How Times Have Changed

Status
Not open for further replies.
That's interesting that in 1956 there were no educated women

Really? Somebody needs to tell that to all the women of my family going at least as far back as my grandmother. Sharp as a whip.

Do you just spout these liberal platitudes out of the Communist Manifesto or some other leftist handguide or do you really believe these things and come up with them yourself?
 
urrrrre... we have the American Communist Legal Union to make life in our democratic republic good & wonderful. Check your history. The ACLU was founded by a dyed in the wool communist for the legal defense of communists. The ACLU steadfastly refuses to offer legal defense resources for anyone defending themselves against blatantly unconstitutional 2A issues or for anyone charged with a crime out of a self-defense shooting -- unless it was a minority shooting a white or a woman shooting her husband. Nor will they offer legal resources if you are Christian and wish to wear a cross to school (but somehow wearing a headscarf and carrying a Koran everywhere must be accommodated. )
Bull. :rolleyes:

http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/26526res20060824.html

That being said I love to see people bitch about the ACLU because it doesn't fight for one right....but then cheer the NRA because it fights for only one right.
Speaking of women ..and respect thereof -- watch an older movie sometime. When was the last time you saw anyone stand up when a woman entered the room or when she went to be seated at a table? When was the last time you saw a man opening the car door for a woman? Or offering his hand to her to get in or out of a car?
What do old movies have to do with it? I stand up when a woman sits at my table, I open car doors and see others do it all the time.

I don't know, I'd wager that women care a bit more about being allowed to vote, being able to study their field of choice and being paid the same amount as a man for the same work a little bit more than they care about having doors held open for them. :rolleyes:

It was also the Republican Party that was responsible for passing the Civil Rights act in the 60's, while the Southern Democrats tried to block its passage.
Conservative Democrats. I doubt anyone can seriously claim that liberals tried to hold back the civil rights movement more than conservatives. Are we forgetting the very definitions of these words?
In a bygone era, foul language was barely tolerated in public company and certainly not in the presence of a ladies or children. Today, kids in pre-school can be found dropping the "F-word" and swearing like a sailor.

I'd also like to remind some people that "Freedom of speech" does not equate to "freedom from repercussions" of that speech. If you advocate some point of view with your free speech you should first contemplate how your audience is likely to react. You have the right, like Rosie O'Donnell to say that all gun owners should be rounded up and summarily jailed. I'll even defend your right to say it, but if you insist on saying it in my presence, I'll box your ears.
So? I can use whatever language I want. So can you.

I would completely understand if you boxed someone's ears for doing that but you damn well better be prepared for assault charges. Do you have any idea how much damage is caused by boxing someone's ears? That's another thing that parents used to do to their children and then some old timers wonder why their hearing goes. :rolleyes:
In regards to firearms - in today's society it seems that the mere presence of something indicative of firearms -- i.e. a gun periodical -- is sometimes enough to get you in trouble (gun magazines in the workplace are the same as "pornography" according to one corporation I know of). Discussing firearms around the wrong people can get you in trouble -- "creating an uncomfortable or threatening atmosphere".

Litigation over firearms has reached an all-time high of stupidity. A friend wanted to start his own small business (consulting). His original employee guide was reviewed by his business lawyer who almost had a stroke when he reached the policy that said any person holding a CCW permit was permitted to carry while working. The lawyer told him he could not get insurance if he had that policy ...nor would the lawyer represent him if he left it in the handbook! (He changed lawyers and found an insurance company himself).

Additional stupidity abounds in firearms lawsuits. The idea of a manufacturer being responsible for the misuse of their product through the concatenation of wholesaler-to-retailer-to-user sales is prima facia absurd. We might as well prosecute Ford and GM for promoting reckless driving through support of auto races. Likewise, we should hold movie companies, producers and directors responsible for reckless driving shown in moves (hey - as well as reckless use of firearms! Why not?)
I agree.
Here's two more differences between the generations;
Twelve year old Tommy runs a can opener down the side of Mr. Smith's car parked on the street and Mr. Smith catches him in the act.

1956: Mr. Smith takes Tommy home to his parents and tells them what happened. Tommy's parents apologize and tell Mr. Smith they will pay for repairs to his car and certainly discipline Tommy for his vandalism.

