesnt make it any less valid.

MachEnergy

12-02-2009, 12:53 PM

The argument is a classic issue of slippery slope. Why not extend protection to gingers? More so, by increasing the punishment for certain minorities, arent you by nature lessening the punishment against the majority. ( hint, you are ).

You may not like the argument, but that doesnt make it any less valid.

I disagree. I believe the argument is entirely invalid on the pretense that you are trying to combine two separate arguments.

You: "Where do you draw the line?"
Me: "You cannot say that Christians and Gingers are persecuted more than homosexuals"

Two very different arguments.

MagGnome

12-02-2009, 12:54 PM

I can't believe I let myself get sucked into this same discussion yet again. I'm leaving now so that my blood pressure can stay low and my sanity remains intact.

Serapth

12-02-2009, 12:55 PM

I disagree. I believe the argument is entirely invalid on the pretense that you are trying to combine two separate arguments.

You: "Where do you draw the line?"
Me: "You cannot say that Christians and Gingers are persecuted more than homosexuals"

Two very different arguments.

But when I suggest that muslims are more persecuted than homosexuals, I am out of line? Not following your logic here.

Panthera

12-02-2009, 01:21 PM

You're not out of line, you're just not making any point at all.

txshurricane

12-02-2009, 02:02 PM

This kid chose gay rights as his reason, and people are saying that gays don't have it that bad because other groups are also oppressed. I'm so unbelievable sick of that argument tactic.
As opposed to the "woe is [insert minority group] for their troubles?"

I used Christians because I am one. I could have used any religious group. I wasn't trying to generate sympathy at all. As you said, I was only deflating the comment that I quoted.

And it needs to be deflated. Parents are using their 10-year-old children to make a political statement. There are positive ways to progress an agenda, and then there are tactics like giving TV interviews to elementary school students or playing the sympathy card.

MachEnergy

12-02-2009, 02:19 PM

As opposed to the "woe is [insert minority group] for their troubles?"

I used Christians because I am one. I could have used any religious group. I wasn't trying to generate sympathy at all. As you said, I was only deflating the comment that I quoted.

And it needs to be deflated. Parents are using their 10-year-old children to make a political statement. There are positive ways to progress an agenda, and then there are tactics like giving TV interviews to elementary school students or playing the sympathy card.

You are so sure it is the father's master plan. Love blinds us to faults, but hatred blinds us to virtues. Your intolerance won't let you believe the child can make a decision like this on his own.

txshurricane

12-02-2009, 02:24 PM

You are so sure it is the father's master plan. Love blinds us to faults, but hatred blinds us to virtues. Your intolerance won't let you believe the child can make a decision like this on his own.
Okay. :) You keep on fighting the good fight. One day you'll be rid of the evil, evil churchgoers and when that happens, all children and adults alike will finally be treated equal.

Until then I'll take advice from clergy and generations-old traditional text. You take yours from Will Phillips, 5th grader.

Panthera

12-02-2009, 02:30 PM

Go to all the churches you like, you're still a bigot.

txshurricane

12-02-2009, 02:32 PM

Go to all the churches you like, you're still a bigot.
By definition (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Bigot), so are you! :D

MachEnergy

12-02-2009, 02:32 PM

Okay. :) You keep on fighting the good fight. One day you'll be rid of the evil, evil churchgoers and when that happens, all children and adults alike will finally be treated equal.

Until then I'll take advice from clergy and generations-old traditional text. You take yours from Will Phillips, 5th grader.

I never attacked the church. I'm not sure why you are using it to attack me. Since you want to use that as a talking point, I will follow suit.

If you don't see freedom from persecution as a good fight, then I question the validity of your Christian upbringing. Did your church ignore that Jesus taught love for all, and instead focus on GodHatesFags.com?

And since you like to follow generations-old traditional text, may I ask why you pick and chose which points to truly follow? Some good examples of this thought process have existed on the internet for almost a decade now, so I'll quote them since they put it better than I:
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 20:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Can we leave religion out of this now?

Panthera

12-02-2009, 02:33 PM

By definition (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Bigot), so are you! :D

I'm a bigot about bigots. You sure nailed me good on that one.

txshurricane

12-02-2009, 02:38 PM

Hey, guess what, doods? It's been five minutes. Were your hateful posts supposed to influence some kind of change?

Slack3r78

12-02-2009, 03:11 PM

This is getting into personal attack territory. Everybody needs to chill.

alienmastermind

12-02-2009, 03:12 PM

Yo Tex, I don't think the snarky post about the rules in the Bible were particularly hateful. Snarky, but not hateful.

All it's doing is trying to get you to admit that not all of the Bible is applicable to current modern life, and therefore go A-HA! You're a hypocrite! And then whatever you say will be coming from the mouth of a hypocrite.

