Paul Harvey's take on prayer in public/Xmas (In general, a "freedom of speech" topic)

Well let me be the first person to agree in large portion with Paul Harvey... and I assume Tal.If we are talking some mandatory prayer before every game then I might start scratching my head, but if it is just that someone reads a prayer... BFD.I was quite upset to hear that where my relatives live in west suburban IL, people have been told to remove any religious imagery from their windows during Xmas. What the ????I don't get where people displaying their faith is so hostile or offensive an act, unless it is mandated or overtly an attempt to prosyletize.That said, Harvey did show an incredible amount of ignorance regarding other religions, which is exactly what Xians ought to stop doing when they try and make arguments for their case.Also, and this is a real huge biggy, if Xians get prayers before the game, then I say I get titties at halftime! If we are supposed to not worry about other faiths and beliefs than a Janet Jackson nipple shot ought to be a-okay.I mean if we want to get into demographics, how many hot an horny guys are watching football and would like to see such things at half time? How many would agree such things are better than a dumb marching band?The fact that Xians have descended en masse to wipe out free speech in the name of their faith at football games, makes it just a little hypocritical to be whining that someone might be offended by them flashing their spiritual nipple at a game... right?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Mandatory prayer is different than customary prayer. Was it actually mandated where you were? If so, then that seems wrong. I lived and went to school right in Bible central (next to the Billy Graham Center) and we didn't have mandatory prayer.If it is a public school then that is even worse, it would be illegal. I thought this was in reference to pro football games or something, which owners could clearly mandate if they wanted to, though then I would consider it offensive, even if legal. My guess is you would generate a lot of prayers very quickly if suddenly over the loudspeakers the cry of Allah u Ahkbarrrrr was heard. Ahem... cough cough... mumbles i was in a marching band too... cough cough.They suck! Just my opinion, although they would rank higher if we could combine the nudity with the marching band.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Wow that was cool, and I was actually unaware of it. Are there counter quotes to this that are usually used by the evangelist crowd?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Haven't seen his book, but let me take a guess... A bunch of local documents from before the United States were formed, many letters not from the major players in the forming of the United States, and where it does contain things from the major players it conveniently is absent the more voluminous writings against religion in government?That's usually what I find when someone tells me to go look at this great list od "documents" which prove the US was founded on Xianity.Since you appear to know this book well, please list the top three items. Not as a test to see if you know them or not, just because I would like to know what they are. The big problem with this is that you are using "xian roots" to mean "evangelical Xianity" or even "mainstream Xianity". Most of the founding fathers, and all the top heavy hitters were deists. It has only a passing resemblance to the Xianity you are espousing.I think there is no doubt that the majority population was Xian, but of various denominations, and the United States was formed to house them and many other faiths... equally.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

What on earth does the fact that Washington survived a battle, and attributed it to providence, have anything to do with whether the US was influenced by Xianity, or even that his brand of Xianity is the same as that of today.From what I understand he, like most of the others, was a deist. The influence would be barely perceptible.By the way, do you really accept the account of a chief dropping by to talk to Washington and talking like the excerpt.Sounds like 'twas high heap big trash, aka just another cherry tree.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

You must be beating your head against the wall, if you think that response answers my question at all.I get that if the event occured, then Washington is shown to have some beliefs which are along the lines of Xianity. Indeed I will totally grant that he did have beliefs along the lines of Xianity. He was a deist which sprang from Xian roots.Okay, so what does that have to do with the subject? How does it show that the US GOVERNMENT is influence by Xian beliefs, and/or that the Xian beliefs that Washington had were anything like the Xianity you participate in.Hell, at this rate he could have been an anabaptist and you'd tell me that meant Xianity had some influence on the US gov't?Or maybe I am making a mistake here. Are you suggesting that the influence was God personally saving some of the high ranking members of the people that created this nation?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Something is seriously missing from all of this... If you start badgering someone in the US and calling them really rude names then you can be arrested. There is such a thing as verbal assault, harassment, and public nuisance.I think we have strayed a ways when we move from the KKK saying white power at a game, to shouting all blacks should die at people attending the game. I think a decent person can agree that verbal statements can be made which are very offensive and yet no one gets punished. There is a difference between someone saying something offensive and hounding a person.I think a person that cannot take hearing things which are offensive from time to time is a bit thin skinned.I think the US is a better place for being as lenient as it is.Indeed, once people start jailing people for saying something offensive all sorts of laws come out of the woodwork that I think no decent person should allow. Unfortunately the US does have this.As long as communication is not in a consistent abusive manner, then what is the harm? Are you seriously saying that you don't feel superior to anyone else? Maybe not because of race, but some other arbitrary characteristic? Of course you do, and if its sexually offended then you have many laws at your disposal. After all we can have the KKK saying white power if we want, but Janet Jackson cannot bare a nipple.Yes there are some problems with free speech in america. Would you really want no right to offend others? That sounds like the beginning of the end of any society.So if your being offended by Xians being open about their faith at a football rally can mean they get booted, you are then fully prepared to allow gays to get the axe from pride marches in the street, or participating in the St.Patrick's day parade?That would of course be the result.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

As much as I am for diversity and that includes allowing individual communities a very large flexibility in managing their affairs, I think you are making theoretical points rather than practical ones.While late 1700's allowed for very separate communities, these days everything is tied together much more and people move between communities readily. Community is a fluid thing.Perhaps what you want would have made more sense back then, but does it today?In any case it is pretty clear the founding fathers wanted religion kept as far from government functions as possible, regardless of the community.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