2006: Mr. Smith grabs Tommy's arm and Tommy fights, screams and kicks. When he gets Tommy to his house, the parents are aghast that their child has been "abused" by being "manhandled" by a stranger. They believe their child when he says Mr. Smith had the can-opener, not him. They call police and claim child abuse, terroristic threats and extortion. Mr. Smith is arrested and spends $16,000 to get the charges dropped. Meanwhile, the scratches in his Lexus have rusted.
If my son is Tommy then Mr Smith has no damned business grabbing him. Period. I would punish Tommy and make him apologize as well as pay back Mr Smith but Mr Smith damn well better be prepared to apologize for his actions or have charges pressed against him. You don't touch my child.

Period.
Seven year old Alex and nine year old Eric are outside a small toy-store when Eric convinces younger Alex to shoplift a 10-cent balsa wood glider toy. Alex gets caught and confesses the scheme. Shop owner calls police.

1956: Police officer takes the kids to their respective parents and explains what happened. Parents offer apologies and assurances of discipline. They ground the child for a week after making sure he apologizes to the shop owner.

2006: Police officer descretion removed. Alex and Eric are handcuffed, searched and taken to the police station and juvenille hall. Parents are called downtown to get their kids, given an appointment to see an administrative judge in three weeks. Judge requires both parents present which means a loss of income for one or more for the day.
Yeah, that one's pretty lousy. Bureaucracies cause more problems than they solve. I would certainly tan my child's hide for shoplifting but damned if any other adult - neighbor, cop, teacher, shop owner, whatever - is ever allowed to lay a hand on my child.
 
Really? Somebody needs to tell that to all the women of my family going at least as far back as my grandmother. Sharp as a whip.

Do you just spout these liberal platitudes out of the Communist Manifesto or some other leftist handguide or do you really believe these things and come up with them yourself?
First of all I didn't post that and I don't think he believes it. I'm pretty sure that comment was facetious.

That being said there's a difference between being intelligent and educated. Your grandmother may have been sharp as a whip but if she didn't attend some form of higher education then that doesn't really qualify as being as educated as many of the women today. All due respect to your grandmother but again, being intelligent and being educated are not the same thing...and unfortunately are not mutually inclusive. Believe me, I know and work with a LOT of educated idiots.

And please tell me where the communist manifesto has entered into this. What's so communist about allowing women to live their lives as they see fit instead of being told their only use to society is as baby machines?
 
If you weren't living back then you have no idea what your talking about. Just what you have read which is NOT the same as having been there. So, my feeling is your speaking without any real knowledge and are probably on the higher side of education, and on the lower side of understanding or in the common sense department.

Edit; This isin no way to say all or even most younger folks don't have common sence
 
Last edited:
Do you just spout these liberal platitudes out of the Communist Manifesto or some other leftist handguide or do you really believe these things and come up with them yourself?

Where did that come from? Do you work for CNN? You take a quote out of context and run with it just like they do. That was a facetious remark. If you read through my posts you would soon realize I'm a liberal, leftist, communists worst nightmare. I'm pretty much a poster child for the conservative, right wing, WASP or any other "badge" with far right leanings you would like to place on me. I like GWB, Newt Gingrich, Ronald Reagan.
Hell, I think the only thing Nixon did wrong was not apologize soon enough.(facetious remark:p )

fa·ce·tious Pronunciation[fuh-see-shuhs]
1. not meant to be taken seriously or literally: a facetious remark.
 
Redworm said:
Why should Christians get a national holiday in the first place?

Why not Scrooge?

You'll no doubt be surprised to learn that Christmas is a bank holiday we carried with us from England so that throws a secular monkey wrench into your curse of religions rant...
 
'worm,

You are in dire need of some remedial history. To take just some low hanging fruit, not only was abolition in this country led by the new Republican party, but the entire notion of abolition, on a global scale, was a Western (primarily British), Christian enterprise.

No "progressive" atheists led the abolition movement. You could look it up.

The comparison of the NRA and ACLU is, well, forgive me, but asinine. The NRA did not posit itself as the sole defender of all civil rights and comity among citizens, and goodness and light 'n all. It is the National Rifle Association. Complaining that the NRA isn't leading the charge for higher minimum wages or free compulsory abortions for middle school girls, makes about as much sense as complaining because you can't buy auto parts in a Krispy Kreme shop.
 
