Down with the 700 club

[Stacey]

Ya gotta be sneakier, I just posted this.


I had always thought that Muslims worshiped The God of Abraham and Moses.
Thanx to your show, I no longer beleive that lie. They are a hatefull group and I believe that God will kill them all through his holy vessel, the United States of America. I have read parts of the Koran, and although they sound exactly like Psalms and other Old testament books, they must be of Satan because Arabs are subhuman to Prodestant Aryans. Your show has oppened my eyes.
Praise the Lord,

Samuel Churchill.

[JasBourne]

I wish I liked you better, princess - that was actually funny. But you're still a twit.

[Ryu]

But not a "twat", right Jas?


Stace, you're growing on me. LOL Better quit.

Ryu

[Black Belt Jones 1]

I respect your comments on this thread and I consider you to be a very good poster so please dont take this post the wrong way. But I must take issue with your statement

"Children are not to be programmed. They are to be left alone until they decide what it is they want to believe and practice."

Now I don't want to jump the gun and infer something that you didnt intend, but children, no matter what culture or social class they are from are ALWAYS programmed by their parents in one form or another. Christians will raise their children according to what is their individual belifs just as redneck white trash parents will program their kids to be racist, n!gger hating thugs, as terrorists will raise theirs to hate jews, the west etc... No children the world over are exempt from some entity vieing for their attention. Today too many special interest groups realize, as Hitler did, that the success of their cause depends on indoctrinating the youth. IF children are "left alone" to decide what is right for them in effect your jusrt turning them loose into a den of wolves waiting to sink their teeth in. The two kids who shot up Columbine were, by definition, "left alone" by their parents. Now I dont agree with every sect of the Christian group but I'll bet that the outcome might have been different had these two went to church and had some kind of moral guidance. AS for kids being indoctrinated by progermas such as the 700 club. Honestly, what kid is gonna sit down and spend an hour watching Pat Robertson and even halfway comprehend or at least care what he says or thinks? As a father, I know that children need guidance or they run amuck and turn into the very types of people that we often complain about on this forum. i went to school with two twin brothers whose mother would never discipline them no matter what they did. She was well off and used her influence to get them out of every scrape at school that they ever gort into. Now one is dead and the other is serving a life sentence in federal prison. I think that regardless of the ineptness of the parents and in spite of how you agree/dissageree with their personal beliefs that it is the parents responsibility to raise their children. I adhemately oppose the current trend in our nations schools to push gay and lesbian based material into the classrooms of public schools. Children are very impressionable and sexuality is an extremely touchy subject especially for those who are not at the level of maturity of comprehending what it entails. Like it or not, gay and lesbian groups are special interest groups, as are churches which are not allowed into the classroom (or shouldnt be) either. Would you want an executive from Enron soliciting your children at his or her school and having programs to Boost PR? Hell no, and these groups shouldn't either.

[Sam Wiley]

Kids don't watch Pat Robertson or any of that other trash on television. They watch children's shows. And those networks are producing children's television shows in order to brainwash children now. While I doubt most children watch them at all, they ARE Barney-esque, and smaller children will be sucked in. That's the plan, "hook 'em while they're young."

I don't mean left alone as in left to fend fo themselves. And I don't mean left alone as in their parents not having any influence. Guided by their parents, sure. Given a basic set of principles to go by, yes. Taught to think for themselves, most definitely. But programmed with a set of pre-fab morals, slapped with a label and all the baggage that goes with it, and made to accept whatever they are told to...that's where I disagree. These people are doing this to line their own pockets and to make sure that they have sheeple for years to come to keep them filled.

Frankly, I'm tired of hearing about Columbine and those two kids. Do you know what one of them asked a girl not long before the affair ended? He said, "do you believe in God?" When she answered in the affirmative...he shot her in the head! Do you know what that's a sign of? Having had enough! It's an indication that his parents and others tried to control him, his thoughts, beliefs and decisions. It's a sign of others having too much influence over him and he knew it and rebelled! Maybe if his parents hadn't shoved their own belief system down his throat he wouldn't have spit it back in their face and maybe the world wouldn't have caught the splash.

