4 Feb

“…And another great day in this, the greatest country on God’s green earth.”

                                       

That is the opening and closing tagline to the Michael Medved Show. And it annoys some people. Whether true or not (and it’s true), apparently taking pride in one’s country and expressing it so blatantly and unapologetically is an offensive “no-no”. At least to some. And those “some people” I am talking about are most assuredly somewhere left of center.

While I did not find the Super Bowl Coca-Cola commercial offensive nor “un-American” like some Americans (remember the old “I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing” Coca-Cola commercial?), I do find this deeply un-American, idiotic, asinine, and blockheaded:

Students and parents at a Colorado high school are outraged after administrators turned down their request for a spirit week day honoring America because it might offend non-Americans.

“They said they didn’t want to offend anyone from other countries or immigrants,” a 16-year-old member of the student council told me. “They just really did not want to make anyone feel uncomfortable.”

Um….”not offend anyone from other countries or immigrants”?! Say what?!? If I’m visiting another country, one of the things I look forward to is that country celebrating its own culture. I find beauty in a people who take pride in their customs and express love for the land they live in. I don’t go to Japan to eat KFC and be made to feel at home by my Japanese hosts by taking me out to a Japanese McDonalds. I want to be immersed in the local culture and customs of the place I am visiting. And I would be no more “offended” by Japanese taking pride in Japan than I would an American in his own backyard celebrating the beauty of the United States.

Furthermore, how can these school officials fear offending “immigrants”? If they are immigrants, wouldn’t you expect that they are immigrating to this country to become American and would have a love of American culture and celebration? Why would you immigrate to a country whose culture and customs offends you?

The student council at Fort Collins High School had proposed having a day to celebrate the United States during next week’s Winter Spirit Week. The young people pitched “’Merica Monday” – and invited their classmates to dress in patriotic colors. Their proposal was promptly shot down by administrators.

“They said they didn’t want to be exclusive to any other country,” a 17-year-old member of the student council told me.

So in America we can’t celebrate “Americanism”? What happens at this school during the 4th of July? Multi-National celebration?

In an act of appeasement:

After the administrators rejected the day to celebrate America, the teenagers offered a compromise – “My Country Monday.”

“We opened it up to everyone – no matter what country you are from,” the 17-year-old student told me. “That got declined, too.”

~~~

The irony, said the students, is that they are required to participate in Cinco de Mayo celebrations. One member of the student council pointed out the hypocrisy – and noted that students were not being forced to dress in red, white and blue for “’Merica Day.”

“We were confused why we couldn’t do one day that was for America,” the student told me.

The parents said they are “so tired” of political correctness.

The principal at Fort Collins High School did not return my phone calls and neither did the assistant principal. A spokesperson for the Poudre School District sent me a statement acknowledging that they rejected the “’Merica Day” celebration.

“Building administration met with the students to discuss the inconsistency of this day versus the other planned theme days including PJ day and Twin day,” the statement read. “The students then suggested changing the first day to My Country Monday and administration agreed. This theme day allows students to showcase their pride in America and for international students, their country of origin.”

However, parents and students said that’s not accurate. They said My Country Monday was originally rejected last week and was only reinstated midday Monday – shortly after I called the school district and began making inquiries (a coincidence, I’m sure.)

I asked the district spokesperson to clarify their statement. The spokesperson did not return my message.

“They said they didn’t feel comfortable having a day celebrated where students might feel uncomfortable with the patriotism that students are showing,” one of the students told me.

Unbelievable. This is the United States of America. We welcome the huddled masses yearning to be free with arms wide open. But if you come to our land and take offense at our values and traditions, then as we say down South, “don’t let the door hit you where good Lord split you.”

And shame on the administrators at Fort Collins High School for treating American school children like second-class citizens.

Like the “War on Christmas”, the misguided, convoluted thinking of those crammed full of political correctness would culturally impoverish the whole world for fear of being exclusive and risk offending anyone.

If Michael Medved were, say, Canadian, and regularly expressed his love of Canada with a tagline for his radio program that “Canada was the greatest nation on God’s green earth”, why should I be offended? How does that do me damage what this person thinks? When someone expresses that “My dad is the greatest” or “My mom is the best mom in the whole wide world”, what on earth is to be gained by taking offense and arguing the point? It makes my heart glad when I hear people express such love for their own father and mother. Same holds true for a patriot for his country.

With that said, quite frankly, America is indeed the greatest, most indispensible, significant nation of consequence and the last best hope of the world. Why do I say this? Because I am an unapologetic American; and because it’s true.

As I expressed in a comment section before:

it’s also the case that conservatives are misunderstood by liberals when we rail against the concept of multiculturalism and embrace the idea of American exceptionalism.

I love celebrating the diversity and beauty of other cultures; but when it comes to being an American, I value the concept of an American melting pot and not a salad bowl where all cultures are created equal (they are not, even if it sounds like an ugly, pompous, and self-centered thing to say. Think Michael Jordan. He and I were not created equal when it comes to cultural significance to the world of basketball; yet the multicultural-type of mindset will have you believe we are both equally significant and important in our contributions to the world). I don’t want separate mini-countries (other cultures) segregated within a country (the U.S.). I prefer assimilation into established American culture. Yes, add your own unique cultural flavor to the mix; but don’t replace what’s already there with your own brand.

Celebrating America as “the greatest country on God’s green earth” isn’t about being arrogant and putting down other countries as lesser than us by doing so. When those from other countries express pride and patriotism and love of country, I think it’s a beautiful thing. It’s wonderful when people are in love with where they came from- their home, their neighborhood, their city, their school, their state…their country. It’s sad when they are not. When someone says, “my dad is the best!”, why must I argue “No he’s not” then start pointing out all of the man’s faults to prove to the son what is otherwise not the case? Those who believe in American exceptionalism aren’t denying the sins of our country; but we choose not to dwell on them- something that Howard Zinn liberals and blame-America firsters hand-wring over or over-magnify them. Not without balancing it out with what’s great about our country.

