I don't see the need to teach 5 year olds about homosexuals.
I hear this argument all the time. I recently heard it on Bill O'Reilly's Fox News show where O"Reilly argued that he didn't want to explain homosexuality to his children at a baseball game if they were seated next to a gay or lesbian couple holding hands (or kissing).
This, to me, is total BS. I have a six year old daughter who was wide awake the morning of September 11th and saw the whole thing go down...live! She didn't fully understand what was going on. But, my wife and I felt our needs as parents to try, in the best way a parent can, what had happened and why. It wasn't easy. I didn't like doing it. But, in the end, I felt my responsibilities as a parent were more important than shielding my daughter from the horrors of the world. She understood, asked a few questions and then she processed it and went back to playing...like kids do.
I equally feel that any parent who refuses to explain something far more benign than terrorism, like the realities of the world (homosexuality, death, taxes, people of other color), to their children should be ashamed of himself or herself.
To expect 10% (homosexuals) of the population to not express themselves because it might offend the 90% (the moral right) majority is as equally offensive as the moral majority demanding the minority get back in the closet, "because I might have to explain it to my kids."
What's so hard to explain? It's part of human nature and has been since the beginning of our species. It's never going to go away. There seems to be a huge demographic in this country that is so afraid of homosexuality and explaining it to their children that they fear their kids will be "corrupted" by it. That they'll be indoctrinated into the gay mafia and be lost forever. Come on! Give me a break! Explaining terrorism to my daughter isn't going to turn her into a Palestinian sympathizer suicide-bomber (oops, forgot that Fox News as re-coined the phrase "homicide-bomber"). Neither is she more prone to becoming a lesbian.
Now we're getting somewhere. Quanza is a branding of "authenticity" for the sake of Americans who have absolutely no authentic investment in "Africa." It's more of a cultural revitalization project than actually a celebration. AS practiced in the unpolluted communities of Africa, the various indegenous harvest celebrations packaged into American Kwanza certainly have a historical and cultural reach and sustained line, but American blacks are bastards.
Like Blacks in America, who ceased to be African a long time ago and cannot really choose to be African again even if it would bring them great pride. They did not come by choice, but unhappy circumstances do not change the present reality. Calling your average American black an "African" is scarely more legitmate than calling me black! It's pageantry, wishful, but not culture.
Ok so now we stoop to insults. Bastards?
You wouldn't know a "legitimate" African if one was sitting next to you.
I hear this argument all the time. I recently heard it on Bill O'Reilly's Fox News show where O"Reilly argued that he didn't want to explain homosexuality to his children at a baseball game if they were seated next to a gay or lesbian couple holding hands (or kissing).
This, to me, is total BS. I have a six year old daughter who was wide awake the morning of September 11th and saw the whole thing go down...live! She didn't fully understand what was going on. But, my wife and I felt our needs as parents to try, in the best way a parent can, what had happened and why. It wasn't easy. I didn't like doing it. But, in the end, I felt my responsibilities as a parent were more important than shielding my daughter from the horrors of the world. She understood, asked a few questions and then she processed it and went back to playing...like kids do.
I equally feel that any parent who refuses to explain something far more benign than terrorism, like the realities of the world (homosexuality, death, taxes, people of other color), to their children should be ashamed of himself or herself.
To expect 10% (homosexuals) of the population to not express themselves because it might offend the 90% (the moral right) majority is as equally offensive as the moral majority demanding the minority get back in the closet, "because I might have to explain it to my kids."
What's so hard to explain? It's part of human nature and has been since the beginning of our species. It's never going to go away. There seems to be a huge demographic in this country that is so afraid of homosexuality and explaining it to their children that they fear their kids will be "corrupted" by it. That they'll be indoctrinated into the gay mafia and be lost forever. Come on! Give me a break! Explaining terrorism to my daughter isn't going to turn her into a Palestinian sympathizer suicide-bomber (oops, forgot that Fox News as re-coined the phrase "homicide-bomber"). Neither is she more prone to becoming a lesbian.