I go by the standard of Post-Advent Law. Which is to say, the rules laid down by Christ rather than the dogma of the Pharisees and Sagussees (sp?) that kept people enslaved to one another by these sins that MAN created, not God.

Which is why the above, Leviticus quotes, are man's dictum of how one should live, and then only Hebrews and Israelites really apply to those laws. God didn't actually write the Bible, man did. And none of the laws in Leviticus are in red, in my bible, which means God didn't say any of that shit. Some guy a long time ago wrote it down, and some people believed he spoke for God.

Because if we go by all the good old traditions in the bible, we should be giving our wives abortions when we're jealous. (http://www.theskepticalreview.com/JFTPoliticsAbortion.html)

MagGnome

12-02-2009, 03:13 PM

Go to all the churches you like, you're still a bigot.

The poor, persecuted Christian-schtick is old. Give me a break!

News flash - Christians are NOT a minority in the US! :eek:

Slack3r78

12-02-2009, 03:16 PM

The poor, persecuted Christian-schtick is old. Give me a break!

News flash - Christians are NOT a minority in the US! :eek:

Yeah, the self-perceived persecution of Christianity is an element of American evangelism I've always found somewhat puzzling, outside of the psychology of tribalism involved, anyway.

alienmastermind

12-02-2009, 03:16 PM

Oh, and no matter the kid's reason, he has the right to not say the pledge. Even if soldiers serve and protect our country, even if my father (a veteran) served in Vietnam, this kid has the right to do whatever he wants during that time outside of pissing on the floor, or disrupting.

Even pray, if he so chose. If he chose to sit down during the Pledge and pray instead, I wonder if people would be throwing such shit fits about it.

Not that the Pledge matters anyway. Constitutionally, we can't mandate love of country. We're not Soviet Russia.

Panthera

12-02-2009, 03:23 PM

In Soviet Russia, country pledges you.

Ultima Thulian

12-02-2009, 03:25 PM

Honestly, I find it pretty sickening that you are trying to deflate his comment. Do you honestly think that Christians are beaten and sometimes killed MORE than gay people are? What you did was list off a bunch of unequal things in attempt to make it sound like gay people don't get physically accosted often enough for it to be an outrage.

I'd be curious as to which high schools beat up more Christians than gay people.

For fucks sake, man...

But he's right. And you're not.

Of course Christians are beaten and killed more than gays. There's over 2 fucking billion Christians on the planet. I doubt that gays even make up 1/20 of the world population. It's a matter of numbers. Here in America, Christians got it gravy. Hence me rolling my eyes when most of them bitch about schools taking bibles away or some other inane horseshit. But in some areas of the world, say like Saudi Arabia, Christians are loathed.

Granted, this applies to gays in many parts of the world too. And I'm not denying they are not persecuted. I'd argue that trying to compare who is persecuted more or less is rather dumb and pointless. And TX is right. Nearly all groups of people by race, creed, or ethnicity have at one time or the other have been persecuted and physically attacked in some way.

He's not saying Gnome's complaint is invalid, he's simply saying it's old hat and isn't exclusive to the gay community. In fact, gays have it fairly decent in America when compared to some countries (again, Saudi Arabia). That doesn't make what is going on "right" or whatever, but it's worth mentioning for the sake of perspective.

Granted, I agree with you that his tact was poor, but he was not wrong in his statement.

txshurricane

12-02-2009, 03:37 PM

Slack3r78

12-02-2009, 03:42 PM

So it's only bad if it's against a minority...I see.

I think the point is that you can't claim equivalence between the two. To hear American evangelicals tell it, Christians are this beleaguered, abused group, when, in fact, they're one of the more politically powerful groups in this nation.

I don't buy the argument that they have it just as bad as any number of minority groups, which is the picture evangelicals are constantly trying to paint. It seems that being persecuted, in the mind of the evangelical, is being denied the imposition of their will on the rest of society. Other groups generally view persecution as simply not being left alone to live their lives as they see fit.

MachEnergy

12-02-2009, 03:46 PM

But he's right. And you're not.

<<snipped for length>>

I didn't assume I needed to specify, but perhaps I should have narrowed it down to the United States of America, where this child is from and where the pledge is recited. I wasn't speaking of the entire planet. In fact, if you use the entire planet as a the basis, then Muslims are not so badly treated, in contrast to a point previously made in this thread.

I feel I'm pretty clear when I say it's not about a contest here. It's about the deflating of the issue on topic: gays are persecuted in the United States of America. Diminishing this fact simply sickens me. I'm sorry if that somehow makes me wrong in your eyes, but as the topic of the thread goes, I feel that I am more on point here that my opposition has been.

txshurricane

12-02-2009, 03:51 PM

I think the point is that you can't claim equivalence between the two. To here American evangelicals tell it, Christians are this beleaguered, abused group, when, in fact, they're one of the more politically powerful groups in this nation.