What multiculturalists want to do, as I understand them, is to claim that all cultures are created equal, have equal significance to American history, and deserve equal recognition. This goes back to my Michael Jordan analogy. It may be an idea that makes some people feel good so as not to experience hurt feelings and feelings of being “left out”; but it’s misguided. It’s the same sentiment that drives liberals to want to update American history books with a more “balanced” text by including the contributions to American history by ethnic minorities, gays, and women. What’s next? Fat people? Short people? The inclusion of a person’s role to general American history should be based upon the significance and size of their actual contribution to it- not in order to magnify the role of some and minimize the role of others just so special interest groups can feel good about themselves by who they identify with. How about identifying with Americans regardless of ethnicity, sex, and sexual orientation?

I’m sorry, but Islam had very little to do with founding this country. I’m sorry if that makes Muslim multiculturalists uncomfortable, but it shouldn’t. They should take pride in George Washington and identify with him and embrace him if they are Muslim-American. American textbooks don’t need to be updated by searching high and low for some obscure Muslim founding father and claim he had equal significance to the nation’s beginnings as Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, etc.

But this is what multiculturalists want. 13-15% of the population may be black; but if that is reflected in, say, Hollywood, they complain about lack of equal representation on tv and on the big screen (news to me that non-white actors aren’t starring in leading roles). Diversity happens naturally. It should not be forced, however. Whites, blacks, yellows, reds, Thais, Irish, Samoans, Presbyterians, Mormons, etc. did not all contribute equally to the formation of our country. The lament that most of America’s presidents have been a whites-only club is a ridiculous argument. I’ve heard some use the point as proof-positive of America’s racist attitudes! Good grief!

“Clearly, a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself.”
- Jean-Francois Revel

Ranger Up T-Shirt design

Ranger Up T-Shirt design

This entry was posted in American Exceptionalism, Anti-Americanism, Culture, Immigration, multiculturalism, political correctness. Bookmark the permalink. Tuesday, February 4th, 2014 at 10:33 am
| 1,165 views

147 Responses to “…And another great day in this, the greatest country on God’s green earth.”

  1. Redteam says: 101

    @Richard Wheeler:

    Many are rooting against Obama as many rooted against Bush.

    Obama has less chance of being successful than Denver did at the start of the 4th qtr. You can’t be a complete loser for 3 qtrs and expect to win on a miracle. Obama flung his ‘hail Mary’ a long time ago. It was out of bounds. Don’t expect an unsuccessful community organizer to play quarterback.

    ReplyReply
  2. Ditto says: 102

    @Richard Wheeler:

    Many are rooting against Obama as many rooted against Bush.

    “Many” is a meaningless concept when used in manner such as this. What is “many?” 1 billion? 100 million? 10 million? 100 thousand? 10 thousand? 1 hundred? 10? How “many” is it that you would curse with a pox? Are Bush and Obama to you no more than team leaders in some kind of absurd competition for a championship win?

    Come back to reality RW, the Superbowl’s over. Most of us are fed up with our government being played with as if it is some kind of political game. We are tired of being played as pawns, to be ignored except when being moved for some strategic advantage. Politicians in both parties are obsessed with outmaneuvering their political opponents and shoving their political agenda down Americans throat, rather than listening to what is really important to their constituents or in following the vision of a freedom guarding, Constitutionally-limited federalist* government the founders created.

    [* Federalist = meaning a system of the government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (like states or provinces). Federalism is a system in which the power to govern is shared between national and central (state) governments, ]

    I was opposed to much of what Bush wanted because he was just another progressive establishment Republican with an agenda geared predominately towards appeasing the US Chamber of Commerce and Wall Street. That doesn’t mean I was opposed to all he did, as I supported his initial reaction to 9/11. Yet, he screwed that up by dividing our forces to restart the Iraq War. He also lost my support with the Patriot Act and his eager partnership in the de-industrialization of America with even more “free trade agreements”

    I am opposed to Obama’s agenda of forceful fundamentally transforming America into the diminished Marxist vendetta of his father. I am also opposed to the Democratic party’s transforming Americans into menial serfs, beholden for their very existence to an all powerful (tyrannical), feudal-socialist State run by aloof and disdainful, elitist party overlords.

    ReplyReply
  3. Redteam says: 103

    @Ditto:

    fundamentally transforming America into the diminished Marxist vendetta of his father.

    His father? Frank Marshal Davis? Malcolm X? Marxist?

    ReplyReply
  4. Redteam
    he was one of those from MARX

    ReplyReply
  5. Ditto says: 105

    @Redteam:

    Dreams of My Father was ‘presumably’ about Obama’s birth father who was also a Marxist. Whether the others you mention may have been morphed into the father that was so loftily enshrined within the book, I can not know.

    ReplyReply
  6. Redteam says: 106

    @Ditto: Obama Senior is a possibility. He was apparently a Marxist also.

    ReplyReply
  7. Ditto
    another possibilityfor IRAN SHIPS WARSHIPS TO BE AROUND,
    what if , one on high level ranking here in the USA, has made a deal with IRAN,
    to bring some SYRIANS REBEL WHICH HE SIDE WITH , TO CROSS THE BORDERS AND COME IN HERE,
    VIA THE SOUTH AMERICA LIKE YOU MENTIONED VENEZUELA, and from there wait for the ships to leave
    back to IRAN, and come in this USA, WHAT IF THOSE SHIP ARE LOADED WITH REBELS,?
    I am reminded that he did bring around 200 family from palestine rebel, in the around 2009 to 2010, NO ONE KNEW OF IT OPENLY,I learned it from MARION BLOG I VISITED THEN A FEW TIMES, IN THOSE YEARS, a VETERAN PATRIOT,
    bye

    ReplyReply
  8. Ditto says: 108

    @ilovebeeswarzone:

    WHAT IF THOSE SHIP ARE LOADED WITH REBELS,?

    If their Iranian ships encroach into US territorial waters, I expect them to either sink or swim.