It is very easy to throw claims like this out into the public arena. Would you mind showing one bit of proof for this patently false allegation? This is also inaccurate. It was not solely about finances and reparations. It also created a diplomatic body in order to provide an overarching support for addressing multinational issues. Part of this was giving smaller nations a greater amount of protection than they would have normally against larger nations.I suppose I am in agreement that Bush proposes to make it a nonnecessity by bulldozing diplomacy and replacing it with winner take all. Destructive? Delay "things"? Wars you mean? Oh my.If it is not as effective as it could be, why are we not discussing how to improve it, rather than just destroying it?Frankly all of your criticisms could be made for the CIA, FBI, the US government, any State government, the US military, etc etc.If something is not effective, maybe it is time to talk about how to make it better? Or do you feel there is absolutely no point in having a world diplomatic body? Agreed, Israel literally gets away with murder and only because the rules allow the US a veto over the rest of the world. Funny how we find it horrible when that protects nations we don't like, but think it's great when it is nations we do like. Wow, those "peacekeeping missions" we run really work. Just like the "drug war", and counterterrorism operations which resulted in 9-11 and now Iraq.Again, why are we not discussing how to improve a system instead of how to destroy it? Your criticisms can be placed against anything which involves organized effort.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

You alleged that the UN was a worthless organization whose only purpose was to leach money off of member countries, keeping 95% of it to line bureacrat's pockets and passing on the remaining 5%, and then taking credit for what everyone else did.I asked you for evidence of that outlandish claim.What you gave me was this... In addition to that not even being a complete sentence, it only mentions a singular scandal that the Un is involved in, and does not suggest at all what normal UN processes are... much less proving them.Yet the problems do not end there. That not on topic nonevidentiary nonargumentative nonsentence was also a link to a FoxNEWS slander piece. As unbelievable as it is that someone would be using FoxNEWS as some sort of credible source for information, you did not even get a news story which supports your overall position.The "highlights" as you call them, contained no evidence whatsoever and instead were more allegations and innuendo. And despite the quote mining you used to get a negative portrait of the UN, you avoided perhaps the most pertinent quotes from the very people you were using to damn the UN... You also claim that the UN has been destructive. When asked what you were talking about you gave me an additional quote from that same FoxNEWS propaganda piece.Here it is again... This so insults my intelligence I am beside myself. Are you actually claiming that the US did not want to go to war with Iraq, and only had to because some greedy nations decided not to back the US in confronting Iraq and forcing it to disarm?That is in direct conflict with everything including the NEW REALITYtm we all have to buy on Iraq. I find it hard to believe that you cannot remember just a few years ago, not to mention what is being said today.The argument about forcing Iraq to comply with resolutions was the original argument the administration used. The argument from the nations Fox is currently slandering was that an invasion was not necessary to get them to comply, and would be counterproductive in the long run. In the end Iraq began to comply and then the US halted the processes called for by the resolutions in order to invade.That last fact reduces the argument that we were concerned about complicity with the resolutions to dust. Then as it turned out those "bad" nations turned out to be 100% correct. Iraq posed a threat to no one, and despite fantasies to eventually defy UN resolutions and a couple of actualized defiances regarding missile ranges, were not in material breach of anything and some of them (the most important) were fully complied with.That is when Bush trotted out the NEW REALITYtm. Remember, now the reason for the invasion had nothing to do with compliance with resolutions nor presence of WMDs, the current reason is that we needed to free the Iraqi people and form a democratic gov't there because that will cause other nations in the region to become democratic and thus end terrorism. If you check with UN resolutions you will note that none had anything to do with that.In other words Fox doesn't even care what mud they are throwing anymore and decided to use an argument which is no longer valid. You should set a higher bar than Fox. I can't believe you swallowed that.Moving on, when I pointed out that your criticisms of the UN could pertain to any bureacratic gov't agency, your reply was... What is the sound of one hand clapping?And to my pointing out that the UN has indeed let resolutions slide on some nations, which supports your position, you actually reverse your position and demand... Of course there is only one reason for this about face. The example I gave, which once again I will repeat SUPPORTED YOUR POSITION, was resolutions against Israel. Here is a page listing resolutions against Israel. It also includes a table at the bottom showing how the US has used its veto power in order to shield Israel from majority votes. This is exactly what France was criticized for doing with respect to the Iraq War. I wonder if we have a financial asset in Israel? I wonder if US politicians might have a financial interest in protecting Israel?I will point out that this information was easily obtained by googling Israel and UN resolutions.Moving on, I mentioned other failed missions by other organizations, pointing out that your logic would require shutting them down too.Your answer was this... The fact that the most successful peacekeeping mission is not UN oversighted would not mean that all UN missions are worthless.Neither does the fact that certain UN missions have failed, or resulted in some deaths, mean that all UN missions are worthless. Indeed sometimes deaths happen during armed peacekeeping missions... right? It is about preventing more death... right?Certainly the most worthless (failed) mission ever undertaken in recent history was the military mission against WMDs and terrorist organizations in Iraq. Neither even existed. Does that make all missions the US undertakes worthless?Please make your responses higher quality.(edited in: I forgot to provide you with a list of peakekeeping missions. Here is a page with a full list. You can determine which were successful or not. Clearly they weren't all failures.)This message has been edited by holmes, 01-08-2005 14:10 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)