The reason people are introducing gay and lesbian based material into schools is because they want kids who are discovering their sexuality to know that they can be honest with themselves. In the past people had to repress their sexuality if they weren't straight. And it led to far more problems than letting them know they have nothing to hide. They're not recruiting. You don't just turn gay. That's stupid. But whatever.

Here's the bottom line: If you don't want your kids to learn the way they do or the subjects they do in public schools, then you have two choices here. Private schools, where they'll not only be indoctrinated but also made to look alike and act alike. Or home schooling, where you can safely guide them, teach them to think for themselves, and make sure they're not brainwashed. Just talk to the people in charge, prove you're not a moron, and home school them. Don't have the time to home school them?...then you don't care enough, because there is always time.

[Ryu]

"It's an indication that his parents and others tried to control him, his thoughts, beliefs and decisions. It's a sign of others having too much influence over him and he knew it and rebelled! Maybe if his parents hadn't shoved their own belief system down his throat he wouldn't have spit it back in their face and maybe the world wouldn't have caught the splash. "

I was with you there up until this point. I disagree that the actions of those kids were simply because they "rebelled against indoctrination." Not only is that very broad statement, but it almost gives the kids a "Robin Hood" type flare that I'm sure you didn't mean. I have also rebelled against belief systems, cultures, etc. But I don't take a gun and kill innocent people.
There's more to it than just that.

Ryu

[Sam Wiley]

Originally posted by Ryu
I was with you there up until this point. I disagree that the actions of those kids were simply because they "rebelled against indoctrination." Not only is that very broad statement, but it almost gives the kids a "Robin Hood" type flare that I'm sure you didn't mean. I have also rebelled against belief systems, cultures, etc. But I don't take a gun and kill innocent people.
There's more to it than just that.

Ryu

According to those two kids, the ones they shot were not innocent. Maybe the statement seems broad because your perspective is narrow.

[Chang Style Novice]

There is no such thing as freedom without responsibility. If you seperate responsibility from freedom, all that is left is licentiousness.

That said, I am pretty close to being a First Amendment (that is; freedom of speech and the press) absolutist. In my opinion, all citizens should be absolutely free to say or publish whatever they want, and absolutely responsible for the consequences of what they say or publish.

[JasBourne]

I adhemately oppose the current trend in our nations schools to push gay and lesbian based material into the classrooms of public schools. Children are very impressionable and sexuality is an extremely touchy subject especially for those who are not at the level of maturity of comprehending what it entails.

I fervently hope you never have children who are born gay. Kids know what they feel, when something is right or wrong for them. You can't shield them from their own feelings. This "blinders-on" attitude is precisely why the suicide rate among gay teens is 10 times higher than in straight teens.

How would you like to be told incessantly by everything and everyone around you (the media, your peers, strangers on chatboards) that who you fundementally are is not acceptable? Did you "choose" to be straight? Would anyone actually "choose" a "lifestyle" that carries such incredible hatred attached to it? Who the hell would voluntarily "choose" to be attacked, verbally, emotionally, and physically by society at large??

Re-think this one. You are indulging in a hateful, harmful prejudice. Please move into the 21st century with the rest of us.

[Ryu]

Sam, read the signature at the end of my posts. Just because those kids thought that doesn't make it so. It's that kind of relativism that brings about all that kind of violence anyway. Maybe deal with the issue itself next time instead of just attacking my "narrow perspective"?


"How would you like to be told incessantly by everything and everyone around you (the media, your peers, strangers on chatboards) that who you fundementally are is not acceptable?"

I'm not gay, but I definitely know what this feels like.
A lot of people probably don't know exactly how it feels to continually search for meaning in life, morality, philosophy, theology, etc...
It can get pretty frustrating. The above quote can be literal of lots of people, and not just ones who are gay.

No real point to that, just making an observation.

Ryu

[Sam Wiley]

Originally posted by Ryu
Sam, read the signature at the end of my posts. Just because those kids thought that doesn't make it so. It's that kind of relativism that brings about all that kind of violence anyway. Maybe deal with the issue itself next time instead of just attacking my "narrow perspective"?