Last edited:
Ok I actually spent time reading all of this andsomthing has been bugging me:

Separation of church and state doesn't mean take church out of the state, it means the government cannot endorse adn enforce a particular religious view. this means that the government can't tell everyone to be atheistic... oh wait they already do. If we were to go by the standards that ppl believe are "separation of church and state" then my highschool choir would not have been able to sing songs like mozarts Te Deum which is a song about God and Jesus being born of the virgin Mary. Basically ppl think that we cannot mention God or Jesus in public, almost like the communists back in the 50's in russia and china (china still) and parts of africa and the middle east. But it's ok if we call on Allah because that's cultural diversity. It's not religion ppl have a problem with it's God. I have had debates with peers and some religious leaders (pastors mostly) and have come to the conclusion that if ppl admit to the existence of God (ppl being the ACLU) then that means that we are responsible for our actions and that there is a right and wrong not right and wrong in your own viewpoint (if that makes sense) It would mean we all play by the same rules.

Also if God exists then it is wrong to be ahomosexual. Read the bible and in Isaiah there are parts about men being with men and women with women and it basically states that God doesn't like that. There are other places as well. But due to a correct interpretation of separation of church and state it is not illegal to be homosexual. However the issue of being homosexual is different from homosexual marriage (figured I better put this in my thesis here).

Homosexual marriage would open up the world of marriage rights that heterosexual couples have to the homosexual couples. this would provide a legal loophole for sick couples to get tax relief in certain areas and better insurance coverage. But when one partner dies the still living partner "marries" another and keeps going. On top of it all homosexuality is extremely promiscuous. Having multiple partners means that the transmission of STDs is faster. Relationships in homosexuals on average are shorter than those of heterosexual couples. Originally AIDS was more popularly known as HIV which everyone is told means Human Immunodefficiency Virus. It was originally named Homosexual Immunodefficiency Virus because it was so prevalent in the homosexual community.

Now I expect I will probably take a lot of flak from these statements but show me the holes in my thesis so I can plug them up and have a solid argument for a magazine article.

Funny fact: the ACLU has pushed so hard for same sex couples to adopt that they closed the largest orphanage in america which was run by catholics who didn't choose homosexuals over heterosexuals

Funny Fact 2: Homophobe is a made up word used to describe anyone who speaks ill of the homosexual lifestyle. To be a true phobia one would be repulsed to the point of not wanting to be near or even look at/think of homosexuals. (thank you psychology 101)
 
If you weren't living back then you have no idea what your talking about. Just what you have read which is NOT the same as having been there. So, my feeling is your speaking without any real knowledge and are probably on the higher side of education, and on the lower side of understanding or in the common sense department.

Edit; This isin no way to say all or even most younger folks don't have common sence
So those of us that were not living in the days of the founding fathers have no idea what we're talking about when we defend our right to bear arms? Bull. Of course it's not the same as having been there but that's why we have the concept of written history.

What's wrong with the higher side of education? Oh yeah, it's the educated that challenge the conservative beliefs considered some of the worst mistakes America has ever made. :rolleyes:
 
But my grandmother, her sister in law and many other women of my family DID go to an institution of higher learning. They did go to college. As did a lot of women back then. Even 100 years ago, depending on what country or part of the country you lived in, women were highly esteemed. Even if they didn't go to college as we know it today, they were taught the important things of life, grace, intelligence, wisdom, character, class. Things that, when it comes right down to it, are far more important then getting an "A" in Algebra. Education, back then wasn't put on the high pedistal that it is now. (Nothing wrong with education, I just think we worship school and college and the intellectual way too much these days)

But, assuming they didn't go to college, like you said who says going to college makes you educated. I too know a lot of complete morons who are morons BECAUSE they went to college (and believed all the idiotic jargon spewed to them in liberal psychology, history and sociology classes). Before they went to college they were common sense normal people and came out "enlightened" and "encouaged to broaden their intellectual horizons bay challenging" whatever they thought to be normal before :rolleyes:

I come from a good family that didn't beat women and break childrens fingers and they didn't ever know anybody who did such a thing.