Let me qualify my statement. I don't feel the need for teachers teaching 5 year olds about homosexuals. I thought I wrote that the first time but apparently in haste I didn't.
You wouldn't know a "legitimate" African if one was sitting next to you.
I floated that one in there just for you. Why not bastard? Is it such a bad thing? I even included myself, cut off from the mother/fatherland, not really knowing our parent countries, just like not really knowing one's parent, bastard. If it offends, so be it, perhaps there is something offensive about migrations, forced or otherwise? They become displacements whether or not that was intended, that remains what children have to live with.
Actually, my view is an extremely ecological one, there's nothing insulting about it in the lay sense, though there may be offense in a deeper sense: we are displaced and no amount of pretend will undo that. And, like bastards, we will not be wholly accepted in new communities.
Pretending to "know" your father even when you know who he is, when you only know who he is, does no make him your father anymore than before you knew of him, and so it is with lands, harsher even for many reasons...
Ena: And America was founded by White supremacist, genocidal maniacs. What's your point?
As opposed to the genocidal maniacs that kept all that fun-luvin tribal warfare going on the Dark Continent? Hey, at least we don't drink out of the other guy's skull when we get done kicking his ass!
As opposed to the genocidal maniacs that kept all that fun-luvin tribal warfare going on the Dark Continent? Hey, at least we don't drink out of the other guy's skull when we get done kicking his ass!
Imagine yourself as a place setting for one.
Damn.. i cannot rememeber the last time I had some good human brain!!
That part I'm not upset about. I'm upset about the reading of the bible in class to the five year olds. He can draw whatever the **** he wants.
Sorry that I'm so late to the discussion here, had to work and work and... well there it is..
I could understand someone being upset if the TEACHER were reading the beginning Bible to the children or if the child, unprompted, brought it to school and insisted on sharing it, etc.
The problem, and the clarification that I agree with regarding the Bush clarifications, is when input or personal opinion is sought and when discovered to be religious is told that it is not allowed or is treated badly.
Again with the public address prayers before football games, things of that nature, I can understand.
The assignment the child was given was to bring your favorite book to class and read it or a story out of it. All children brought books likely reflecting different stories, cultures, and viewpoints. The children brought and read the books to the class.
This child, because his book was could be considered religious, was not allowed to read from it. The actual story he wanted to read wasn't even religious, it was just a parable, like the Good Samaritan. (Don't say Good Samaritan though or you are advocating worship ) It wasn't even actual verses, just a child level summary.
The state advocated nothing, nor did it provide a public forum for a public group to make a public religious pronouncement. It asked one child child his opinion, heard it and the silenced him.
Matsu: I repeat you are woefuylly mis-informed on this subject. And it seems that mis-information is self imposed. Needless to say, you telling me about kwanzaa is like me tellign steve jobs about how apple is run.
Ena: And America was founded by White supremacist, genocidal maniacs. What's your point?
Giagura: There are people in Europe who do celebrate the "holiday." Though I wound not expect it to be widespread. Kwanzaa is not, and has never been, and will never be a religious holiday> Even Dr. Karenga, it's creator says so.
He says so but there are aspects that have clear religious overtones as well as clear political overtones.
Likewise when you read his messages regarding Kwanzaa they sound very religious...
Quote:
Indeed, each year we remember and repeat with profound reverence the teachings of the Odu Ifa which say "humans are divinely chosen to bring good into the world;" and that this is the fundamental mission and meaning in human life (78:1).
I understand that something being divine can just mean it is really incredible or great. However incredible and great cannot choose something.
He also advocates basically communism, but he uses a less loaded word. To me, communism is a humanistic religion.
BTW, please don't try to tell me I know nothing about Kwanzaa. I have personally met the founder and I attended Long Beach State. It is my alma mater.
He says so but there are aspects that have clear religious overtones as well as clear political overtones.
Likewise when you read his messages regarding Kwanzaa they sound very religious...