I don't buy the argument that they have it just as bad as any number of minority groups, which is the picture evangelicals are constantly trying to paint. It seems that being persecuted, in the mind of the evangelical, is being denied the imposition of their will on the rest of society. Other groups generally view persecution as simply not being left alone to live their lives as they see fit.
Which is why I didn't use the word "persecution", because it's as overused by religions as the words "hate", "bigotry", and "discrimination" are by minority groups.

But my point was that a crime is still a crime. Being targeted for being different has always been a problem. Just because someone is gay or black doesn't make the crime any worse than if the victim was Joe Schmoe.

Also, this
It seems that being persecuted, in the mind of the evangelical, is being denied the imposition of their will on the rest of society.
can also be applied to minority groups who get pissed off when the law isn't changed to benefit their lives further than they have been...ever.

Slack3r78

12-02-2009, 04:02 PM

But my point was that a crime is still a crime. Being targeted for being different has always been a problem. Just because someone is gay or black doesn't make the crime any worse than if the victim was Joe Schmoe.
Sure, and if somebody were to be violently attacked simply for being Christian, that'd be something to condemn, but you have to be living in an alternate reality to think it happens with anywhere near the frequency that it does to minority groups.

can also be applied to minority groups who get pissed off when the law isn't changed to benefit their lives further than they have been...ever.
Again, that nasty little issue of equivalence. Give me some examples of Christians being denied the right to live their lives privately as they see fit.

txshurricane

12-02-2009, 04:08 PM

Sure, and if somebody were to be violently attacked simply for being Christian, that'd be something to condemn, but you have to be living in an alternate reality to think it happens with anywhere near the frequency that it does to minority groups.
You don't see people crying "he was killed because he was a Christian" every time a Christian is killed. But almost every time a minority is killed by someone different than them, the victim's community cries "hate crime". People are killed; no reason is worse nor better than another. That's all I'm saying.

Again, that nasty little issue of equivalence. Give me some examples of Christians being denied the right to live their lives privately as they see fit.
I have a better idea. You give me an example of Christians effectively "imposing their will on the rest of society". :)

Generation ABXY

12-02-2009, 04:11 PM

You give me an example of Christians effectively "imposing their will on the rest of society". :)

I'm sure this will end well. :D

Also: It seems that kid will be sitting down for just a bit longer - it looks like gay marriage was shot down in New York.

ShivaX

12-02-2009, 04:12 PM

Yeah its a huge issue in this country where groups of young men go around beating the shit out of anyone wearing a cross or mentioning Jesus that they find.

Oh wait, that never happens.

However people getting the shit kicked out of them, or worse, for say being gay or Muslim (or even looking say "Middle Eastern") isn't that uncommon. Playing the "poor Christians" card in America doesn't work at all. We're the most Christian nation on earth other than Vatican City. Its like complaining about being oppressed as a Muslim in Egypt or something.

ShivaX

12-02-2009, 04:16 PM

I have a better idea. You give me an example of Christians effectively "imposing their will on the rest of society". :)

HAHAHAHAHGAHAHGASSFASDFASDFQEWAFASETjklh

Holy shit.

Yeah theres no evidence of anything remotely like that ever happening (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion). I'm sure things like Don't Ask Don't Tell, Sodomy Laws and the like magically appeared with no influence from Christians at any point as well. Hell I hear Prop 8 that stole gay marriage rights away from people in California had absolutely no connections to anything Christian. Gay rights are obviously a non-religious issue.

Slack3r78

12-02-2009, 04:18 PM

You don't see people crying "he was killed because he was a Christian" every time a Christian is killed. But almost every time a minority is killed by someone different than them, the victim's community cries "hate crime". People are killed; no reason is worse nor better than another. That's all I'm saying.
Again, it's a matter of frequency. I'm pretty much ambivalent on the legality of hate crimes, but minority groups fear being targeted for their minority status because it actually happens with some frequency. Violent attacks on majority groups simply for their majority status happen, but it's certainly less common.

I have a better idea. You give me an example of Christians effectively "imposing their will on the rest of society". :)
Just offhand?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prop_8#Religious_organizations

I can come up with plenty more where that came from.

Your turn. How have Christians been denied the right to live their lives as they wish privately?

txshurricane

12-02-2009, 04:29 PM

txshurricane

12-02-2009, 04:34 PM

HAHAHAHAHGAHAHGASSFASDFASDFQEWAFASETjklh

Holy shit.

