I need to vent a little today.
It appears that a boy on my son's football team has issues with my son and a couple of his friends. The issue in a nutshell is this: He annoys the crap out of my son and his friends, and when they get irritated enough to respond he runs home and cries "their picking on me mom!"
This has been going on for years now. He needles and needles and pushes buttons and really drives kids nuts then when they get mad it's "I was only kidding/joking/playing" and cries "they're bullying me!" or something similar. It's a damn joke, the worst part about it is this: My son has NEVER even so much as pushed the kid or gotten physical with him in all this time. He has vented and told the kid on multiple occasions to "shut up", "go away" etc.
Well, the reason for my venting on this is now this kid continually needles and pushes my son and probably 10 other kids pretty regularily, from what I understand one of the kids in the group got fed up and stated " I wanna kick his ass sooo bad" and what happens?
His MOMMY calls the Head Coach of the Football Team crying about how my son and his friends shouldn't be on the team if they are going to be threatening her "little angel".. BULLSHIT! HE needles the kids and when they get fed up, HE cries about it and this is what happens? I DON'T think so, it's a damn ridiculous JOKE.
So, now the Coach has to have a "team meeting" to discuss this, and WASTE time addressing a NON-ISSUE (at least as far as I can see). What needs to happen is this: That kid's parents need to tell him to stop annoying and bothering people. He uses "I'll tell Coach/Teacher/Mommy" if the kids get irritated and he KNOWS that at a minimum Mommy will back him up. Mommy, needs to stop being an "Attack helicopter parent" and teach her kid that actions have reactions.
It's simple - Don't go round pissing people off, and people won't want to change your facial landscape.
Correct me if I'm wrong (I am often), I teach my kid to behave and treat everyone with respect and dignity. Is it TOO DAMN MUCH to ask other parents to raise thier kids with common decent values? This kids family purports to be Christian (they're Mormons) but I DON'T see it...
Thanks for letting me Vent.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Separation of Church and State? (In God We Trust)?
I found this article on the First Church of Atheism Blog. (Please go there, and donate and help them help all Atheists everywhere). I think it's relevant:
By Rev. Chris Andersen
Throughout the course of my wanderings, the subject of religion and government has occasionally reared its head in discussions with friends, family, classmates, etc. While talking about the merits and negatives of including “In God We Trust” on our currency, I noticed a common statement: “It’s just four words. What does it matter?” The same is said concerning the phrase “One Nation Under God” in our pledge. On the surface, I may agree. My worry is that it will not end at just four words. So where will it end?
Hmmm, time for a brief history lesson:
A Gospel Minister, Rev. M. R. Watkinson, sent a letter in November 1861 to the Secretary of the Treasury. This was a time when religious fervor was en vogue during the Civil War. In the letter, Rev. Watkinson pleaded his case (from one Christian to another) that U.S. currency should recognize all mighty god in some form.
An excerpt from his letter:
“… no possible citizen could object. This would relieve us from the ignominy of heathenism. This would place us openly under the Divine protection we have personally claimed. From my hearth I have felt our national shame in disowning God as not the least of our present national disasters.”
Within seven days of the original letter, the Secretary of the Treasury set about the process of devising a motto to include on the nation’s coins. In God We Trust first appeared on U.S. coins three years later in 1864. The motto’s appearance on our coins came and went… and came and went… and well, you get the point. That changed during the McCarthy period when in 1956 the President approved a law passed by Congress which made IN GOD WE TRUST our national motto. Beginning the following year, our new national motto would be printed on U.S. currency… coin AND paper.
The passing of this law came on the heels of another landmark event. Congress added the words “under god” to the pledge of allegiance two years earlier in 1954. One of the arguments of the day was that reasonable people should not object to the addition of just two words (sounds remarkably similar to what the reverend had said nearly 100 years earlier).
A decade later, government and religion were back on the front pages. The non-theist population started asserting its voice. An Atheist mother was enraged that her tax money was being used to buy bibles for public schools. Worse than that was the mandate that her son would take part in bible readings and prayer while attending school. When her son opted out, he was beaten by his classmates while the school officials turned a blind eye. The mother brought suit against the board of education. In a nearly unanimous decision (8-1), the Supreme Court agreed that mandatory bible readings and school prayer were unconstitutional.
In the years since, many have argued that the establishment clause of the constitution either does not exist or does not apply because of past precedent. What precedent you may ask? You guessed it… Government endorsement of religion on U.S. currency, Government endorsement of religion through our national motto, Government endorsement of religion in our official pledge of allegiance.
People who want religion integrated more into our government / education / society often claim that a few liberal judges have hijacked the legal system and are legislating from the bench. This argument just doesn’t hold water. Judges have pointed to the establishment clause consistently over many decades. These are not isolated cases involving a few radical judges. The dual protections of the first amendment have been cited by dozens of courts and judges over a sustained period of time. Both liberal judges as well as ultra-conservative judges have pointed to the constitutional protections in their findings.