Nick
there's no contradiction here. As any competent anthropologist will tell you, traditional African cultures are steeped in their religions. There was/is no separation between 'church and state." therefore the ideology oif the people is reflected in it's religious text. That does not make Kwanzaa a religious holiday any more than us discussing religion on this board makes this the AppleInsider religion.
there's no contradiction here. As any competent anthropologist will tell you, traditional African cultures are steeped in their religions. There was/is no separation between 'church and state." therefore the ideology oif the people is reflected in it's religious text. That does not make Kwanzaa a religious holiday any more than us discussing religion on this board makes this the AppleInsider religion.
I think you are side-stepping the issue. Please understand that I would never be opposed to Kwanzaa being celebrated in schools. However if I read the statement I quoted in a school, many here would think I had just attempted to convert the student body to various pan-African forms of religion. Likewise while he declares it not religious, all aspects of it reflect a religious nature. If you take something that is steeped in religion and attempt to clean all the religion off in an attempt to make it secular, you still end up with a religion in my book, you just don't call whatever you are worshiping God. That is why I mentioned that Communism is a religion in my book. You can trace the philosophers and their quest to move from a God centered view to a human centered view.
If I say, "God will insure justice is done." He says, "The Good, will insure justice is done." He should be questioned as the the nature of "The Good." I have no doubt that he would explain it and it would sound like some combination of Hegal and Kant.
Do you support Zach's rules? You have chimed in on Kwanzaa (which Matsu is spelling intentionally wrong btw to get your goat) or do you believe that if someone drew a picture of a cross as a student, their work shouldn't be displayed for example?
there's no contradiction here. As any competent anthropologist will tell you, traditional African cultures are steeped in their religions. There was/is no separation between 'church and state." therefore the ideology oif the people is reflected in it's religious text. That does not make Kwanzaa a religious holiday any more than us discussing religion on this board makes this the AppleInsider religion.
Do you not see the indigenous bias of your argument?
By what you have said, Christianity especially stakes a claim to class time by virtue of it's historical weight. Neither in the origins of Christianity was there any seperation between church and state. "The Church" was an empire, a nation, then a pan state, and finally a relic. The Vatican, as far as I can tell, is still a state without seperation of church and state. The rhetoric of ancient phrases like, "The Holy Roman Empire" proves that a significant period of christianity saw absolutely no division between church and state. Politics and theology had to go together, and keep comming up when for example the The Spanish Catholics have to argue for the annexation of lands west of Europe, it is a legal claim steeped in theology, and similar theological arguments are made into a court, into a legal frame that does not seperate church and law in the Anglican discourse made by English colonizers.
I could very well say that Christianity, as a tradition, made no distinction between church and state, and the inclusion of elements of its worship cannot be excluded because they are inseperable from it's history/culture/politics/statecraft.
When Quanza comes up, it is not merely an information session, people practice celebrations, which you have not seperated from rituals, in fact you have only argued why they cannot be seperated and must actually be combined with other political elements. If dance, song, hymn, and art, and the making and performance and dissemination of each, while religiously themed, cannot be excluded because they are relics of broader culture, then the same argument extends to Christianity, and cannot help but be extended to it.
The logic that excludes a cross from public display, is not logic, but a paranoid reaction in the best case, and an specifically anti christian agenda in the worst. By that logic, phrases and idioms of religious origin must be extricated from public culture, Latin because of its main survival as the language of "the Church" should be written out of the science textbooks, art teachers should not hold Michelangelo's "Pieta" as a paragon of sculpture, nor the work in the Sistene Chapel, and if they do, they should take great pains to erase the specifically religious context of their creation, or their authors. No Dante, and for that matter, no Milton, certainly no morality plays, Goethe. Come on, if you want to expunge Christianity, then DO IT!
Or does it just burn you that perhaps the greatest single cultural/humanistic contribution in the history of all people is Christian?