Yeah theres no evidence of anything remotely like that ever happening (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion). I'm sure things like Don't Ask Don't Tell, Sodomy Laws and the like magically appeared with no influence from Christians at any point as well. Hell I hear Prop 8 that stole gay marriage rights away from people in California had absolutely no connections to anything Christian. Gay rights are obviously a non-religious issue.

Just offhand?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prop_8#Religious_organizations

I can come up with plenty more where that came from.

Your turn. How have Christians been denied the right to live their lives as they wish privately?
Oh, wait...that was all because of the CHRISTIANS? Well, holy crap, I thought the country wasn't founded on Christian principles!

Come on. You're really going to blame Christians for the U.S. Constitution? Well, then, I guess we can pretty much accept the fact that the U.S. is founded on Christian principles and stop wondering why gay marriage can't pass. This truly is a Christian nation after all, right?

EDIT
Oh, whoa...late for a Christmas party. Free food and all that. I'll stop imposing laws on you burdened minorities and get me some dinner and sleep. You get 12 hours, and then I'm coming back to repress you.

Repress you, I say! There might even be an anti-gay beating involved.

MagGnome

12-02-2009, 04:38 PM

I never claimed that only gays are attacked, and I never asked for rights above and beyond those enjoyed by the majority of those living in this country. I don't understand why anyone would claim as such.

ShivaX

12-02-2009, 04:41 PM

Come on. You're really going to blame Christians for the U.S. Constitution? Well, then, I guess we can pretty much accept the fact that the U.S. is founded on Christian principles and stop wondering why gay marriage can't pass. This truly is a Christian nation after all, right?

Um... I'm pretty sure an Ammendment passed in 19-fucking-19 has nothing to do with the founding fathers. And I'm damned sure something that happened this fucking year didn't either.

Not to mention the whole "the founding fathers were all Christian" schtick gets old anyway. Most of them were Freemasons and many were outspoken agnostics if not outright atheists.

ShivaX

12-02-2009, 04:45 PM

Slack3r78

12-02-2009, 04:48 PM

Some of you are still missing the point. I used "Christian" because it pertained directly to me, I wasn't drumming up sympathy.

By the way, here are some interesting stats to talk about:
2006 - http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2006/table7.html
2007 - http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/table_07.htm

These numbers all support the hypothesis that minority groups suffer attacks at a far higher rate than any majority group. Take a look at the religion-motivated attacks -- just shy of 9% of attacks are on Christians, even though over 75% (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html) of the population identifies as Christian.

Oh, wait...that was all because of the CHRISTIANS? Well, holy crap, I thought the country wasn't founded on Christian principles!

Come on. You're really going to blame Christians for the U.S. Constitution? Well, then, I guess we can pretty much accept the fact that the U.S. is founded on Christian principles and stop wondering why gay marriage can't pass. This truly is a Christian nation after all, right?
That's an impressive strawman you've set up there.

You've also still yet to answer my original question.

Vigil80

12-02-2009, 04:51 PM

I am absolutely going to regret being associated in any way with this thread, but it's just staring me in the face like the red terrain from Mirror's Edge.

Some of you are still missing the point. I used "Christian" because it pertained directly to me, I wasn't drumming up sympathy.
Yeah your stats totally support your case:

I mean Protestants get beat up almost 1/18th as much as Jews do for being Protestants!

Heck they only get beat up on 1/22th as much as gays!

Its totally equal and the same!
Some of you are still missing the point.

I know it's the best button to push at the moment, but the point is not to focus on the Christian numbers alone.

At any rate...
It's the kid's right to not say the pledge. Something like that should not be mandated by a government institution.
It's also true that he's in the fifth grade and doesn't know shit about shit. If it were a cause near to my heart he was parroting about, I would probably be a little insulted.
Finally, as far as the government is concerned, I don't see much reason why people in general shouldn't be able to be as _____ as they want.

txshurricane

12-02-2009, 04:57 PM

You've also still yet to answer my original question.
Argh. Don't you know hours d'oeuvres are waiting? Okay, fine, one more...

Your original question was in regards to Christians and you wanted me to give an example of how they are kept from living unintruded private lives, right?

My answer is that you apparently missed what being a Christian is all about. Proselytizing is what most religions were created for.

Slack3r78

12-02-2009, 04:59 PM

I am absolutely going to regret being associated in any way with this thread, but it's just staring me in the face like the red terrain from Mirror's Edge.

I know it's the best button to push at the moment, but the point is not to focus on the Christian numbers alone.
The problem is statements like this:
You don't see people crying "he was killed because he was a Christian" every time a Christian is killed. But almost every time a minority is killed by someone different than them, the victim's community cries "hate crime". People are killed; no reason is worse nor better than another. That's all I'm saying.

