http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=11159875

This is a story that happened this week about a child being bullied on the school bus. As infuriating as it stands by itself, I cannot believe with the attention of school bus violence that the school did not react promptly.

My daughter had an incident at the school bus stop this week. One morning she was at the bus stop and some of the girls starting making derogatory comments about white people (she is the only white person at the bus stop, if not on the whole bus). She texted her friend who lives a few doors down (who is black). Her friend came to the bus stop and made a comment to the girls and an arguement started, next thing you know the girls are threatening her friend. Luckily no physical violence happened. She called her parents who were thankfully home. They came to the bus stop, spoke to the bus driver, took the kids to school, spoke to the school. Next thing you know the school resource officer is interviewing the girls. The resource officer rode the bus home, and was there the next morning to talk to the kids. Not only that but the police are making rounds of the bus stops and watching things.

Her friend's mom called me that night to tell me what unfolded. Thank God the school reacted so promptly because who knows how out of hand things could have become. Her family was very upset about what the kids were saying about white people. According to my daughter though, this happens all the time and all the time at school. She is passive and tries to just ignore it.

Sorry to be on my soapbox, but anyways...I know that things like this have been going on for years. I know it is a part of growing up.

But what sickens me right now is how politicians in this country continue to make everything about race. Just because you want to protest your government right now makes you a racist? Yes there are racists out there, I know. But it happens on both sides. That is not why peole are protesting. It is their right to do so and would we want to live in a country where you cannot protest? Enough already. I am ticked off at Republicans and Democrats alike. I am tired of this administrations blatent behavior that acts as though we have a bottomless pit of money. I could go on all day about how fed up I am with both parties. BUT, in no way shape or form does it have anything to do with race. I think these politicians are doing nothing but enstilling anger and in our youth and we have come way too far for that.

I am glad to see in the news that Obama has spoke out about the "racist" issue and said that the protests are about government, not race. I hope he continues on that path. Its funny that it is whites who are using the words "racist" to discredit people.

Sorry about the long rant. I am just so furious with the media right now.

There IS a strong element of racism involved in the current political atmosphere. The assertion that it is not primarily about race is correct, but the conservatives really need to start self-policing this sort of thing, because they are the ones who are allowing it to go on, giving the liberals a foothold in that accusation.

A friend of mine is very firmly Libertarian, and attended one of the Tea Party rallies himself. He was was very passionate about the event until he saw the amount of racial prejudice that was actually on display there. He walked out of it disappointed. They do exist, and while they are not the majority, the rest of the protesters are implicating themselves by not removing those elements from their ranks.

quote:

Originally posted by ZombieApocalypse:
There IS a strong element of racism involved in the current political atmosphere. The assertion that it is not primarily about race is correct, but the conservatives really need to start self-policing this sort of thing, because they are the ones who are allowing it to go on, giving the liberals a foothold in that accusation.

A friend of mine is very firmly Libertarian, and attended one of the Tea Party rallies himself. He was was very passionate about the event until he saw the amount of racial prejudice that was actually on display there. He walked out of it disappointed. They do exist, and while they are not the majority, the rest of the protesters are implicating themselves by not removing those elements from their ranks.

He does not lie. They exist. They hide in places that would shock you. They know it's generally not a good idea to go spouting off about their bigotry in most places, so you have to go to one of their events to really get a grasp on just how deeply racist some of the believers in the whole teabagging death panel bandwagon are. They talk more freely when in a group that they feel is like-minded. Some of the things they say would curl your hair while you're checking the calendar to see when it became 1860 all over again.

I'm not joking.

Some of them have even learned that so long as they don't say certain words while delivering a beatdown for no freaking reason, they aren't a candidate for a Federal hate crimes trial.