But don't stop there, if you want to expunge one, to be fair, you've got to get them all... Neo-paganism? May be popular, but it's gotta go to, as with all reference to old paganism. Talmudic philosophers? Out, can't have religion. Can't have officers wearing turbans, can't have Shikh politicians and officials in their native dress. Can't have it, can display a cross in a public space, then why a religious dress?
You have to get past the infantile "and no religion too." John lennon hippie fantasy. Religion IS humanism, I know this, I don't even believe, and I know it... meh, what's the point?
Do you not see the indigenous bias of your argument?
you sir are waaaaaaay off point. I took issue with your misrepresentation of Kwanzaa. Not whether someone has the right to read a bible in class. Separate argument as far as I'm concerned. And my posts on the topic reflect that. You made a specific claim of the "revisionist" nature of kwanzaa. I responded specifically to that misrepresentation. your last post is irrelevant to that specific misrepresentation.
Ah ah ah, the quote I quoted had nothing to do with revisionism, just the rhetoric, an argument by you about why Quanza should be included. And it is Revisionistic, now if you want to argue that it's possibile to make good and bad revisions, which most of the revisionists argree with, otherwise they wouldn't make revisions, and I agree too, that's one thing. But the fact of Quanza's existence as an American tradition is itself a revision, or an adaptation, it is a fascimile of Africa, and I would argue, a caricature, which is what America does best. This isn't specifically anti-Kwaanza, if that's what's bugging you, America has also produced highly infectious caricatures of Christmas and Easter, and as the Jew gains acceptance, joins the nation(s), he will soon find himself a caricature of his native place. For the case of Jews it is somewhat complicated in that they were not "of the nations" and are only now establishing a nation-state which will compete for a place as the authentic product. It's easier to caricature something more rooted, but it is possible even now to make Woody Allen out of the perpetual outsider.
Ah ah ah, the quote I quoted had nothing to do with revisionism, just the rhetoric, an argument by you about why Quanza should be included. .
i made no such argument. I neither said i was for or against kwanzaa being included. i did make a comment of voudun, but not kwanzaa. You brought up Kwanzaa in your argument for or against inclusion of other religious observances. I pointed out that Kwanzaa was neither revisionist or a religion.
Comments
Originally posted by BR
I don't see the need to teach 5 year olds about homosexuals.
I hear this argument all the time. I recently heard it on Bill O'Reilly's Fox News show where O"Reilly argued that he didn't want to explain homosexuality to his children at a baseball game if they were seated next to a gay or lesbian couple holding hands (or kissing).
This, to me, is total BS. I have a six year old daughter who was wide awake the morning of September 11th and saw the whole thing go down...live! She didn't fully understand what was going on. But, my wife and I felt our needs as parents to try, in the best way a parent can, what had happened and why. It wasn't easy. I didn't like doing it. But, in the end, I felt my responsibilities as a parent were more important than shielding my daughter from the horrors of the world. She understood, asked a few questions and then she processed it and went back to playing...like kids do.
I equally feel that any parent who refuses to explain something far more benign than terrorism, like the realities of the world (homosexuality, death, taxes, people of other color), to their children should be ashamed of himself or herself.
To expect 10% (homosexuals) of the population to not express themselves because it might offend the 90% (the moral right) majority is as equally offensive as the moral majority demanding the minority get back in the closet, "because I might have to explain it to my kids."
What's so hard to explain? It's part of human nature and has been since the beginning of our species. It's never going to go away. There seems to be a huge demographic in this country that is so afraid of homosexuality and explaining it to their children that they fear their kids will be "corrupted" by it. That they'll be indoctrinated into the gay mafia and be lost forever. Come on! Give me a break! Explaining terrorism to my daughter isn't going to turn her into a Palestinian sympathizer suicide-bomber (oops, forgot that Fox News as re-coined the phrase "homicide-bomber"). Neither is she more prone to becoming a lesbian.
Originally posted by Matsu
Now we're getting somewhere. Quanza is a branding of "authenticity" for the sake of Americans who have absolutely no authentic investment in "Africa." It's more of a cultural revitalization project than actually a celebration. AS practiced in the unpolluted communities of Africa, the various indegenous harvest celebrations packaged into American Kwanza certainly have a historical and cultural reach and sustained line, but American blacks are bastards.