You can't simply dismiss minority persecution with "it happens to group X, too!" Is it bad when it happens to majority groups as well? Absolutely. But it happens at such a low rate in comparison that it's hardly the norm, and the numbers bear that out.

I mean, if we want to look at race instead -- whites are the victims of something like 18% of racially motivated attacks according to those numbers, despite representing nearly 80% of the population. The rate of violence against majority groups compared to minority groups is nearly inverse compared to their makeup of the population.

I understand what tx is saying, but I also think his point is based on a fundamentally broken premise.

MagGnome

12-02-2009, 05:02 PM

This thread has become truly magical.

Slack3r78

12-02-2009, 05:02 PM

Your original question was in regards to Christians and you wanted me to give an example of how they are kept from living unintruded private lives, right?

My answer is that you apparently missed what being a Christian is all about. Proselytizing is what most religions were created for.
So your answer is that Christians have had their private lives intruded upon by not being allowed to intrude upon the private lives of others wholesale? I really want to make sure I'm understanding you here.

Serapth

12-02-2009, 05:04 PM

You can't simply dismiss minority persecution with "it happens to group X, too!" Is it bad when it happens to majority groups as well? Absolutely. But it happens at such a low rate in comparison that it's hardly the norm, and the numbers bear that out.

But, nobody does... I mean, its not like its legal for beating up gays or jews, or you get a lesser sentence then if you beat up a majority.

Not that I agree with TSX, i just abhor thought crimes.

Vigil80

12-02-2009, 05:07 PM

Not that I agree with TSX, i just abhor thought crimes.
...I saw that. ;) That's... kind of sad.

Slack3r78

12-02-2009, 05:08 PM

Not that I agree with TSX, i just abhor thought crimes.
Like I said, I'm very ambivalent about the legal nature of hate crimes, personally. I think they definitely happen, but I lean toward providing any extra legal sanction against them because, like you say, it essentially creates a class of thought crime.

Vigil80

12-02-2009, 05:10 PM

Serapth

12-02-2009, 05:13 PM

It's interesting to note that at least three threads on the first page of P&R are more or less explicitly about "damn those Christians!" I wonder what other groups a person could start threads about before an uprising would occur...

This has not been lost on me. As i've said to someone else, this forum is becoming fairly anti-Christian.

Slack3r78

12-02-2009, 05:22 PM

This has not been lost on me. As i've said to someone else, this forum is becoming fairly anti-Christian.

You know, I wonder if it might not be a good idea to go back to the policy we had at the old forum of minimizing the editorializing in thread titles and OPs? It'd help to address a lot of my concern about threads that are opened with an intentionally inflammatory bent.

I mean, threads are going to go in whatever direction the posters take them in, but it'd help a lot not to have threads with titles like "X are morons/idiots/evil."

Generation ABXY

12-02-2009, 07:04 PM

Ink Asylum

12-02-2009, 07:14 PM

Recognizing that gays are subject to more targeted attacks than other groups doesn't have to mean hate crimes legislation. There are other, more long term, ways to address the problem. One of those is granting gays the same rights that straights have, including marriage. When gays aren't relegated to a "separate but equal" institution like marriage they become that much less "other" in the eyes of society.

It's a slow process, but as attitudes towards gays over recent generations show, it's eventually successful.

ShivaX

12-02-2009, 08:06 PM

Although I don't agree with txshurricane or Serapth on everything, I'm another who hates classifying so-called hate crimes. At the very least, I think most every crime shows a lack of compassion, and that alone should be more than enough to warrant the highest punishment possible in my book.

I'm actually with you on this.

The whole Thought Police thing is bullshit. If you think someone is getting off too light for a crime they did out of hate, then maybe the punishment for the crime is just too light.

If I go downtown and beat the shit out of someone for being gay and go to jail thats the way it should be. If I go downtown and beat the shit out of someone for being there, thats also the way it should be. I shouldn't do more time because I hate gay people or because I don't hate guys who happen to be standing there.

MagGnome

12-02-2009, 08:31 PM

I believe that the punishment should fit the crime. I think that a lot of punishments for crimes in the US are skewed, with some crimes being punished far too severely and others not nearly enough.

I haven't completely made up my mind on hate crimes legislation, but like Ink said I think it somewhat misses the point. We can recognize that gays are targeted for attacks without raising those crimes to a special level. Equal rights and more tolerance are the goals that we should be pushing for.

txshurricane

12-02-2009, 10:24 PM

So your answer is that Christians have had their private lives intruded upon by not being allowed to intrude upon the private lives of others wholesale? I really want to make sure I'm understanding you here.
No, I'm saying that your question isn't really valid because I don't believe that Christians - in general - have as much a concern for privacy as other groups may. Scandals aside, we pretty much broadcast what we believe and how we run our household.