PS: Some relatives were visiting some other relatives in another state. It's a northern state. Anyhow, some friends they've known for years came over and started talking about the coming of the militias. They were serious. They scared the poo out of my relatives. It's never comfortable to be around someone's who's drank the Kool-Aid and is willing to lay down his life in order to right what he sees as a wrong. When they're armed and talking about other armed folks feeling the same way and how we shouldn't be surprised when they rise up...well, it's enough to make a person start laying in the canned goods and bottled water, if you know what I mean.

quote:

Originally posted by Mystere:
PS: Some relatives were visiting some other relatives in another state. It's a northern state. Anyhow, some friends they've known for years came over and started talking about the coming of the militias. They were serious. They scared the poo out of my relatives. It's never comfortable to be around someone's who's drank the Kool-Aid and is willing to lay down his life in order to right what he sees as a wrong. When they're armed and talking about other armed folks feeling the same way and how we shouldn't be surprised when they rise up...well, it's enough to make a person start laying in the canned goods and bottled water, if you know what I mean.

Not to swing in favor of blowing people up, but are you saying that the people who founded our country were "drinking the kool-aid"?

What Tere said was not what you heard.

People who founded your country were not believers (as in "not Christians"), nor were they racists or radical haters. They were intelligent, wise (for the most part) people who were capable of thinking of all citizens, not just those who shared their beliefs.

For the benefit of a well-rounded picture, extreme liberals can be just as scary. They are using very similar logic, only details and objects of hate are reversed.

quote:

Originally posted by CoffeeOwl:
What Tere said was not what you heard.

People who founded your country were not believers (as in "not Christians"), nor were they racists or radical haters. They were intelligent, wise (for the most part) people who were capable of thinking of all citizens, not just those who shared their beliefs.

For the benefit of a well-rounded picture, extreme liberals can be just as scary. They are using very similar logic, only details and objects of hate are reversed.

I was under the distinct historic impression that the men who founded this country were quite extremely christian, and quite thoroughly devoted to God and liberty. I also believe that you can not define racism of this era and that era to mean the same thing. If you do, then they were still extremely racist. And I also think that seceding from your country should be considered one of the most radical motions of all. Maybe not entirely inspired by hate, but I am sure that hatred for how they were treated had a pretty big part in it.

They were thinking of all citizens who shared they belief that they did not want to be part of the system that they considered flawed and corrupt. As with all forms of government and and systems of beliefs, they ignored or shut out those who said that we should remain part of the empire.

It is true, the radical right and radical left both have their heads in different clouds. Between the christian "you are all going to tell" doctrine, and the liberal "global warming will bring hell to us" speeches, both sides should be taken with the same salt.

quote:

Originally posted by -GhOst-:
I was under the distinct historic impression that the men who founded this country were quite extremely christian, and quite thoroughly devoted to God and liberty.

You are distinctly incorrect in that impression, though you're not the only one. The founding fathers were, for the most part, atheists and Deists. The Deist ones are responsible for most of the "God" quotes that Christians point to as proof, but their idea of a God was NOT the Christian one.


Lighthouses are more useful than churches
-Benjamin Franklin

This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it
-John Adams

During fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been it its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolences in the clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution
-James Madison

Shake off all fears of servile prejudices, under which weak mines are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.
-Thomas Jefferson

Oh darn, I am incorrect, you obviously know the founding fathers better than I do, for you must certainly are chums with them, right?

You're quote from Adams is massively out of context. In a letter to Jefferson he said this: "Twenty times, in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, 'This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!!!' But in this exclamatic I should have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean Hell..."

"The assembly of Virginia passed a resolution on June 1, 1774 as a day of fasting, humiliation, and prayer. George Washington, our first president, set a pattern for leaders of this country to fast and pray. Washington’s diary records, “Went to church and fasted all day.”"

"The eighty one year old Franklin asserted that "the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this Truth--that God governs in the Affairs of Men." "I also believe," Franklin continued, that "without his concurring Aid, we shall succeed in this political Building no better than the Builders of Babel.""