    ReplyReply
  9. Ditto
    thank you for your patience,
    the ships would unload in SOUTH AMERICA, like VENEZUELLA YOU NAME,
    or another one of those,
    BYE

    ReplyReply
  10. Wordsmith says: 110

    @Ditto:

    as I supported his initial reaction to 9/11. Yet, he screwed that up by dividing our forces to restart the Iraq War.

    What do you mean “divide our forces”? What? From Afghanistan? I don’t recall heavy units pulled from there to “restart the Iraq War”.

    What is it about the Patriot Act that you think was so egregious?

    ReplyReply
  11. Richard Wheeler says: 111

    @Wordsmith: New forces initially into Iraq.
    Argument would be, eye off the ball after early success in Afghan as we concentrated on Iraq. We let successes in Afghan slip slide away as we focused on Iraq. Certainly some movement of troops from Afghan to Iraq.

    Ditto It is one thing to disagree with the policies of our CIC be it Bush or Obama. IMO to openly and outwardly root for his failure is quite another.

    ReplyReply
  12. HE DOESN’T NEED HELP , ON FAILING, NO ONE WHISH IT ,
    HE IS PERFECTLY ABLE TO DO IT ALONE,
    HE DOESN’T NEGOTIATE OR COMPROMISE HE DOES WHAT HE WANT ,
    AND FAIL ALL THE TIME,

    ReplyReply
  13. HE HAS STEPED AND TRASH ,THE AMERICAN DREAM
    WITH ALL HIS HATE ND WISH TO PENALIZE THE OTHER PARTY,

    ReplyReply
  14. Wordsmith says: 114

    @Richard Wheeler:

    New forces initially into Iraq.
    Argument would be, eye off the ball after early success in Afghan as we concentrated on Iraq.

    The phrase “eye off the ball” as it relates to criticism on Bush always sticks in my craw.

    The only unit I’m aware of that was removed from Afghanistan during the initial invasion was the 5th Special Forces Group, sent to Northern Iraq where hundreds of al Qaeda fighters had fled to, through Iran, from their defeat in Afghanistan. The 101st, 3ID, 3rd BCT/1AD, USMC, and other heavy units were in the initial drive through Iraq and not pulled from Afghanistan. 4th ID, of course, had a bit of hold up and change in plans when Turkey reneged on initial agreement to allow it to invade Iraq through there.

    Here we go. Via Scott (whose vast research on the topic of Iraq and al Qaeda I trust):

    Al Queda largely escaped Afghanistan in December 2001, and was almost completely driven from the country in the first 3 months of 2002. When there were just remnants of Al Queda in Afghanistan, the US handed over most of the responsibility for the war there to our NATO allies, and left mopping up forces in country with the belief that relying on allies was a good idea. Then there was a 4-5 month period in 2002 when the US began to update its military strategies for Iraq, and in September 2002 (6 months after the final major battle with Al Queda in Afghanistan), the US began its military/political/diplomatic runup to war in Iraq. Partisan political opponents of the Iraq invasion called this September 2002-March 2003, 6-month period the “Rush to war,” but sometimes that term also encompasses the additional, previous 6-months during which Al Queda fled to Pakistan and the war in Afghanistan dwindled to a mopping-up operation. Only ONE U.S. military unit was shifted from Afghanistan to the invasion of Iraq (the 5th Special Operations Unit), and that unit specialized in using indigenous forces to overthrow a country covertly and with the support of air power rather than full out invasion. No other units were diverted from fighting Al Queda in Afghanistan (which had already fled Afghanistan) to the invasion of Iraq. These are chronological, historical facts that the writers of the article are either ignorant of realizing or chose to deliberately ignore for purposes of misleading.

    “We let successes in Afghan slip slide away as we focused on Iraq.”

    I can agree to that statement so long as it isn’t a total Bush blame. As Scott pointed out, and as Mata on numerous comments, our mistake was in doing what the international community approved of- handing over control of the reins to NATO. Bush called for a surge to Afghanistan toward the end of his term as Afghanistan was starting to slip. That has only worsened under the current administration. Now, can it be said that President Obama has “taken his eye off the ball” in regards to both Iraq AND Afghanistan (remember Democrats campaigning this as “the good war”) ? I think a case could be made. Iraq was not in this death spiral when Bush left office, post surge strategy and Sunni Awakening. The ball was passed to 44; so everything post 2008 is happening on his watch, since he’s the decider.

    ReplyReply
  15. Wordsmith
    you know what, KARSEI JUST DID, he open the prison of terrorist as a deal with taliban,
    he was told by the military there not to do it,
    BYE

    ReplyReply
  16. Tom says: 117

    @Wordsmith:

    Forgive the delay in response

    So then I can count on most liberals protesting nonsense like this?

    Why would I protest something I don’t know about? The reason I don’t know about it is because these incidents are exceedingly rare and incidental in nature. You honestly think this rises to a “war”? Is that not perhaps hyperbole? Just because Fox news and conservative media outlets hyperventilate about this stuff doesn’t actually prove that it has any real impact. I challenge anyone to present a compelling argument that Christmas is less in the face of the every American now than in was in Washington’s time. Americans celebrate Christmas for 30 days a year, starting on Black Friday! How anyone could possibly feel that somehow Christmas is under siege is beyond me.

    What do you make of religious expression mixed with government during the early years of our nation’s founding?

    Do you really think it’s appropriate to hold up the “early years” and how the government functioned back then as an ideal that should be blindly maintained? Where to even start. How did we treat Native Americans in the early years? Or blacks in the South? Or women? Furthermore, the idea that the Founders were by and large deeply religious in the contemporary conservative American sense is hogwash.These were men of the Enlightenment.

    How does public religious expression affect you- Tom- personally? If you were to walk by a government building that had the Ten Commandments writ on it, how does it cause you harm? Imo, it’s just so much feigned, fabricated outrage because we are told to be outraged.