By keeping phrases such as “in god we trust” and “under god” in our official government psyche, we keep the door open for fundamentalists to claim precedent. The fight is ongoing to bring organized prayer and bible readings back into public schools. If the religious wing manages to get that through somehow, do you think they will be satisfied? They weren’t satisfied with having coins minted with “in god we trust”. They weren’t satisfied with having a religious national motto. They were not satisfied with making every citizen in the country acknowledge a god in order to pledge their allegiance to this nation and its flag.
If they gain momentum, what will be next? Will they once again start banning any books that are not in agreement with the bible? Strike classes from school curriculum which do not conform to biblical stories? This is not much of a stretch, but what will be next? Will we start enforcing more laws from the bible? Start snuffing out any atheistic movements as well as Wiccans and Satanists? After that we may move on to tell Muslims that they have their own countries they can live in. After all, this is a nation founded on CHRISTIAN principles. If we do not stay vigilant in the protection of the separation principles of the first amendment, we could end up like the people of England before the settlement of America; being forced to adhere to a narrow religious interpretation. This may not include Mormons. It may not include Jews. It may not include Protestants if the government happens to follow catholic principles instead. It is in everyone’s — religious or not — best interest to maintain a strict separation of church and state. By allowing religion into the government business, we allow government into religious business. I don’t think anyone really wants that.
By Rev. Chris Andersen
Throughout the course of my wanderings, the subject of religion and government has occasionally reared its head in discussions with friends, family, classmates, etc. While talking about the merits and negatives of including “In God We Trust” on our currency, I noticed a common statement: “It’s just four words. What does it matter?” The same is said concerning the phrase “One Nation Under God” in our pledge. On the surface, I may agree. My worry is that it will not end at just four words. So where will it end?
Hmmm, time for a brief history lesson:
A Gospel Minister, Rev. M. R. Watkinson, sent a letter in November 1861 to the Secretary of the Treasury. This was a time when religious fervor was en vogue during the Civil War. In the letter, Rev. Watkinson pleaded his case (from one Christian to another) that U.S. currency should recognize all mighty god in some form.
An excerpt from his letter:
“… no possible citizen could object. This would relieve us from the ignominy of heathenism. This would place us openly under the Divine protection we have personally claimed. From my hearth I have felt our national shame in disowning God as not the least of our present national disasters.”
Within seven days of the original letter, the Secretary of the Treasury set about the process of devising a motto to include on the nation’s coins. In God We Trust first appeared on U.S. coins three years later in 1864. The motto’s appearance on our coins came and went… and came and went… and well, you get the point. That changed during the McCarthy period when in 1956 the President approved a law passed by Congress which made IN GOD WE TRUST our national motto. Beginning the following year, our new national motto would be printed on U.S. currency… coin AND paper.
The passing of this law came on the heels of another landmark event. Congress added the words “under god” to the pledge of allegiance two years earlier in 1954. One of the arguments of the day was that reasonable people should not object to the addition of just two words (sounds remarkably similar to what the reverend had said nearly 100 years earlier).
A decade later, government and religion were back on the front pages. The non-theist population started asserting its voice. An Atheist mother was enraged that her tax money was being used to buy bibles for public schools. Worse than that was the mandate that her son would take part in bible readings and prayer while attending school. When her son opted out, he was beaten by his classmates while the school officials turned a blind eye. The mother brought suit against the board of education. In a nearly unanimous decision (8-1), the Supreme Court agreed that mandatory bible readings and school prayer were unconstitutional.
In the years since, many have argued that the establishment clause of the constitution either does not exist or does not apply because of past precedent. What precedent you may ask? You guessed it… Government endorsement of religion on U.S. currency, Government endorsement of religion through our national motto, Government endorsement of religion in our official pledge of allegiance.
People who want religion integrated more into our government / education / society often claim that a few liberal judges have hijacked the legal system and are legislating from the bench. This argument just doesn’t hold water. Judges have pointed to the establishment clause consistently over many decades. These are not isolated cases involving a few radical judges. The dual protections of the first amendment have been cited by dozens of courts and judges over a sustained period of time. Both liberal judges as well as ultra-conservative judges have pointed to the constitutional protections in their findings.
By keeping phrases such as “in god we trust” and “under god” in our official government psyche, we keep the door open for fundamentalists to claim precedent. The fight is ongoing to bring organized prayer and bible readings back into public schools. If the religious wing manages to get that through somehow, do you think they will be satisfied? They weren’t satisfied with having coins minted with “in god we trust”. They weren’t satisfied with having a religious national motto. They were not satisfied with making every citizen in the country acknowledge a god in order to pledge their allegiance to this nation and its flag.