"In this proclamation, issued at a time when the nation appeared to be on the brink of a war with France, Adams urged the citizens to "acknowledge before God the manifold sins and transgressions with which we are justly chargeable as individuals and as a nation; beseeching him at the same time, of His infinite grace, through the Redeemer of the World, freely to remit all our offences, and to incline us, by His Holy Spirit, to that sincere repentance and reformation which may afford us reason to hope for his inestimable favor and heavenly benediction.""

"In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern.""

"I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man."
-Hamilton

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”
-Jefferson

"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."
-Jefferson

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia]
-Madison

In 1812, President Madison signed a federal bill which economically aided the Bible Society of Philadelphia in its goal of the mass distribution of the Bible.

quote:

Originally posted by -GhOst-:
I was under the distinct historic impression that the men who founded this country were quite extremely christian, and quite thoroughly devoted to God and liberty.

ZA already helped you out with clearing the misconception, and I would like to add just a little bit:

"The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity." -John Adams

"I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book." -Thomas Paine (on The Bible)
US was founded on principles of tolerance, not hate.

quote:

I also believe that you can not define racism of this era and that era to mean the same thing. If you do, then they were still extremely racist.

They are not quite the same, but if you want to chase after these differences, you are chasing ever-changing forms and miss what's behind all forms of hatred towards fellow humans.

quote:

And I also think that seceding from your country should be considered one of the most radical motions of all. Maybe not entirely inspired by hate, but I am sure that hatred for how they were treated had a pretty big part in it.

Wrong again, my dear. I would totally stay there, I went through depression after coming here. Not my idea to move, it just happened that way because DH was asked (begged, actually) to work here by his company, and our kids needed sun desperately after 2 pretty bad summers in Moscow. Babies health problems and all that. On the grand picture of needs, my personal preferences mattered very little. And if you got some funny idea that me or my family were dissidents in the making, it's no that. We all are pretty much apolitical creatures.

quote:

They were thinking of all citizens who shared they belief that they did not want to be part of the system that they considered flawed and corrupt. As with all forms of government and and systems of beliefs, they ignored or shut out those who said that we should remain part of the empire.

It's not how things work in a totalitarian state. You can have your beliefs, views, ways of life, and what not. But if you have at least a few brain cells, you don't expose them where you are not supposed to do so. And FYI, way, way before the end of USSR, the majority was completely disillusioned with official "beliefs". No one expected you to believe, only to play it believable enough. Going to church would be a problem until you were senior enough, but that's about it. Playing included the government itself. It is very amusing to see the same people now in churches, talking and acting like devoted Christians.

quote:

It is true, the radical right and radical left both have their heads in different clouds. Between the christian "you are all going to tell" doctrine, and the liberal "global warming will bring hell to us" speeches, both sides should be taken with the same salt.

Naturally. The more radical the person gets, the further he floats from reality, the more he is devoted to the idea, the less he cares for live people.

quote:

Originally posted by CoffeeOwl:

quote:

And I also think that seceding from your country should be considered one of the most radical motions of all. Maybe not entirely inspired by hate, but I am sure that hatred for how they were treated had a pretty big part in it.

Wrong again, my dear. I would totally stay there, I went through depression after coming here. Not my idea to move, it just happened that way because DH was asked (begged, actually) to work here by his company, and our kids needed sun desperately after 2 pretty bad summers in Moscow. Babies health problems and all that. On the grand picture of needs, my personal preferences mattered very little. And if you got some funny idea that me or my family were dissidents in the making, it's no that. We all are pretty much apolitical creatures.

Though I do love to hear your life story. (Really it is quite interesting compared to most). I was not talking about you. I was talking about our founding father and our country, which I had started and have continued to talk about the entire time. So no. I am not wrong, because seceding from a country or empire you are part of and creating your own is really a very radical movement. If you say I am wrong I assume you would be fine with each state, county, or city, seceding from their given country and creating their own?

quote:

Originally posted by -GhOst-:
Oh darn, I am incorrect, you obviously know the founding fathers better than I do, for you must certainly are chums with them, right?