Like Blacks in America, who ceased to be African a long time ago and cannot really choose to be African again even if it would bring them great pride. They did not come by choice, but unhappy circumstances do not change the present reality. Calling your average American black an "African" is scarely more legitmate than calling me black! It's pageantry, wishful, but not culture.
Ok so now we stoop to insults. Bastards?
You wouldn't know a "legitimate" African if one was sitting next to you.
Originally posted by Northgate
I hear this argument all the time. I recently heard it on Bill O'Reilly's Fox News show where O"Reilly argued that he didn't want to explain homosexuality to his children at a baseball game if they were seated next to a gay or lesbian couple holding hands (or kissing).
This, to me, is total BS. I have a six year old daughter who was wide awake the morning of September 11th and saw the whole thing go down...live! She didn't fully understand what was going on. But, my wife and I felt our needs as parents to try, in the best way a parent can, what had happened and why. It wasn't easy. I didn't like doing it. But, in the end, I felt my responsibilities as a parent were more important than shielding my daughter from the horrors of the world. She understood, asked a few questions and then she processed it and went back to playing...like kids do.
I equally feel that any parent who refuses to explain something far more benign than terrorism, like the realities of the world (homosexuality, death, taxes, people of other color), to their children should be ashamed of himself or herself.
To expect 10% (homosexuals) of the population to not express themselves because it might offend the 90% (the moral right) majority is as equally offensive as the moral majority demanding the minority get back in the closet, "because I might have to explain it to my kids."
What's so hard to explain? It's part of human nature and has been since the beginning of our species. It's never going to go away. There seems to be a huge demographic in this country that is so afraid of homosexuality and explaining it to their children that they fear their kids will be "corrupted" by it. That they'll be indoctrinated into the gay mafia and be lost forever. Come on! Give me a break! Explaining terrorism to my daughter isn't going to turn her into a Palestinian sympathizer suicide-bomber (oops, forgot that Fox News as re-coined the phrase "homicide-bomber"). Neither is she more prone to becoming a lesbian.
Let me qualify my statement. I don't feel the need for teachers teaching 5 year olds about homosexuals. I thought I wrote that the first time but apparently in haste I didn't.
Originally posted by Sondjata
Ok so now we stoop to insults. Bastards?
You wouldn't know a "legitimate" African if one was sitting next to you.
I floated that one in there just for you.
Actually, my view is an extremely ecological one, there's nothing insulting about it in the lay sense, though there may be offense in a deeper sense: we are displaced and no amount of pretend will undo that. And, like bastards, we will not be wholly accepted in new communities.
Pretending to "know" your father even when you know who he is, when you only know who he is, does no make him your father anymore than before you knew of him, and so it is with lands, harsher even for many reasons...
Originally posted by Sondjata
Ena: And America was founded by White supremacist, genocidal maniacs. What's your point?
As opposed to the genocidal maniacs that kept all that fun-luvin tribal warfare going on the Dark Continent? Hey, at least we don't drink out of the other guy's skull when we get done kicking his ass!
Imagine yourself as a place setting for one.
Originally posted by ena
Hey, at least we don't drink out of the other guy's skull when we get done kicking his ass!
We don't?
I know my forefathers did.
Originally posted by ena
As opposed to the genocidal maniacs that kept all that fun-luvin tribal warfare going on the Dark Continent? Hey, at least we don't drink out of the other guy's skull when we get done kicking his ass!
Imagine yourself as a place setting for one.
Damn.. i cannot rememeber the last time I had some good human brain!!
Originally posted by New
We don't?
I know my forefathers did.
You're right---the Norseman didn't clown around. (I'm afraid I have more than my share of Scandinavian blood.)
Originally posted by ena
You're right---the Norseman didn't clown around. (I'm afraid I have more than my share of Scandinavian blood.)