Ryu

They believed it and therefore it was so. Perception is reality. Think about it, what was real to them is fake to you and a lot of other people. But what is fake to you is also real to someone else still. "Belief" is a very powerful thing. What makes you believe that the man in the gutter proclaiming himself a king isn't? Does it make him any less of a king if he has no subjects? What if he has subjects? Are they crazy for believing him to be a king? Do you still believe that he's a crazy bum? More important than that: what if you are the one who is crazy for believing he's not a king?

2000 years ago, a man proclaimed himself the Son of God. People thought he was crazy. They even executed him. He had followers, though, this bum. In fact, today people actually worship him. Are you saying that these people are crazy for worshiping a dead bum? Was he crazy for believing he was the Son of God? Are his followers crazy for believing this bum was the Son of God? Or are you crazy for believing he was not?

What if all it takes to make something real is belief? Is it any less real to the man who believes simply because you do not? What exactly is real, and upon whose word are we to take something as real? What if he was the one who was crazy? Does it make you crazy to accept his word? Or blind?

I'll tell you what is relative, here. What is relative is your idea that, simply because you fall into the opposite category as them it is your opinion that is right, your morals that are correct, and your point of view that should be adhered to. By saying that things are not "so" simply because they believed them to be, is attempting to make things "so" simply because YOU believe them to be. That is also relative. And therefore, your perspective is narrow; just as narrow as theirs.

The issue is not whether the kids they killed were innocent, as you claim they were. The issue is whether the two who killed them believed they were innocent or not. They did not believe that. And the issue is whether or not their actions were the result of rebelling against oppression, or lack of it. Eric Harris' writings say to me that he felt oppressed by people he viewed as inferior and stupid (since he states it plainly), and he lists their transgressions, for which he believed they should receive the death penalty. He also clearly lists his reasons for doing what he eventually did, one of which is seeing what he loves disgraced, another of which is constant criticism from those who were supposedly his "peers," as well as betrayal and being labelled as something he wasn't. And the "theme song" for these kids' spree, Stray Bullet , includes obviously anti-Christian lyrics, so nobody in their right mind would say that religious oppression didn't have a hand in creating these monsters. If you want to solve a growing problem, you must cut the root. The people killed were at the root of his problems, at least according to him.

Now, what made him have a problem in the first place? Let's start with Christianity, so prevalent in our society that we can't even maintain separation of church and state. Don't think so? Look at our currency, where you will find the statement that Americans believe in God. Listen to the revised version of the Pledge of Allegiance, which children across America are expected to recite every morning in school, "one nation under God , indivisible..." Automatically labelled a believer simply by being a citizen. Can't have the "liberty and justice for all" part of that pledge if you automatically label everyone something they're not, now can you? Especially not if immediately after labelling them as such you also label them as a part of the indivisible whole! That diametrically opposes the first amendment's guarantee of "pursuit of happiness" when it affects a person's life as Harris felt it did his. He wasn't part of the group, and was punished for it. So he decided to punish the group. The punishment he outlined in his writings for those who transgressed against him was death.

Should Harris and Klebold have payed for their crimes had they lived? Yes, by all means. A person must be responsible for their actions, and that includes paying the price for whatever those actions might be. (And in the case of the people Harris and Klebold felt had betrayed or punished by, that price turned out to be death.) Harris and his friend knew the consequences for their actions and prepared ahead of time to take matters into their own hands on that account as well. However, if we really want to keep this from happening again, we must be diligent in our efforts to make this society live up to the standards it set for itself, including guaranteed rights. Part of that effort must be to find the cause of society's problems and eradicate them. It does no good to continue treating th symptoms if the disease goes uncured. And part of the responsibility for society's problems fits squarely on the shoulders of the Christian religion, which is responsible for much of the oppression going on in America today. Christians start brainwashing people while they're still children, imposing a set of beliefs and values on them, and when they begin to grow out of those set boundaries, questioning those beliefs or coming to grips with the fact that they can't live up to those values or that no matter what they do they always will fit into a group deemed as "evil" or "perverse," that's when the problems start.