    Obviously the Ten Commandments on a wall doesn’t directly do me harm. And religious iconography on the walls of public buildings in Tehran probably aren’t directly harming their citizens either. The difference is America isn’t a theocracy, so I fail to see the logic of promoting one religion over all others. The fact it makes one groups of people feel good (while making others potentially feel less than good) I don’t find to be a compelling argument for disregarding the separation of Church and State. I also fail to see the logic in the argument that it’s paying some sort of respect to the Founders, who are all dead. Who we’re actually honoring are people alive today who bear a superficial resemblance to the Founders. Many of these same people you wish to honor are more than happy to be elevated to the station of national avatars, the “real Americans”. Why would I endorse that?

    But the point is, the decorations aren’t the thing. It’s the concept that if we’re a “Christian Nation” then it follows that Christianity is a valid basis for American law, laws that all Americans, Christian and otherwise, would be compelled to abide by. The examples of this are too numerous to list in total, but here’s one that I’d like to run by you that plays into this whole “war against religion” trope:

    Read more: Kansas Bill Allowing Refusal of Service to Gay Couples Passes House | TIME.com http://nation.time.com/2014/02/11/kansas-bill-allowing-refusal-of-service-to-gay-couples-moves-forward/#ixzz2tD8327wT

    Kansas lawmakers passed a bill Tuesday that would permit businesses and government employees to deny service to same-sex couples on the basis of their religious principles. The measure passed an initial vote in the house by a significant margin, 72 votes to 42 votes. In a final vote on Wednesday, the bill succeeded 72 votes to 49 votes and will now be considered by the Republican-controlled state senate.

    So here we have what is in essence an anti-gay segregation law in the guise of a law protecting Christians, because we all know Christians are really being oppressed in Kansas! So if you want to debate how the mingling of Christianity and government impacts people, please keep in mind it’s more than the Christmas display on the village green.

    Is everything that evolves and changes for the betterment of society? Why not abandon all tradition and attachment to history and culture, then?

    I fail to see your point. Is the State’s endorsement of a tradition necessary for its survival? The First Amendment protects everyone’s right to practice their religion and celebrate their tradition. So that’s not really the question. The question is why one particular religion should be publicly endorsed by our government, contrary to the US Constitution. Because of the First Amendment, no Christian will ever be denied the right to practice their religion if we maintain the separation of Church and State. Conversely, by eroding this separation, many non-Christians will be adversely impacted by allowing right wing Christian politicians and interest groups to promote their religious moral agenda through legislation. Why would I ever advocate for the latter vision of America? Why would anyone who cares about religious freedom want one religion and its tenants legislatively promoted over all others?

    Because it was Judeo-Christian “values” and thinking of our early forefathers to this country that has made such acceptance possible. It’s “core” cultural heritage. That is what I see as being eroded, erased, and eradicated from our national character. We risk becoming a nation of many mini-nations rather than one people with diversity, yet also with core, shared values and history.

    You seem to be implying that the “culture” of the nation – the right wing vision of it at least – will be lost unless these “values” are allowed to flourish within our government. Another way of putting that is you want the government to impose these “values” upon all of us, because you want to maintain this “culture”. Our government has no role in controlling culture, in telling people how to think. The culture will go where the culture will go. The illogical conservative fantasy that change can be arrested aside, I don’t see how an argument based on nostalgia trumps a bedrock principle of our nation’s founding. I will side with Jefferson every time: “legislature” should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between church and State

    ReplyReply
  17. Nanny G says: 118

    I haven’t seen a better example of a ”the baby with the bathwater,” fallacy in a long time, @Tom:
    But then, when Wordsmith asks the logical baby/bathwater question, you say its beside the point:!

    Q
    Is everything that evolves and changes for the betterment of society? Why not abandon all tradition and attachment to history and culture, then?
    A
    So that’s not really the question.

    The fact of the matter is that many Christians have had to fight all the way to the Supreme Court for the right to practice their religion.
    I can clearly remember many of those cases that took place in the 1950′s.
    The Little Sisters of the Poor are being told right now that their Christian consciences are too sensitive and should be ignored. They are taking the right to live as Christians outside their homes and church buildings all the way to the Supreme court right now!
    So, Wordsmith is correct to wonder if ” everything that evolves and changes,” is, ”for the betterment of society.”
    “Progressives” like to believe this, but look at nature, Tom.
    Does ANYTHING continue to get better?
    No.
    EVERYTHING is subject to entropy, it rots, it dies.
    Progressives look at man-made things, like buildings, cars, planned cities and, even though they see clearly those same principles, they staunchly believe man-made ideas are exempt.
    Silly thinking, denies all reality.
    When Wordsmith commented on ”Judeo-Christian” traditions he wasn’t talking about Christmas or Easter.
    He was talking about not convicting a man on the mere word of ONE witness.
    He was talking about putting a parapet around your flat roof to protect people from falling off the edge.
    He was talking about not wiping out all of any one species for food.
    He was talking about letting the punishment fit the crime.
    He was about our legal system being about justice tempered with mercy as opposed to vengence.

    ReplyReply
  18. Nanny G
    SO GLAD YOU CAME,
    TOM is showing an immature mind, he has a long way to go yet,
    BYE

    ReplyReply
  19. Tom says: 120

    @Nanny G:

    So, Wordsmith is correct to wonder if ” everything that evolves and changes,” is, ”for the betterment of society.”
    “Progressives” like to believe this, but look at nature, Tom.
    Does ANYTHING continue to get better?
    No.

    Tell that to the cavemen, Nan. Culture shouldn’t be proscribed by the State. I’m happy to hear that people are using the courts if they feel their First Amendment Right are being infringed upon. Of course you mention that as an example of what’s wrong with America, of something that could be solved if we just embraced our (being “your”) Christian “values” as a nation en masse. That’s called Theocracy, Nan. There is a huge, gigantic, gulf between having the Right to practice one’s religion and claiming via legislation the right to discriminate against others based on your religi0n. That’s what’s happening in Kansas, Nan. How exactly is serving a gay person in a coffee shop violating one’s religious principles? Do you know in Kansas, when this law passes, a doctor will be able ot refuse to treat a gay person, and a police officer will be able to refuse to respond to call of distress from a gay person? In our society you don’t get to discriminate against others and hide behind some fuzzy religious principles shield. What if I told you that my religion forbids me from driving on the right hand side of the road, so I’m going to drive on the left, and you’re going to like it, otherwise you’re not respecting my religious principles? Not so ridiculous when you consider the laws advocated by right win religious fanatics.