Maybe that would change if the Christian family unit and values weren't commonly accepted. But for now, it's not the Christians that are fighting for private lives...if anything, many Christians are using the law to proselytize. Does that make more sense? :confused:

We can recognize that gays are targeted for attacks without raising those crimes to a special level.
That's basically what I was saying when I posted this (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showpost.php?p=428580&postcount=169). Except that I was not just referring to the justice system but also the publicity of the crime...hate crimes are no more horrendous than the same crime committed against somewhat who's not a minority. For some reason that conjured up three pages of bickering.

alienmastermind

12-03-2009, 06:21 AM

My answer is that you apparently missed what being a Christian is all about. Proselytizing is what most religions were created for.

Except Buddhism. In fact, that guy asked that Buddhists not build statues of him after his death, not to memorialize him into an icon.

Also, I'd say that proselytizing isn't what Christianity is about, it's evangelism. Portraying yourself in such a way that people see Christ in you, and want to live that way, not active recruitment.

Sharing the Good News with people isn't about the end game, or at least, according to Paul it shouldn't be. You should share this news by the way you live, not just by telling the story. By showing that through grace, your life, no matter the status, has been saved. Not condemning people for not following your path, or, as Jesus put it 'pointing out the motes in people's eyes'.

Being smug isn't the same as being saved.

But during the Dark Ages, these things became superstitions regarding the afterlife, that without faith, you are destined for eternal damnation. Most recruitment these days revolves around two things: Money and Guilt. Join the church to be as wealthy as a church leader or the 'Christians' at the weekly fashion show. Or, feel so bad about the things you've done to give it all to the church.

Because the Catholics began a movement of proselytizing during the Inquisition, everyone thinks this should be the church's modus operandi. I disagree, but when you say 'most religions' were established to gather followers, I'd suggest you read the books they're based on.

alienmastermind

12-03-2009, 06:27 AM

If I go downtown and beat the shit out of someone for being gay and go to jail thats the way it should be. If I go downtown and beat the shit out of someone for being there, thats also the way it should be. I shouldn't do more time because I hate gay people or because I don't hate guys who happen to be standing there.

But your intent should be looked at. Also, one guy beating up another guy in any situation, for any reason isn't a hate crime by most people's standards. Now, if this violent tard-fuck we're talking about got a bunch of his violent-tard fuck friends together and beat the shit out of the guy because he was gay, and he ended up permanently disabled, I think that's where people start talking about 'hate crimes'.

Dragging a guy behind the tard-fuck's truck after the tard-fucks beat the shit out of him because he's gay is more than just a guy beating a guy up. And that's of course what we're talking about. Hate crimes go both ways as well. In my state, there's a white kid who was beat up by a gang of black kids for being white, and the black kids had a higher sentence for it.

Serapth

12-03-2009, 07:08 AM

You know, I wonder if it might not be a good idea to go back to the policy we had at the old forum of minimizing the editorializing in thread titles and OPs? It'd help to address a lot of my concern about threads that are opened with an intentionally inflammatory bent.

I mean, threads are going to go in whatever direction the posters take them in, but it'd help a lot not to have threads with titles like "X are morons/idiots/evil."

I tend to agree.

MachEnergy

12-03-2009, 08:23 AM

I really didn't want this discussion to become so focused on Christianity, but as it seems most controversial subjects these days boil down to it, it is inescapable. Without any sort of attempt to insult, I am genuinely curious about most people's decisions regarding their religion. If it isn't too personal, txshurricane, would you mind telling me why you are Christian, and why you are so willing to openly provoke and be the scapegoat of the thread?

Vigil80

12-03-2009, 11:22 AM

I think provocation might be in the eye of the beholder. That's all I'll say for now. :)

MachEnergy

12-03-2009, 11:55 AM

I think provocation might be in the eye of the beholder. That's all I'll say for now. :)

Isn't it always?

But honestly, how is this not provocation?:
I'll stop imposing laws on you burdened minorities and get me some dinner and sleep. You get 12 hours, and then I'm coming back to repress you.

Repress you, I say! There might even be an anti-gay beating involved.

Just because it is intended as humor, statements like these don't become any less provocative. If we were talking about black people, and lynching was made light of, would that also be an acceptable form of public humor?