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." -- Thomas Jefferson, again

Let's be clear from the very outset that this is not an issue of "Well, there were two deists, three atheists, one Catholic, two Protestants, etc". From the very beginning, in the First Amendment, we have our guarantee (which has worked out so well) of a separation of church and state. Our government, no matter the beliefs of any of the founders, was intended to be a secular government, under which all citizens should be free to practice their own religion without any sponsorship, or criticism, from the government.

Having said that, I still believe your interpretations of the Founding Fathers' beliefs, or lack thereof, to be incorrect. Let's take a closer look at that, shall we?

quote:

You're quote from Adams is massively out of context. In a letter to Jefferson he said this: "Twenty times, in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, 'This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!!!' But in this exclamatic I should have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean Hell..."

Adams was a Unitarian, and did not believe in Jesus as a divine figure. This does not indicate that he had any intention of forming a Christian nation, and HAD his intention been to create a religious nation, it most certainly would not be of the variety that most of the "Christian nation" fanatics believe.

quote:

"The assembly of Virginia passed a resolution on June 1, 1774 as a day of fasting, humiliation, and prayer. George Washington, our first president, set a pattern for leaders of this country to fast and pray. Washington’s diary records, “Went to church and fasted all day.”"

George Washington went to church, as most men did at that time regardless of their personal beliefs. However, he is not known to have ever taken part in communion, and rarely, if ever, mentioned religion in his writings. The few instances where it is mentioned are not inconsistent with a Deist belief system.

quote:

"The eighty one year old Franklin asserted that "the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this Truth--that God governs in the Affairs of Men." "I also believe," Franklin continued, that "without his concurring Aid, we shall succeed in this political Building no better than the Builders of Babel.""

Again, this is Deist, not Christian. Belief in the existence of SOME sort of God does not make you a Christian. Belief in the Christian god, and in Jesus as his son and mortal incarnation on Earth, makes you a Christian. How did he feel about that?

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter"

He DOES, however, admit a philosophical concordance with the teachings of Jesus, which I can't say I disagree with:

"Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others, again, of so much ignorance, of so much absurdity, so much untruth and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. I separate, therefore, the gold from the dross, restore to him the former, and leave the latter to the stupidity of some and the roguery of others of his disciples"

My personal spin on "separate the gold from the dross", in regards to the myth of Jesus as well as Christianity overall: Yeah, if you pick through enough ****, you're bound to get some good corn out of the deal.

quote:

"In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern.""

Put this quote in contrast, and you'll read the first a little differently:

"The faith you mention has doubtless its use in the world. I do not desire to see it diminished, nor would I desire to lessen it in any way; but I wish it were more productive of good works than I have generally seen it. I mean real good works, works of kindness, charity, mercy, and public spirit, not holy-day keeping, sermon-hearing, and reading, performing church ceremonies, or making long prayers, filled with flatteries and compliments, despised even by wise men, and much less capable of pleasing the Deity"

What we have here is not Jefferson advocating a personal Christian faith, simply because he didn't have it. He was saying that he believed it had its place in society, and apparently in schools in Pennsylvania. He was a Deist himself, and was simply recognizing that Christianity had good parts to it, as well as the bad.

quote:

"I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man."
-Hamilton

Hamilton was a Christian, and if you asked Aaron Burr, a lousy shot as well.

quote:

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”
-Jefferson

"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."
-Jefferson

Again, Jefferson did not disagree with the moral teachings of Jesus. The second point is actually an interesting one, serving to remind us that most Christians are not very Christ-like at all. In fact, the teachings of most modern Christian sects make an absurd, disgusting parody of what Jesus himself taught. The Pope, supposedly the most super-holy Catholic ever, lives in what can only be described as a palace. This sits in stark contrast with the idea that "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.". My belief here is that Jefferson is simply stating that he follows the moral teachings of Jesus, not that he is actually a Christian, going to church on Sunday, and all that. Besides, if that WERE the case, it would be a direct contradiction to the dozens and dozens of quotes that reveal a Deistic nature at best.

quote:

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia]
-Madison

In 1812, President Madison signed a federal bill which economically aided the Bible Society of Philadelphia in its goal of the mass distribution of the Bible.