    ReplyReply
  20. Tom says: 121

    @Nanny G:

    When Wordsmith commented on ”Judeo-Christian” traditions he wasn’t talking about Christmas or Easter.
    He was talking about not convicting a man on the mere word of ONE witness.
    He was talking about putting a parapet around your flat roof to protect people from falling off the edge.
    He was talking about not wiping out all of any one species for food.
    He was talking about letting the punishment fit the crime.
    He was about our legal system being about justice tempered with mercy as opposed to vengence

    What does that have to do with anything, Nan? is your point that if our legal system is mainly inspired by Judea-Christian traditions that Christians should receive a cultural royalty in perpetuity from our society? Why don’t we just fly the Union Jack in every town square, because that’s really where our legal system came from, if you mean directly. But of course you’re being selective and self-serving when you speak about honoring tradition and heritage. We can all celebrate our heritage. Nothing is stopping you. But you can’t force me to celebrate yours. Sorry.

    ReplyReply
  21. Nanny G says: 122

    @Tom:
    As long as you understand that it is the principles I mentioned above which are Judeo-Christian based and not want to throw them out as you live your protected-by-them ”secular” life here in the states, fine by me.
    It is the totally secular without Judeo-Christian restraints government that scares me.
    That was the government of Stalin with over 50 million murdered.
    That was the government of Mao with over 70 million murdered
    That was the government of North Korea with over 3 million murdered.

    And then there is the current religious leadership in Muslim lands where the punishment is way out of proportion to the crime……
    Christians are murdered, their property looted just because they are not Muslim.
    Muslim women are executed for the crime of being raped.
    Muslim men suffer amputations for petty misdemeanors.
    Little girls have their clitoruses scrapped off their bodies.

    In the US the best principles of the Judeo-Christian tradition form the basis of our legal system.
    I’m not asking you to get baptized.
    You still benefit immensely from this system.
    You would not live as free under either communism or Sharia.

    ReplyReply
  22. TOM
    DON’T LOOSE ANY SLEEP ABOUT IT, BUT CHRISTIANITY IS ALIVE AND LEADING THIS NATION
    STILL TODAY, AND GOD FORBID that they succeede to silent the CHRISTIANS, NEVER WILL
    WHY? DO YOU ONLY KNOW WHY? WELL HERE IS YOUR REVELATION,
    WHY? IT IS BECAUSE CHRISTIANITY IS A FORCE FOR EVERY THING THAT IS GOOD IN THIS AMERICA,
    that’s where WISDOM COME FROM, NO NEED FOR MORE THAN THAT,

    ReplyReply
  23. Tom says: 124

    @Nanny G:

    In the US the best principles of the Judeo-Christian tradition form the basis of our legal system.
    I’m not asking you to get baptized.
    You still benefit immensely from this system.
    You would not live as free under either communism or Sharia.

    Well, jeez, Nan, thank you so much for allowing me to live here, in your Judeo-Christian utopia. It seems easy for you to point the finger at Mao and Muslims, but the arguments made by the religious fanatics on the Christian right, such as those in Kansas, are the exact same arguments made by Warren Jeffs in his defense of “spiritual” marriage with underage girls. So is it merely secular of me to say he’s a rapist who should be locked away? Isn’t he part of this grand Judeo-Christian tradition you speak of?

    ReplyReply
  24. TOM
    HOW DIRTY, YOU PICK ONE GROUP TO PAINT ALL THE SAME FOR CHRISTIANITY,
    IS IN IT IGNORANT OF YOU,

    ReplyReply
  25. Tom says: 126

    @Nanny G:

    I’ve enjoyed this back and forth. That being said, the other thing I hope your realize, Nan , as you scold me for not appreciating the protections I receive here in the United States (the gratitude for which you seem to think should go to contemporary Christians, people who weren’t alive in the 18th century, mind you) is that you wouldn’t even have the right to vote if a bunch of people hadn’t fought against the very attitude you proudly represent. Do you think no one preached to the Suffragettes about Tradition, and Heritage, and “what the Founders wanted”? So maybe while I’m being grateful, you can find a little thanks in your heart for those progressives who ignored all that rhetorical nonsense and forced that change. Or was that just another example of things never getting better?

    ReplyReply
  26. Wordsmith says: 127

    @Tom:

    Forgive the delay in response

    Hakuna matata. :)

    I didn’t realize this thread was still active until I noticed bees’ comment in the “recent comments” column.

    ReplyReply
  27. Richard Wheeler says: 128

    @Tom: Is there any question that contemporary Conservatives believe we’d be best served to provide exclusive suffrage to landed white males? Tradition you know.
    Keep out the ill informed masses and surely prevent a repeat of 2008 and 2012.

    Enjoying the debate between Word, Nan and yourself.

    ReplyReply
  28. Wordsmith
    do you think for a minute that i would leave your name all alone to freeze,
    without putting my name over to keep it warm,

    ReplyReply
  29. TOM
    YOU SAID THANK YOU,
    AND YOURE WELCOME TO STAY AND ENJOY ,
    AND PRAY WHEN YOU WANT, OR WHEN YOU FEEL GUILTY FOR YOUR SINS,

    ReplyReply
  30. Tom says: 131

    @Wordsmith:

    Finally found some time to bring my immature mind, as Bees calls it, back here for a spirited debate. :)

    @Richard Wheeler:

    Rich, what I find most fascinating of all about our Conservatives friends is that while they reflexively fight any change, twenty years later they always claim to have been for it. Give it a little more time and they were not only for it, they made it happen (and, of course, the Liberals were against it). This fascinating inconstancy between alleged past deeds and current behavior seems to be a giant blind spot for them. This is how they can simultaneously claim credit for ending Jim Crow and bringing about Civil Rights, while trying to dismantle the very Civil Rights Acts they take credit for.