Or maybe it's just a myth ?
Originally posted by BR
That part I'm not upset about. I'm upset about the reading of the bible in class to the five year olds. He can draw whatever the **** he wants.
Sorry that I'm so late to the discussion here, had to work and work and... well there it is..
I could understand someone being upset if the TEACHER were reading the beginning Bible to the children or if the child, unprompted, brought it to school and insisted on sharing it, etc.
The problem, and the clarification that I agree with regarding the Bush clarifications, is when input or personal opinion is sought and when discovered to be religious is told that it is not allowed or is treated badly.
Again with the public address prayers before football games, things of that nature, I can understand.
The assignment the child was given was to bring your favorite book to class and read it or a story out of it. All children brought books likely reflecting different stories, cultures, and viewpoints. The children brought and read the books to the class.
This child, because his book was could be considered religious, was not allowed to read from it. The actual story he wanted to read wasn't even religious, it was just a parable, like the Good Samaritan. (Don't say Good Samaritan though or you are advocating worship
The state advocated nothing, nor did it provide a public forum for a public group to make a public religious pronouncement. It asked one child child his opinion, heard it and the silenced him.
Nick
Originally posted by Sondjata
Matsu: I repeat you are woefuylly mis-informed on this subject. And it seems that mis-information is self imposed. Needless to say, you telling me about kwanzaa is like me tellign steve jobs about how apple is run.
Ena: And America was founded by White supremacist, genocidal maniacs. What's your point?
Giagura: There are people in Europe who do celebrate the "holiday." Though I wound not expect it to be widespread. Kwanzaa is not, and has never been, and will never be a religious holiday> Even Dr. Karenga, it's creator says so.
He says so but there are aspects that have clear religious overtones as well as clear political overtones.
Likewise when you read his messages regarding Kwanzaa they sound very religious...
Indeed, each year we remember and repeat with profound reverence the teachings of the Odu Ifa which say "humans are divinely chosen to bring good into the world;" and that this is the fundamental mission and meaning in human life (78:1).
I understand that something being divine can just mean it is really incredible or great. However incredible and great cannot choose something.
He also advocates basically communism, but he uses a less loaded word. To me, communism is a humanistic religion.
BTW, please don't try to tell me I know nothing about Kwanzaa. I have personally met the founder and I attended Long Beach State. It is my alma mater.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
He says so but there are aspects that have clear religious overtones as well as clear political overtones.
Likewise when you read his messages regarding Kwanzaa they sound very religious...
Nick
there's no contradiction here. As any competent anthropologist will tell you, traditional African cultures are steeped in their religions. There was/is no separation between 'church and state." therefore the ideology oif the people is reflected in it's religious text. That does not make Kwanzaa a religious holiday any more than us discussing religion on this board makes this the AppleInsider religion.
Originally posted by Sondjata
there's no contradiction here. As any competent anthropologist will tell you, traditional African cultures are steeped in their religions. There was/is no separation between 'church and state." therefore the ideology oif the people is reflected in it's religious text. That does not make Kwanzaa a religious holiday any more than us discussing religion on this board makes this the AppleInsider religion.
I think you are side-stepping the issue. Please understand that I would never be opposed to Kwanzaa being celebrated in schools. However if I read the statement I quoted in a school, many here would think I had just attempted to convert the student body to various pan-African forms of religion. Likewise while he declares it not religious, all aspects of it reflect a religious nature. If you take something that is steeped in religion and attempt to clean all the religion off in an attempt to make it secular, you still end up with a religion in my book, you just don't call whatever you are worshiping God. That is why I mentioned that Communism is a religion in my book. You can trace the philosophers and their quest to move from a God centered view to a human centered view.
If I say, "God will insure justice is done." He says, "The Good, will insure justice is done." He should be questioned as the the nature of "The Good." I have no doubt that he would explain it and it would sound like some combination of Hegal and Kant.