Communist Manifesto, well I was speaking more figuratively than literally. Basically the communists doctrine states that everything in the Western Christian Capitalist world is "racist" "sexist" "homophobic" "oppressive to the poor" "evil" and "wrong" and it will never be right until drastic revolutionary changes are made by the Communist Party who will bring about "equality" via government control by first taking over the educational institutions and then indoctrinating the youth. It is all exaggerations or even flat out lies used as propaganda to enflame one group of people against the other.

This didn't necessarily have to be carried out by Russian communist spys from Moscow, or even by an American Socialist party, but gradually and subtly through so called liberal and so called conservative movements in the political and educational arenas.

As you are 23 and did not live "back then" you are taught these beliefs you continue to repeat here in school. I know because I am only a few years older than you and I had this same jargon repeated over and over again in college by professors with that same glint in their liberal eye as they had in 1962. But I have a lot of older friends and family who did live back then. Guess what, it wasn't near as bad as these historians of doom and gloom would have you believe.

Was it all Father Knows Best and Leave it to Beaver "high mom! Dad I'm home. I got into a fight will little Jimmy at school, but we are friends now." No it wasn't. Were there problems. Yes.

Here is an example. Segregation/Integration/Racism You know all these modern Hollywood movies about "racism" and "the South" you see. Countless movies of a black man getting falsely accused and lynched or railroaded through the court. All black people in the town are all quaking with fear living in constant terror. Every day in life all black people are constantly abused and mistreated and bullied by every single member of the white population of the town....except for the one white man who is "50 years ahead of his time." Any moment of happiness that black families have is instantly inturrupted by a car....excuse me pickup truck, driving by with a load of hooded Klansmen or beerbellied boobs. Law enforcement are all potbellied and corrupt. The whole society is basically two different camps 1) black people who are all pure at heart scared but mad lead by civil rights leaders fighting for justice and equality and 2) white people who are all ignorant, full of hate and seek to "keep blacks in their place" with a noose or a gun.
That's the hollywood/liberal view of 1956. Guess what. It wasn't that bad and wasn't that cut and dry....or more to the point, it wasn't that black and white (pun intended)
Liberals think that what obsesses them obsesses everyone.

In reality, there were a lot of every day people, black and white, who had different views on the issues of the day. And the issues were not as clear cut as movies portray them. There were whites and blacks who thought, honestly, that blacks and whites shouldn't intermingle. That it would lead to decrease in education for both, it would lead to interracial marriage (which back then was thought a very unwise idea...and many people today black and white still think that), it would lead to an increase of out of wedlock children, it would lead to more violence in schools.

There where whites and blacks who believed that each should have school choice and many chose to stay in the formerly segregated schools that were still as a matter of fact black or white.

There were some who wanted to go farther and engage in social engineering and forcably integrate both races together for the sake of harmony (by force?).

In a nutshell there were black and whites who wanted things to change in the laws, schools and community but not come through revolutionary means that would lead to more violence, bitterness and end up hurting both.

There were low class blacks and whites who were hateful and lead to clashes with each other, but that was usually a loud minority that made it on the news every night (and the liberal media then as now loves to magnify things and they love to make things very one sided too)

I could go on and on with this issue and write a whole book on the other issues discussed on how things were back in 1956. BUT, I don't have the time and I don't think the moderators would like to see me dominate the whole thread. I will just close with this: Things were a lot more complicated back then than what modern public education has taught us.
 
Why not Scrooge?

You'll no doubt be surprised to learn that Christmas is a bank holiday we carried with us from England so that throws a secular monkey wrench into your curse of religions rant...
Scrooge?

Christmas is traditionally a christian holiday. It being a bank holiday has absolutely zero to do with the fact that it was observed as a religious holiday.

So what, christians get a national holiday but no one else does? Congress shall make no law....something something something. Eh, I guess if we can ignore that one then the rest aren't very important either.
 
'worm,

You are in dire need of some remedial history. To take just some low hanging fruit, not only was abolition in this country led by the new Republican party, but the entire notion of abolition, on a global scale, was a Western (primarily British), Christian enterprise.

No "progressive" atheists led the abolition movement. You could look it up.
Why don't you cite sources to back up your claim instead of suggesting I do all the leg work for you?
The comparison of the NRA and ACLU is, well, forgive me, but asinine. The NRA did not posit itself as the sole defender of all civil rights and comity among citizens, and goodness and light 'n all. It is the National Rifle Association. Complaining that the NRA isn't leading the charge for higher minimum wages or free compulsory abortions for middle school girls, makes about as much sense as complaining because you can't buy auto parts in a Krispy Kreme shop.
The ACLU does not posit itself as the sole defedner of all civil rights.

http://www.aclu.org/about/index.html

The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:

* Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.
* Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.
* Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.
* Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.
 