    ReplyReply
  31. TOM
    IF THE DEMOCRAT TELL YOU THEY DID IT THEY LIED AS USUAL,
    THAT’S WHY YOU’RE SO CONFUSE, YOU DON’T KNOW BUT THAT’S WHAT THEY WANT,
    THE CONSERVATIVES DON’T NEED TO LIE EVER,
    YOU CAN BELIEVE THEIR WORD AS GOLD,

    ReplyReply
  32. Richard Wheeler says: 133

    @Tom: There it is.
    Suspension of disbelief. A true sacrifice of reason and logic.

    ReplyReply
  33. Richard Wheeler
    I was thinking the same thing about you,
    YES?

    ReplyReply
  34. TOM
    don’t forget to always ask what side is your TEACHER,
    I suspect he or she is a liberal, if so, they have gone to the indoctrination school’

    ReplyReply
  35. Nanny G says: 136

    @Tom: [My] Judeo-Christian utopia. It seems easy for you me to point the finger at Mao and Muslims, but the arguments made by the religious fanatics on the Christian right, such as those in Kansas, are the exact same arguments made by Warren Jeffs in his defense of “spiritual” marriage with underage girls. So is it merely secular of me you to say he’s a rapist who should be locked away? Isn’t he part of this grand Judeo-Christian tradition you I speak of?

    On August 9, 2011, Jeffs was convicted on two counts of sexual assault of a child[56] and sentenced to life in prison.[10][57] Jeffs, Texas Department of Criminal Justice #01726705, will be eligible for parole on July 22, 2038.
    If this is the Judeo-Christian theocracy you seem so fearful of WHY did this man’s peers put him behind bars for probably as long as he is going to live, Tom?
    You seem to equate fringy arguments that NEVER get traction in the US despite its Judeo-Christian basis in law, to the mass murderings of leaders of governments where the Judeo-Christian basis for law is not followed.
    That’s so weird.
    You actually believe all Christians think alike.
    Did you know there are many Christians who do not celebrate Christmas?
    Most do not celebrate St. Valentine’s Day or Halloween.
    Many are pro-choice.
    You seem to have no idea about what the UNDERPINNINGS of our legal system are and how much YOU benefit from Judeo-Christian standards within that.
    How about….
    All humans are said to be created equal
    Parents should be respected and taken care of
    People should enjoy the fruits of their labors
    Stealing, murdering, raping, lying are wrong
    Bearing false witness is wrong
    An accused is to have a trial and sentence should fit the crime

    ReplyReply
  36. TOM
    HAPPY SAINT VALENTINE DAY TOMORROW,

    ReplyReply
  37. Nanny G says: 138

    @Tom: Women in New Jersey had the right to vote from 1776-1807.
    Women voted in Wyoming in 1870.
    Women voted in Illinois in 1869.
    Women voted in Kansas in 1880.
    I could go on with the history lesson, but one point:
    MY family didn’t come to the USA until 1940.
    My dad immediately began serving in the military.
    Mom took work.
    They were overjoyed simply to be allowed to live – after getting out of a communist USSR.

    ReplyReply
  38. Nanny G
    you are a super human we benefit from your comment each time,
    thank you for giving your knowledge so freely,

    ReplyReply
  39. Redteam says: 140

    @Tom:

    This is how they can simultaneously claim credit for ending Jim Crow and bringing about Civil Rights, while trying to dismantle the very Civil Rights Acts they take credit for.

    obviously History is not your strong suit.

    ReplyReply
  40. Tom says: 141

    @Nanny G:

    You seem to equate fringy arguments that NEVER get traction in the US despite its Judeo-Christian basis in law, to the mass murderings of leaders of governments where the Judeo-Christian basis for law is not followed.
    That’s so weird.

    Well, Nan, please slow down. You haven’t established at all that a rigorous separation of Church and State will lead to Stalinism or Maoism. Not in the slightest. You are forgetting that they didn’t have the First Amendment freedom of religion. The fact that that isn’t enough for you is besides the point. I highly doubt not throwing tinsel all over the town green in December is the tipping point into a dystopia.

    You actually believe all Christians think alike.
    Did you know there are many Christians who do not celebrate Christmas?
    Most do not celebrate St. Valentine’s Day or Halloween.
    Many are pro-choice.

    Not at all. The fact of the matter is, Nan, the Christians you speak of aren’t the Christians trying to, for example, discriminate against gays in Kansas. Most Christians have no interest in supporting the activist Christian Right’s constant legislative attempts to roll back person freedoms and libertys by legislating their religion for all. Most Christians don’t think people not exactly like themselves are going to hell or that the End of Times is nigh. Those are the people, the religious zealots, whom most Christian want as far away from control of our government as possible. It’s amazing to think that the Republican party actually nominated one of them for VP of the US six years ago, and that several more were in the running against Romney. What is wrong with these people and their inability to understand, we – the non-extremists – don’t give a rat’s a*s about their religious views?

    ReplyReply
  41. TOM
    i think you are extremist’ all your word demonstrate it’
    definitely not anything else.

    ReplyReply
  42. Richard Wheeler says: 143

    : @Nanny G:” Most Christians don’t celebrate Valentines Day.” Tell that to my wife and the girls I’ve dated over the past 50 years. Jeez, now I know you’re an extremist.lol

    Happy Valentines Day to all that are celebrating–especially you Bees.

    ReplyReply
  43. Richard Wheeler
    THANK YOU,
    AND I.LL FORGIVE YOU FOR THAT,

    ReplyReply
  44. Redteam says: 145

    @Richard Wheeler:

    Most Christians don’t celebrate Valentines Day

    I don’t think it is celebrated as a religious holiday, Christian or otherwise. I think it’s more a girlfriend or wife holiday.

    ReplyReply
  45. Wordsmith says: 146

    @Tom:

    Why would I protest something I don’t know about? The reason I don’t know about it is because these incidents are exceedingly rare and incidental in nature. You honestly think this rises to a “war”? Is that not perhaps hyperbole?