Do you support Zach's rules? You have chimed in on Kwanzaa (which Matsu is spelling intentionally wrong btw to get your goat) or do you believe that if someone drew a picture of a cross as a student, their work shouldn't be displayed for example?
Nick
Originally posted by Sondjata
there's no contradiction here. As any competent anthropologist will tell you, traditional African cultures are steeped in their religions. There was/is no separation between 'church and state." therefore the ideology oif the people is reflected in it's religious text. That does not make Kwanzaa a religious holiday any more than us discussing religion on this board makes this the AppleInsider religion.
Do you not see the indigenous bias of your argument?
By what you have said, Christianity especially stakes a claim to class time by virtue of it's historical weight. Neither in the origins of Christianity was there any seperation between church and state. "The Church" was an empire, a nation, then a pan state, and finally a relic. The Vatican, as far as I can tell, is still a state without seperation of church and state. The rhetoric of ancient phrases like, "The Holy Roman Empire" proves that a significant period of christianity saw absolutely no division between church and state. Politics and theology had to go together, and keep comming up when for example the The Spanish Catholics have to argue for the annexation of lands west of Europe, it is a legal claim steeped in theology, and similar theological arguments are made into a court, into a legal frame that does not seperate church and law in the Anglican discourse made by English colonizers.
I could very well say that Christianity, as a tradition, made no distinction between church and state, and the inclusion of elements of its worship cannot be excluded because they are inseperable from it's history/culture/politics/statecraft.
When Quanza comes up, it is not merely an information session, people practice celebrations, which you have not seperated from rituals, in fact you have only argued why they cannot be seperated and must actually be combined with other political elements. If dance, song, hymn, and art, and the making and performance and dissemination of each, while religiously themed, cannot be excluded because they are relics of broader culture, then the same argument extends to Christianity, and cannot help but be extended to it.
The logic that excludes a cross from public display, is not logic, but a paranoid reaction in the best case, and an specifically anti christian agenda in the worst. By that logic, phrases and idioms of religious origin must be extricated from public culture, Latin because of its main survival as the language of "the Church" should be written out of the science textbooks, art teachers should not hold Michelangelo's "Pieta" as a paragon of sculpture, nor the work in the Sistene Chapel, and if they do, they should take great pains to erase the specifically religious context of their creation, or their authors. No Dante, and for that matter, no Milton, certainly no morality plays, Goethe. Come on, if you want to expunge Christianity, then DO IT!
Or does it just burn you that perhaps the greatest single cultural/humanistic contribution in the history of all people is Christian?
But don't stop there, if you want to expunge one, to be fair, you've got to get them all... Neo-paganism? May be popular, but it's gotta go to, as with all reference to old paganism. Talmudic philosophers? Out, can't have religion. Can't have officers wearing turbans, can't have Shikh politicians and officials in their native dress. Can't have it, can display a cross in a public space, then why a religious dress?
You have to get past the infantile "and no religion too." John lennon hippie fantasy. Religion IS humanism, I know this, I don't even believe, and I know it... meh, what's the point?
Nick
Originally posted by Matsu
Do you not see the indigenous bias of your argument?
you sir are waaaaaaay off point. I took issue with your misrepresentation of Kwanzaa. Not whether someone has the right to read a bible in class. Separate argument as far as I'm concerned. And my posts on the topic reflect that. You made a specific claim of the "revisionist" nature of kwanzaa. I responded specifically to that misrepresentation. your last post is irrelevant to that specific misrepresentation.
Originally posted by Matsu
Ah ah ah, the quote I quoted had nothing to do with revisionism, just the rhetoric, an argument by you about why Quanza should be included. .
i made no such argument. I neither said i was for or against kwanzaa being included. i did make a comment of voudun, but not kwanzaa. You brought up Kwanzaa in your argument for or against inclusion of other religious observances. I pointed out that Kwanzaa was neither revisionist or a religion.
Originally posted by Matsu
Ah ah ah, the quote I quoted had nothing to do with revisionism, just the rhetoric, an argument by you about why Quanza should be included.
And why do you insist on misspelling the word?