But my grandmother, her sister in law and many other women of my family DID go to an institution of higher learning. They did go to college. As did a lot of women back then. Even 100 years ago, depending on what country or part of the country you lived in, women were highly esteemed. Even if they didn't go to college as we know it today, they were taught the important things of life, grace, intelligence, wisdom, character, class. Things that, when it comes right down to it, are far more important then getting an "A" in Algebra. Education, back then wasn't put on the high pedistal that it is now. (Nothing wrong with education, I just think we worship school and college and the intellectual way too much these days)
Then they were educated. Good for them. Not everyone agrees that grace is more important than algebra. But are you seriously claiming that anywhere near as many women 100 years ago were on equal footing with men as they are today?

The intellectual are the ones that gave us the medical technologies that have extended your life expectancy and allow you to communicate with the rest of us via this forum.

But, assuming they didn't go to college, like you said who says going to college makes you educated. I too know a lot of complete morons who are morons BECAUSE they went to college (and believed all the idiotic jargon spewed to them in liberal psychology, history and sociology classes). Before they went to college they were common sense normal people and came out "enlightened" and "encouaged to broaden their intellectual horizons bay challenging" whatever they thought to be normal before

I come from a good family that didn't beat women and break childrens fingers and they didn't ever know anybody who did such a thing.

Communist Manifesto, well I was speaking more figuratively than literally. Basically the communists doctrine states that everything in the Western Christian Capitalist world is "racist" "sexist" "homophobic" "oppressive to the poor" "evil" and "wrong" and it will never be right until drastic revolutionary changes are made by the Communist Party who will bring about "equality" via government control by first taking over the educational institutions and then indoctrinating the youth. It is all exaggerations or even flat out lies used as propaganda to enflame one group of people against the other.

This didn't necessarily have to be carried out by Russian communist spys from Moscow, or even by an American Socialist party, but gradually and subtly through so called liberal and so called conservative movements in the political and educational arenas.
Where does the communist doctrine state this?
As you are 23 and did not live "back then" you are taught these beliefs you continue to repeat here in school. I know because I am only a few years older than you and I had this same jargon repeated over and over again in college by professors with that same glint in their liberal eye as they had in 1962. But I have a lot of older friends and family who did live back then. Guess what, it wasn't near as bad as these historians of doom and gloom would have you believe.
Oh so because I didn't live back then none of the history we have read, none of the people who were alive during that time and suffered these ills at the hands of the majority...none of that is true? I also have a lot of older friends and family who did live back then. There are people in my family who were attacked because of their race. There are women in my family who were grossly underpaid because men felt their work was worth less.

Was it all Father Knows Best and Leave it to Beaver "high mom! Dad I'm home. I got into a fight will little Jimmy at school, but we are friends now." No it wasn't. Were there problems. Yes.

Here is an example. Segregation/Integration/Racism You know all these modern Hollywood movies about "racism" and "the South" you see. Countless movies of a black man getting falsely accused and lynched or railroaded through the court. All black people in the town are all quaking with fear living in constant terror. Every day in life all black people are constantly abused and mistreated and bullied by every single member of the white population of the town....except for the one white man who is "50 years ahead of his time." Any moment of happiness that black families have is instantly inturrupted by a car....excuse me pickup truck, driving by with a load of hooded Klansmen or beerbellied boobs. Law enforcement are all potbellied and corrupt. The whole society is basically two different camps 1) black people who are all pure at heart scared but mad lead by civil rights leaders fighting for justice and equality and 2) white people who are all ignorant, full of hate and seek to "keep blacks in their place" with a noose or a gun.
That's the hollywood/liberal view of 1956. Guess what. It wasn't that bad and wasn't that cut and dry....or more to the point, it wasn't that black and white (pun intended)
Liberals think that what obsesses them obsesses everyone.
So because it didn't happen in every town it never happened? Becauase Hollywood made a movie about it then it couldn't possibly be true? What about the stories from people that lived through those very same things you just mentioned? I guess they're just part of the liberal media conspiracy?
In reality, there were a lot of every day people, black and white, who had different views on the issues of the day. And the issues were not as clear cut as movies portray them. There were whites and blacks who thought, honestly, that blacks and whites shouldn't intermingle. That it would lead to decrease in education for both, it would lead to interracial marriage (which back then was thought a very unwise idea...and many people today black and white still think that), it would lead to an increase of out of wedlock children, it would lead to more violence in schools.
I would mail $100 to anyone that can prove there were as many blacks as whites back then thinking that interracial marriages would cause problems in society. It's easy to claim these things when blacks didn't have a voice.