    These “incidents” are occurring all the time and only seem “rare” because 1) It’s news that doesn’t interest you as “newsworthy” and 2) Is more localized news than national headline news.

    All these “little incidents” they all have amounted to a slow erosion over the last 80 years of a cultural transformation that isn’t allowed to evolve naturally on its own, but rather through ACLU lawsuits and threat of lawsuits.

    Just because Fox news and conservative media outlets hyperventilate about this stuff doesn’t actually prove that it has any real impact.

    You don’t see the cultural changes? I’ve been alive for 4 decades and the changes are noticeable to me.

    That’s significant.

    I challenge anyone to present a compelling argument that Christmas is less in the face of the every American now than in was in Washington’s time.

    In Washington’s time, Christmas was less significant. :)

    But religious faith- especially Christianity in all its various denominations- was significant. Christmas celebration- in all its secular and religious trappings- became part of the fabric of our national culture and heritage.

    Americans celebrate Christmas for 30 days a year, starting on Black Friday! How anyone could possibly feel that somehow Christmas is under siege is beyond me.

    Can you tell me what your views are toward Christmas, Christianity, and religion in general? The “Separation of Church and State” and the Establishment Clause? Do you have a problem with such things as the Mount Soledad Cross?

    What do you make of religious expression mixed with government during the early years of our nation’s founding?

    Do you really think it’s appropriate to hold up the “early years” and how the government functioned back then as an ideal that should be blindly maintained? Where to even start. How did we treat Native Americans in the early years? Or blacks in the South? Or women?

    How you interpreted that blockquote in such a distorted manner of trying to analogize is beyond bizarre. I asked you a question about apples and you respond about what irks you about nuts and berries.

    I suppose if I were to psycho-analyze your response, it’s that you see the early Founders mixing of government and religious expression as equivalent to bigotry, gender inequality, slavery, and imperialism.

    Furthermore, the idea that the Founders were by and large deeply religious in the contemporary conservative American sense is hogwash.These were men of the Enlightenment.

    Uh…please define what that “contemporary conservative American sense” is; because what I think is hogwash is your misinterpretation of the comparison.

    Obviously the Ten Commandments on a wall doesn’t directly do me harm. And religious iconography on the walls of public buildings in Tehran probably aren’t directly harming their citizens either.

    Why the comparison, Tom? Iran is a theocratic republic. The U.S. isn’t.

    The difference is America isn’t a theocracy, so I fail to see the logic of promoting one religion over all others.

    It isn’t about one religion over others; it’s about the cultural significance one group has had in shaping this country prior to the multiculturalist diversity mindset that has attempted to minimize and strip down American cultural heritage.

    America was shaped in large part by white, Europeans. Majority cultural heritage and influence has come by way of Judeo-Christian values and principles. But the cultural narcissism of the politically correct left wants to promote all cultures as equal in cultural significance and contributions to this nation. It is cultural fabrication.

    The fact it makes one groups of people feel good (while making others potentially feel less than good) I don’t find to be a compelling argument for disregarding the separation of Church and State.

    I just don’t get what is so difficult for you and those like you to “get it” that conservatives believe in a secular government even if they claim “Christian nation”. What is so difficult to understand what is meant by that? I- a non-Christian, non-religious conservative- GET it.

    And the phrase “separation of Church and State” is an annoyance to me, considering the political usage its had for the ACLU and the left. A distortion of Thomas Jefferson’s letter and context. It’s fooled some on your side into the belief that the phrase itself appears in the Constitution.

    I also fail to see the logic in the argument that it’s paying some sort of respect to the Founders, who are all dead. Who we’re actually honoring are people alive today who bear a superficial resemblance to the Founders. Many of these same people you wish to honor are more than happy to be elevated to the station of national avatars, the “real Americans”. Why would I endorse that?

    Why are you focused on skin color? Why is it such an obsession with liberals? I’m not white and rather than hostility toward acknowledging our cultural roots and embracing it, why the war? Why the denial? Why the desire to promote the narcissism of personal ethnic heritage and culture as somehow equal to the one(s) that actually were culturally significant to establishing this country? The one that has made it possible to promote equality, diversity, and so on?

    But the point is, the decorations aren’t the thing. It’s the concept that if we’re a “Christian Nation” then it follows that Christianity is a valid basis for American law, laws that all Americans, Christian and otherwise, would be compelled to abide by.

    Nope, not at all. Is it wrong to describe Brazil as a “Catholic nation” if majority is Catholic and if Catholicism has played a significant role in shaping history and culture?

    The examples of this are too numerous to list in total, but here’s one that I’d like to run by you that plays into this whole “war against religion” trope:

    Read more: Kansas Bill Allowing Refusal of Service to Gay Couples Passes House | TIME.com http://nation.time.com/2014/02/11/kansas-bill-allowing-refusal-of-service-to-gay-couples-moves-forward/#ixzz2tD8327wT

    Kansas lawmakers passed a bill Tuesday that would permit businesses and government employees to deny service to same-sex couples on the basis of their religious principles. The measure passed an initial vote in the house by a significant margin, 72 votes to 42 votes. In a final vote on Wednesday, the bill succeeded 72 votes to 49 votes and will now be considered by the Republican-controlled state senate.

    So here we have what is in essence an anti-gay segregation law in the guise of a law protecting Christians, because we all know Christians are really being oppressed in Kansas! So if you want to debate how the mingling of Christianity and government impacts people, please keep in mind it’s more than the Christmas display on the village green.

    That’s a tough one for me, Tom. I’d have to spend some more time thinking it through because I am convoluted with seeing both sides of the argument. I don’t have a quick response for this, so will have to set this one aside, for now. It goes into a whole separate if related area on gay marriage, civil rights, as well as religious liberty.