Madison was Episcopalian. I think that makes two that were bona-fide, Jesus was the son of God and rose from the dead, Christians, out of all you've mentioned. Maybe they were really heavy, and could constitute a majority by weight?

At any rate, Madison's beliefs did not translate to his establishment of a Christian society, either. He was known to be a believer in religious freedom, which, in case you haven't heard, doesn't mean "Freedom to pick which flavor Jesus to worship". However, I do find the idea of a federal bill funding bibles to be an especially odious, offensive idea. I'll remind you of our First Amendment again. It seems to me that Madison committed a rather obvious violation of the idea of "No law respecting an establishment of religion" by appropriating tax dollars to distribute bibles. Just goes to show that the Founding Fathers were not completely infalliable. And they most certainly were not completely, or even mostly, Christian.

Thank you for the actual content inclusive response. I submit said point.

Now original question. Were they Patriots, or Kool-Aid drinkers?

quote:

Originally posted by -GhOst-:
Thank you for the actual content inclusive response. I submit said point.

Now original question. Were they Patriots, or Kool-Aid drinkers?

They were patriots. Today's "revolutionary" types are, for the most part, Kool-Aid drinkers. They are easy prey for anyone spreading disinformation, and once they have that disinformation in their heads, no amount of common sense or fact will change their minds. If you tell them that healthcare reform means death panels, it no longer matters that the rational world has long debunked that myth. If you tell them that the President is a Muslim who was born in Kenya, it doesn't matter that the facts to disprove it are easily obtained, they will believe you, and they will hate him for it. They cheer at one of the "czars" resigning, thinking that they have dealt "Socialism" a blow, never once realizing who actually overthrew the Czars in Russia. That's a fun one to try to explain to them.

I'm not saying there aren't intelligent people with legitimate gripes in today's political atmosphere. I know them, I've talked to them, and many of them are good friends of mine despite differing opinions. However, they are not the ones that the American public is seeing. They see the idiots, the bigots, and the Glenn Becks Rush Limbaughs bigoted idiots. If the intelligent ones don't speak up and speak out against the rabble-rousers in their midst, the conservatives in this country will be doomed to marginalization.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: ZombieApocalypse,

quote:

Originally posted by ZombieApocalypse:
They were patriots. Today's "revolutionary" types are, for the most part, Kool-Aid drinkers.

So who is to decide where the line is drawn? What do you deem drinking "kool-aid" and how do you differentiate it from standing by the values and idea you accept.

quote:

Originally posted by ZombieApocalypse:
never once realizing who actually overthrew the Czars in Russia. That's a fun one to try to explain to them.

Yes, this bit has various levels of irony, in all aspects.

quote:

Originally posted by ZombieApocalypse:
the conservatives in this country will be doomed to marginalization.

Hah, everything you said here was about conservatives. Yet this itself becomes "kool-aid" at the point where you generalize people and do not make the same case in all instances. There are true aspects to everything you say, but all forces come in pairs. I think you will find conservatism will not, anytime in the near future, be marginalized. This is simply because the other side of the story here is that the Liberal end of the spectrum has an equal and opposite amount of ignorance and stupidity.

Conservatives call it individual worth.
Liberals call it human worth.

What is so different about "the green revolution" in comparison to "the tax revolution" (or some other set of semi-equivalents).

My answer is: Nothing. There is no difference between either range of beliefs because both comparable sides are completely driven on blind support and half truths. Such is the way with all causes. I do not believe there to be many historical examples of a large cause that had supporters who (for the most part) knew the facts on everything. Such is the same with the patriots of the colonies. Though the founding fathers had a plan, and knew their general direction, a good many of the colonists had very little idea about the details of the situation.

The format has not changed in hundreds of years, nor do I think it is going to. So why are those who believe in a cause in this day and age any less legitimate than those who believed in a cause in the past?