There where whites and blacks who believed that each should have school choice and many chose to stay in the formerly segregated schools that were still as a matter of fact black or white.

There were some who wanted to go farther and engage in social engineering and forcably integrate both races together for the sake of harmony (by force?).

In a nutshell there were black and whites who wanted things to change in the laws, schools and community but not come through revolutionary means that would lead to more violence, bitterness and end up hurting both.

There were low class blacks and whites who were hateful and lead to clashes with each other, but that was usually a loud minority that made it on the news every night (and the liberal media then as now loves to magnify things and they love to make things very one sided too)

I could go on and on with this issue and write a whole book on the other issues discussed on how things were back in 1956. BUT, I don't have the time and I don't think the moderators would like to see me dominate the whole thread. I will just close with this: Things were a lot more complicated back then than what modern public education has taught us.
Oh please. Yes, things were far more complicated but it doesn't change the facts. Many people didn't have a voice. Many suffered because the majority felt they were not as equal as the white males. Yes, there were those who felt otherwise but if the overwhelming majority truly cared about equality then why the hell did it take a massive civil rights movement?
 
Redworm said:
Congress shall make no law....something something something

You've alluded to this several times but never spit it out... why don't you?

Here... let me help...it's the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights and it goes like this in part:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."


I agree...

Congress shall not establish religions... Doesn't say a doggone word about celebrating them does it? And where in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights does it say "seperation of Church and State"? Can you point me to the proper section where that phrase is cited?
 
In the course of your research, find a dictionary. Then look up "hyperbole." Or shall I do that for you?

As to abolition, this is just a quick search, since I am at work, not at home:
Those prove what, exactly? How does that refute what I said? Republicans and conservatives are not interchangable and in that same dictionary I'm sure we can find what conservative means. It certainly doesn't sound like someone that wants to change things for the better.
 
So what, christians get a national holiday but no one else does?

Not correct, everyone who works for the government gets the holiday. Everyone else who gets the day off gets it off because of the good graces of the company owner. There is no law that says all businesses will close for Christmas. Federal Holidays are for the federal government and everyone else plays along. The federal government also doesn't just give Christians the day off, they give everyone the day off.
 
You've alluded to this several times but never spit it out... why don't you?

Here... let me help...it's the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights and it goes like this in part:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

I agree...

Congress shall not establish religions... Doesn't say a doggone word about celebrating them does it? And where in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights does it say "seperation of Church and State"? Can you point me to the proper section where that phrase is cited?
So a federal holiday doesn't require an act of Congress? How is telling the entire nation that this is a day as important as the 4th of July not promoting one specific religion?

Would you cry foul if Congress made Ramadan a national holiday? What about Yom Kippur?
 
Not correct, everyone who works for the government gets the holiday. Everyone else who gets the day off gets it off because of the good graces of the company owner. There is no law that says all businesses will close for Christmas. Federal Holidays are for the federal government and everyone else plays along. The federal government also doesn't just give Christians the day off, they give everyone the day off.
They give everyone the day off because of a Christian holiday. The bottom line remains that you either consider it a christian holiday and thus allow every other religion to have a national holiday or you consider it a secular holiday.
 
this means that the government can't tell everyone to be atheistic... oh wait they already do. If we were to go by the standards that ppl believe are "separation of church and state" then my highschool choir would not have been able to sing songs like mozarts Te Deum which is a song about God and Jesus being born of the virgin Mary.

The second sentence pretty much knocks the first sentence into a cocked hat, now don't it?

I bet if an atheist wrote a song ridiculing virgin birth and then some choir sang it in public there'd be a flap about persecution like you never heard.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top