    What do you make of the reference to the story of the baker in Colorado at the end of that news report, though? Looking further into that one, the baker told the couple, “I’ll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don’t make cakes for same-sex weddings.” Where do we draw the balance between government interference in personal liberties and religious beliefs; and civil rights? The baker is willing to sell to the couple. Just not make a wedding cake, which he- an evangelical Christian- perceives as an endorsement of gay marriage:

    Thus, under penalty of fines and, potentially, jail:

    1. Jack Phillips must participate in an event that the Colorado constitution explicitly prohibits.

    2. He must do so against deeply held religious convictions.

    3. He must do so despite the fact that there are hundreds of other cake makers in the Denver area.

    Those who support this decision argue that religious principles do not apply here: What if, for example, someone’s religious principles prohibited interracial marriages? Should that individual be allowed to deny services to an interracial wedding?

    Of course not.

    Here’s why that objection is irrelevant:

    1. No religion practiced in America — indeed, no world religion — has ever banned interracial marriage. That some American Christians opposed interracial marriage is of no consequence. No one assumes that every position held by any member of a religion means that the religion holds that position.

    2. If opposition to same-sex marriage is not a legitimately held religious conviction, there is no such thing as a legitimately held religious position. Unlike opposition to interracial marriage, opposition to same-sex marriage has been the position of every religion in recorded history — as well as of every country and every American state until the 21st century.

    3. The Colorado baker made it clear to the gay couple — as acknowledged by the court — that he would be happy to bake and sell cakes to these gay men any other time they wanted. Therefore, he is not discriminating against people based on their sexual orientation. He readily sells to people he knows to be gay. What he is unwilling to do is to participate in an (SET ITAL) event (END ITAL) that he opposes for legitimate religious reasons. Until, at the most, 10 years ago, no one would have imagined that a person could be forced to provide goods or services for a same-sex wedding.

    4. If a baker refused on religious grounds to provide the wedding cake for a polygamous wedding, should the state force him to do so? If a baker refused to provide a cake to a heterosexual couple that was celebrating living together without getting married, should the state force him to?

    You seem to be implying that the “culture” of the nation – the right wing vision of it at least – will be lost unless these “values” are allowed to flourish within our government. Another way of putting that is you want the government to impose these “values” upon all of us, because you want to maintain this “culture”. Our government has no role in controlling culture, in telling people how to think.

    So the government isn’t controlling culture and influencing how we think? You don’t see where that happens?

    I will side with Jefferson every time: “legislature” should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between church and State

    Um…does that mean you’d also agree with Jefferson in regards to his writing of the 1787 Northwest Ordinance in which he expresses the belief that schools should teach religion and morality?

    The Danbury Baptists letter was about protecting religious liberty- restriction of one church over another but not about lessening religious expression in the public square.

    ReplyReply
  46. Wordsmith
    it”s not being racist at all to be in a store and see one trying to get his way AND INSISTING TO GET WHAT HE WANT, which the store politic or manager
    is not happy to do, THEY FROM OTHER DIFFERENT WHATEVER ARE DOING IT TO TEMPTING THE DEVIL,
    ON OTHER NOT IN THEIR OPINION BUT NEVER MENTION IT OR INSULTED ANY OF THEM,
    I HAVE BEEN WITNESS OF IT AND STAYED SILENT SO TO NOT GET INVOLVE AS A STRANGER NOT IMPLICATED, BUT IT DID SHAPE MY MIND ON THOSE WHO NOW BELONG TO A GROUP AND ON PURPOUSE GO OUT LIKE THE ACTIVIST OF ANY MOVEMENT TAUNT THE STORE OWNERS,
    THEY ARE SO OBVIOUS AND SHAMELESS, LIKE THOSE COMMING TO AN OIL FIELD WORKER PRIVATE HOME THEY WHERE CARRYING TORCHE LIGHTEN TO INTIMIDATE THE PERSON AND HIS FAMILLY,
    THEY EXCUSE THEIR ACTIONS ON ANY CAUSE THEY ADOPT AND FOR ME THEY SHOULD BE IN PRISON WHEN I THINK THEY ALSO COULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MANY OIL CARRIER TRAIN
    BURNING AT ONE ISOLATED SITE OF THEIR ROUTE, MAKING IT SO EASY FOR THOSE RADICAL ACTIVIST TO PLANT SOMETHING ON THE RAILS, BUT THEY GET AWAY WITH THAT AND NOTHING
    STOP THEM TO DO IT AGAIN ELSE WHERE IN ANOTHE TIME AND PLACE,, WHILE THEY REGURGITATE
    THEIR VICTORY ON THE NAME OF CLEAN WHATEVER AND BEING THE ONE DIRTYING THE AIR
    AND PUTTING CITIZENS IN DANGERS WITH THEIR TRICKS THAT BECOME CRIMES AND MURDER,
    SO FROM ONE GAI TO ASK FOR A WEDDING CAKE HE CERTANLY KNEW OF THAT BAKER OPINION OR WAS TOLD AND DID IT JUST TO RAISE A WAR ON GAI UNJUSTLY TREATED IS ABLE TO RUIN A BUSINESS WITHOUT BLINKING AN EYE FOR HIS CAUSE,
    I HAVE NOTHING GOOD TO SAY ABOUT THAT KIND OF MINDSET, WHICH IS SPREADING TO OTHER
    DIFFERENT CAUSE BUT SAME MINDSET, AND THEY CAN BE SPOTTED FROM DISTANCE,
    ONE SIMILAR MINION IS RONALD J. WARD, COMING HERE TO LOOK FOR A PUNCH ON THE NOSE HE KNOW TO NOT HAPPEN IN THE WEB, AND PERSUE HIS ONLY WISH TO BRING THE CONSERVATIVES
    BLOOD BOILING FOR THE SAME WAY OBAMA DOES HIS ACTIONS, ON A PEOPLE,
    THAT IS FOR REVENGE HE ALONE KNOW THE SIZE OF IT EATING HIM ALIVE AND RON THE SAME WAY WITTIN HIS MIND TO MAKE US PAY, THEIR FAILURED LIVES, AND BEING TOLD TO HATE THE OTHER NOT SHARING THEIR FUTILE DREAMS,
    AMERICA OPEN THE DOOR TO THE BEAST AND IT STUCKED HERE all over, NOT HIDDING ANYMORE FREE FOR ALL
    TO LOSE THEIR SOUL,

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>