I know that the world will never be rid of bigotry, so don't think that I'm on a crusade here. In this country, people are still racist against black people. People are still sexist against women. Yet those two previously oppressed groups have been granted elevated status, and the tolerance for persecution has dropped immensely in the past 50 years. Most of us get embarrassed when our older relatives use derogatory slang about minority groups, but we slough it off because we know that they were raised in a different time. I am extremely confidant that this will happen with homosexuals, one day. Most of us will be embarrassed with how things used to be, and we will treat them with a level of equality unlike anything today. There will still be people who don't believe gays deserve the elevated status they are most certainly going to attain, but much like today's racism/sexism, it will at least be better for them than it was in their past.

I'm not trying to change txshurricane here, and he's made it quite clear that he doesn't feel he needs to. I only want to try and understand his situation a bit better. Why? I'm just a curious person! I also was raised as a very active member of the church, but decided to go my own way, at the risk of becoming the black sheep in my own family. I can't help but be curious of other people's religion and their reasoning behind it.

And just so I don't seem like some sort of humorless prude: I'm 3/4ths Irish, and my family has abundant Irish pride. The Irish were incredibly oppressed during the makings of this country, especially around New York, where the majority of them immigrated into. They endured some pretty horrific treatment (if you don't know, look it up), and yet despite my pride I am able to laugh at the many jokes that are made at the Irish's expense. My parents get pissed off if you talk about drinking an "Irish car bomb", and I'm quite the opposite. Humor can heal the wounds of the past. But much like black people using the "N" word, it's much funnier when it comes from our own, and not so much when it comes from strangers. I project that feeling onto current day minorities, and I feel I have all the right.

[gasp....wheeze....whew!] Apparently I will see your 18 words, and raise you 500! :D

Ultima Thulian

12-03-2009, 12:05 PM

Just because it is intended as humor, statements like these don't become any less provocative. If we were talking about black people, and lynching was made light of, would that also be an acceptable form of public humor?

Yes. Well, what is "acceptable" is subjective, but with American making it keeps its anal sphincter overly tight, what is becoming acceptable is decreasing rapidly.

But personally, I think anything is fine to joke about. It's a matter of context, not source.

Also, you mention that in the last 50 years blacks and women have reached elevated status and are generally treated better. You know that applies to gays too, right?

As for Irish Car Bombs...mmmMMMmmm...they are so yummy. :D

Serapth

12-03-2009, 12:09 PM

Yes. Well, what is "acceptable" is subjective, but with American making it keeps its anal sphincter overly tight, what is becoming acceptable is decreasing rapidly.

Bullshit.

America is becoming more liberal by the minute, anyone that argues otherwise is delusional or forgets the past. Hate on the state of your country as much as you want, but keep a sense of perspective about it.

The rights, standards and protections of minorities, and the size and/or definition of who composes minority groups, is leaps and bounds beyond what it has ever been in your countries history.

Serapth

12-03-2009, 12:11 PM

my family has abundant Irish pride.

Irish pride, whats that? Is that like French tenacity, English cuisine or German humour?

:D

MachEnergy

12-03-2009, 12:13 PM

MachEnergy

12-03-2009, 12:20 PM

Irish pride, whats that? Is that like French tenacity, English cuisine or German humour?

:D

Either way, it's probably unhealthy. ;)

txshurricane

12-03-2009, 12:20 PM

Mach, I'll get back to you on that. I'm in my truck and shouldn't be typing, but I wanted you to know that I'm reading and will get you a proper answer when I get a chance.

Serapth

12-03-2009, 12:21 PM

I think Ultima was more referring to political correctness, and if so, I would agree on that count. But in terms of social roles, you are correct in that social rights grow.

It would seem that social rights and personal rights are natively inverse of each other.

Actually, no matter how you want to interpret his words, I call bullshit. Even socially, the American population is becoming more tolerant and permissive than ever. The only difference is, the far left and right are becoming more stratified and loud.

Serapth

12-03-2009, 12:25 PM

Either way, it's probably unhealthy. ;)

Tis somewhat amusing though that I can dump on the Irish, Germans and French all in one post and nobody would bat an eye. I mean, its not exactly like say, the IRA is an old healed over wound.

Slack3r78

12-03-2009, 01:38 PM

No, I'm saying that your question isn't really valid because I don't believe that Christians - in general - have as much a concern for privacy as other groups may. Scandals aside, we pretty much broadcast what we believe and how we run our household.

Maybe that would change if the Christian family unit and values weren't commonly accepted. But for now, it's not the Christians that are fighting for private lives...if anything, many Christians are using the law to proselytize. Does that make more sense? :confused:
Somewhat, but I still find it a fairly curious line of reasoning, especially when seen from a libertarian perspective. In fact, what I was specifically arguing was that Christian use of the law as a proselytization tool is denying others their right to live to their choosing.

Also, I don't mean private life as anything hidden, but rather as what a person does that doesn't really affect outside parties. When we have situations where people are denied visitation to their dying spouses in the hospital, we're not just talking about a minor inconvenience, but a serious invasion of that person's private life. I can't think of anything remotely similar that's been imposed upon any majority group in this country.