Sound like I'm blaming a broad institution? Yes and no. I also blame the ones forcing this abhorrent, messianic, decrepit prejudice masquerading as a benevolent religion. They, too should pay for their actions, and they too should be held responsible for what their actions and words have set in motion.

[Ryu]

"They believed it and therefore it was so"

Some people believed the world was flat. It's not so.
Some people can believe 2+2=5. It's not so.

What you have just said there is vastly extreme, and does not in any way try to find anything within a given situation. If everything is "right" because someone believes it than why bother doing anything? Why even have this discussion? who cares what you and I say? It makes no difference because there is no "truth". Moral relativism is a fallacy and it's a proven fallacy in the higher levels of philosophy and sociology. Relativism is a contradiction in itself considering that "there is no truth" cannot be true according to its very premise. It's simply a big paradox and nothing real or rational can be taken from it. It helps no one.
To simply attack me and put words in my mouth is nothing but another fallacy. Deal with the issues at hand. I'm not insulting you, nor do I intend to. I don't have to because I have a solid argument. When we talk about reality and perception we have to distinguish between "perceptive reality" and true reality. Every scientist in the world will tell you that there is indeed true reality around us. The world would exist (and has for billions of years) without us and our "preceptions" about it. Doesn't mean the world isn't real, and anyone who claims otherwise is not really holding up to what is already proven fact in science. Somewhat silly in my opinion.
Indeed these kids believed a perception of someone. However I can have the preception that all blacks are gangsters, and all Asians have bucked teeth but that doesn't make it "real" in reality either.
Asking rhetorical questions about belief patterns, Christ, Buddha, their followers etc is not "reality"
There is realism involved with our world. Like it or not. Perception or not.
Yes my view and others views oppose the views of the columbine kids, but that doesn't mean we throw out all views all together and say "well there is no truth" That is simply folly, and also is running away from real issues. To find truth in reality, sociology, philosophy, and human behaviors we must study, refine, test, understand, and have precepts that can be challenged.
If we don't do that then we should simply stop thinking all together...because thinking is just our "preception" and should not be given any "real" credit.

On a final note. When one rejects the search of truth completely, says "well no one is right or wrong" and that "everyone's opinions are different therefore they are all right for them"
......how does that help anyone? How does that help our world progress forward?

It doesn't.

Thanks for the conversations.

Ryu

[Ryu]

Also wanted to mention that I completely agree with you about
looking at the root of the problems, and understanding the mindsets in these kids. Just labeling them "evil" won't stop the actions from happening again.

While I think that right and wrong are very much a part of the "reality" of our world, the concepts are extremely hard to pinpoint, and take a vast amount of knowledge, study, understanding, cultural experience, etc. to truly grasp in any real way. This is why they give the illusion of being nonexistent if you ask me.

Well, off to read and meditate. LOL

Ryu

[Sam Wiley]

I have already told you how you can solve the problem earlier. And b!tching about it to people who don't matter wasn't part of the solution. I frankly think you're wasting time and energy typing away on this message board whe you could be doing something constructive, like letting your concerns be known to people who matter.

Take your case to people who can help you and you'll get an answer one way or the other. Take it to people who can't and you'll get exactly what I've been giving you these past two posts: a whole lotta bull.

There's no such thing as "higher levels" of philosphy and sociology. That's a bullsh!t term, and the reason is because the whole thing is bullsh!t. It's mental masturbation performed by people with too much time on their hands, and it's the garbage your monkey adorns himself with.

"Why even have this discussion?"

That's what I explained to you earlier. You're wasting energy here. Put your energy to use by taking your problem to people who can actually help you.

(I'm encouraging you, here, man.)

[JasBourne]

2000 years ago, a man proclaimed himself the Son of God.

Actually, Jesus went to great pains to state that he was NOT proclaiming himself the son of god, that other people were saying that about him. The only thing he ever said (if you believe the writers of the bible) is that "we are all the children of god".

Folks have been running away with that little technicality and making a whole lot of mischief because of it for a couple of thousand years. I'm sure it ticks Jeez off, although apparently not enough to come back and do anything about it.