If they gain momentum, what will be next? Will they once again start banning any books that are not in agreement with the bible? Strike classes from school curriculum which do not conform to biblical stories? This is not much of a stretch, but what will be next? Will we start enforcing more laws from the bible? Start snuffing out any atheistic movements as well as Wiccans and Satanists? After that we may move on to tell Muslims that they have their own countries they can live in. After all, this is a nation founded on CHRISTIAN principles. If we do not stay vigilant in the protection of the separation principles of the first amendment, we could end up like the people of England before the settlement of America; being forced to adhere to a narrow religious interpretation. This may not include Mormons. It may not include Jews. It may not include Protestants if the government happens to follow catholic principles instead. It is in everyone’s — religious or not — best interest to maintain a strict separation of church and state. By allowing religion into the government business, we allow government into religious business. I don’t think anyone really wants that.
It's been a while....
So,
It's been a while since I posted anything, for that I apologize. It's been a busy few months what with football coaching (little league) and work getting in the way. Speaking of work, I transferred from one project I was managing to an account now that has me managing a group of agents that take calls raising funds for an Evangelical Christian organization. Even my boss and the CEO of the company I work for find this HILARIOUS.
The group spouts all this venom towards Atheists on a regular basis and here I am managing the group of people that answer their phones and drive donations to keep them talking their garbage. I'm good at what I do, we do well and the 'group' gets their millions. It's just ironic that I am helping them continue their campaign of hate and intolerance.
The most hilarious thing about this though is the callers themselves, they are so very deluded that it makes for some very entertaining listening. It never fails to amaze me the way the religious mind works, these people will call in, all fired up about whatever issue the organization is pushing that day and want to voice their opinions on how the country is going to hell, how terrorists are allowed to build churches or better yet how Atheists are ruining their "Christian Country" (Last I checked, the U.S was NOT Christian but rather built on the idea that the U.S would be SECULAR) -- see the founding fathers notes in history if you disagree. You know, disputing the Ground Zero Cross etc. that one always makes me laugh since it's a couple metal beams that didn't fall down and just happen to be intersecting. All the idiot Christians think it's a great sign from God. IF it were a sign from God, and that's a BIG IF, God must be a real bastard. What was he thinking? "hey let's kill 2000+ people and then I will leave a couple metal beams that intersect and all the believers will suddenly see that as a sign that I care!" Wow, and they swallow this crap...Anyway, when the agents ask these callers for a donation to support this organization the callers come back with "Well, I need to pray about it." and hang up. It's DAMN hilarious, they all want to support God and fighting these issues but have to ask GOD if he's ok with it?
Idiots!!!!
It's almost as bad as: "Hey I understand you need help, so I am going to pray for you." Why don't they just say " I know you're suffering but, hey FUCK OFF. I am not doing anything for you but hoping things get better." Wow.....
It's been a while since I posted anything, for that I apologize. It's been a busy few months what with football coaching (little league) and work getting in the way. Speaking of work, I transferred from one project I was managing to an account now that has me managing a group of agents that take calls raising funds for an Evangelical Christian organization. Even my boss and the CEO of the company I work for find this HILARIOUS.
The group spouts all this venom towards Atheists on a regular basis and here I am managing the group of people that answer their phones and drive donations to keep them talking their garbage. I'm good at what I do, we do well and the 'group' gets their millions. It's just ironic that I am helping them continue their campaign of hate and intolerance.
The most hilarious thing about this though is the callers themselves, they are so very deluded that it makes for some very entertaining listening. It never fails to amaze me the way the religious mind works, these people will call in, all fired up about whatever issue the organization is pushing that day and want to voice their opinions on how the country is going to hell, how terrorists are allowed to build churches or better yet how Atheists are ruining their "Christian Country" (Last I checked, the U.S was NOT Christian but rather built on the idea that the U.S would be SECULAR) -- see the founding fathers notes in history if you disagree. You know, disputing the Ground Zero Cross etc. that one always makes me laugh since it's a couple metal beams that didn't fall down and just happen to be intersecting. All the idiot Christians think it's a great sign from God. IF it were a sign from God, and that's a BIG IF, God must be a real bastard. What was he thinking? "hey let's kill 2000+ people and then I will leave a couple metal beams that intersect and all the believers will suddenly see that as a sign that I care!" Wow, and they swallow this crap...Anyway, when the agents ask these callers for a donation to support this organization the callers come back with "Well, I need to pray about it." and hang up. It's DAMN hilarious, they all want to support God and fighting these issues but have to ask GOD if he's ok with it?
Idiots!!!!
It's almost as bad as: "Hey I understand you need help, so I am going to pray for you." Why don't they just say " I know you're suffering but, hey FUCK OFF. I am not doing anything for you but hoping things get better." Wow.....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)