Slack3r78

12-03-2009, 01:40 PM

Tis somewhat amusing though that I can dump on the Irish, Germans and French all in one post and nobody would bat an eye. I mean, its not exactly like say, the IRA is an old healed over wound.

You know who I've found to be unbelievably touchy? French Canadians. I once set a guy off on like a 4 hour rage on a CS server just by using the word "frenchies" in chat. I noticed a thread the other day on reddit where somebody made a similarly mild joke about French Canadians and had them coming out of the woodworks to defend themselves/attack him. It's surreal.

MachEnergy

12-03-2009, 01:40 PM

Vigil80

12-03-2009, 01:59 PM

Actually, no matter how you want to interpret his words, I call bullshit. Even socially, the American population is becoming more tolerant and permissive than ever. The only difference is, the far left and right are becoming more stratified and loud.
I would probably argue with this, too. I don't believe that all "rights" are growing across the board. At the very least, not at the same rate.

Both parties in our two-party dominated system have things they would curb and curtail. Be careful not to assume that liberty in general is increasing just because your favorite liberties happen to be increasing. But, that's really a topic for a different thread, if it must be posted about at all.

Shieldmaiden

12-03-2009, 02:12 PM

Serapth

12-03-2009, 02:18 PM

You know who I've found to be unbelievably touchy? French Canadians. I once set a guy off on like a 4 hour rage on a CS server just by using the word "frenchies" in chat. I noticed a thread the other day on reddit where somebody made a similarly mild joke about French Canadians and had them coming out of the woodworks to defend themselves/attack him. It's surreal.

That's because the French don't want 'em and the Canadians don't want 'em.

Truth is, it all depends where the are from. In Montreal you won't find too many militants and for the most part, this true in Quebec City. In some of the rural areas ... Watch out!

LordDon

12-03-2009, 02:25 PM

Maybe that would change if the Christian family unit and values weren't commonly accepted. But for now, it's not the Christians that are fighting for private lives...if anything, many Christians are using the law to proselytize. Does that make more sense? :confused:

That doesn't make sense in the slightest, what with our melting pot of different beliefs in this country. Keep your Christianity out of the lawbooks and your proselytizing to your missionaries.

Expugnare

12-03-2009, 08:31 PM

How did this thread become about hate crimes? I don't think anyone can deny that being gay increases your chances of being discriminated/beaten. It is a higher percentage of the crime in a much smaller subsect of society. No one ever denied that every other ethnicity/religion/race has a chance of being discriminated against but it is a matter of frequency that makes it such a crucial issue for gays/Muslims/Jews and such. I don't think any gay guy is going to say, "To hell with the Jews, I need more acceptance in society!" This kid is trying to call attention to the injustices suffered by a single minority, it doesn't mean that they don't exist among others. That's like saying the American Heart Association is against the American Cancer Society because they advocate for different research.

A higher chance of being discriminated against specifically for being a minority comes with being gay. End of story. That was just another example of unequal treatment that was given, along with marriage and the others.

In other news, according to those FBI statistics, I am in the clear for the most part being a white, atheist, heterosexual male.

Ultima Thulian

12-03-2009, 08:56 PM

I think Ultima was more referring to political correctness, and if so, I would agree on that count. But in terms of social roles, you are correct in that social rights grow.

It would seem that social rights and personal rights are natively inverse of each other.

Ultima was indeed talking about political correctness, in particular this tortured euphemistic language that plagues our country. The PC culture has been growing steadily since the 80's, and that hasn't changed one bit. It's part of the grand American double-standard paradoxical existence. See also: Our views on sex, the constitution, etc.

MagGnome

12-03-2009, 08:58 PM

In other news, according to those FBI statistics, I am in the clear for the most part being a white, atheist, heterosexual male.

Your disturbing avatar makes me want to beat the snot out of you.

ShivaX

12-03-2009, 09:55 PM

Ultima was indeed talking about political correctness, in particular this tortured euphemistic language that plagues our country. The PC culture has been growing steadily since the 80's, and that hasn't changed one bit. It's part of the grand American double-standard paradoxical existence. See also: Our views on sex, the constitution, etc.

I think the whole PC thing actually has gone down quite a bit since the 90's. It was insane then. I think things like the Chappelle Show actually allowed a lot of people to relax on it a bit. I think 9/11 actually killed a lot of it as well since for a little while we realized we were all just Americans and dropped the emphasis on being Whatever-Americans. Theres still a bit of it, but compared to what it was, its really nothing. People tend to not wig out if you call people "black" whereas in the 90's it was like you were saying the N-bomb or something.