Gee, that's, ah, too bad I guess.
|
Gee, that's, ah, too bad I guess.
I wonder who's going to picket his funeral?
Hopefully not a soul.
:-)
Oh come on... we know the Lefties have been waiting for this to happen... they can't wait to picket his funeral. Lefties are a spiteful bunch.
Smoothiy's "lefty" rant, right on cue. :-) I know you conservatives embraced his views. That's fine.
What time do you expect to be there? You can't miss this chance... it only comes once in a lifetime.
Why do you think I would take the to picket any funeral at all? Or any marriage? Or any ceremony? Is that something you do?
Seems exactly like the sort of thing you would do... I take it you are keeping it low key and just showing up unannounced.
Hah, you're funny... and delusional.
I won't tell anyone you are going... it will be our secret.
Let's see... the Right wing fascists lost a poster child, so does Al Sharpton have to martyr himself to keep it in balance?
Oh, please... either him or Jackson... I'd be happy with either one... maybe they could step up both do it together. They are both obnoxious racist bigots.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catsmine
picket a funeral is this a new sport?
If you are unaware of this fellow - do a Google search on "Fred Phelps" and "Westboro Baptist Church" and see what you get. Not too many people will be mourning his passing.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Good riddance.
I know who he is, I was being sarcastic, but hopefully this will be ignored as it should be
He won't be missed that's for sure. Hard to believe he was a civil rights lawyer in the 60s and received awards from the NAACP. Not sure why he became so hateful later on. It's good that his son became a civil rights activist and wasn't brainwashed by his father's hateful rhetoric. Let's hope the WBC fades into obscurity now.
he might have discovered a gay in his closet
You may have just worded a new definition for irony. BravoQuote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
I am not Christian but would think most Christians are happy he is gone as he gave a bad name to their religion. By that I mean who would want to be part of a religion that is full of such hatred and anger?
If there is a heaven and hell, I hope he is met at the gates and told you have hurt me by making more people hate me.
I wonder if the government could have designated the WBC a terrorist group. That would have been a good way to crack down on them. I think there should be some limits on freedom of speech. Too many Americans think that free speech gives them the right to be abusive jerks and I don't agree with that. You can have some sensible limits on free speech and still have a democratic society. For example, you can't deny the Holocaust in France, you can't wear Nazi symbols or give salutes in Germany or Austria. I think America needs to rethink absolute free speech and consider some sensible limits.
I'd start with all the Mosques... but that's just me. More trouble starts in those than WBC. The Media just ignores one and focuses on the other. Things are never what they appear when Journalists are involved.
Should we also just designate all Christians as pedophiles?
Well, the Supreme Court disagrees with you - the Wolfboro Baptist Church was sued and won in the Supreme Court. In general it is not against the law to be a jerk, even if it may cause some emotional trauma in others. Not sure where you are from, but I would say most Americans are more in favor of erring on the side of having too much free speech and the pains it may cause as opposed to erring on the side of having discourse stiffled by some government agency. It's ridiculous (in my opinion) that in France a school girl is not allowed to wear a head scarf, just as its ridiculous that in North Korea it's illegal to carry a Bible.Quote:
Originally Posted by earl237
I'm from Canada, with German heritage. I don't see a problem with France's headscarf ban, I think that immigrants should integrate and adapt to the social and cultural norms of the country that they are living in. Integrated people are more likely to be accepted by others and become successful adults and less likely to become alienated which can lead to extremism. German immigrants, including my grandparents went out of their way to integrate when they moved to Canada after WWII, they didn't demand to wear lederhosen at work, or demand that the cafeteria serve bratwurst and sauerkraut.Quote:
Originally Posted by ebaines
So people should abandon their own culture to take on the dominant one where they migrate to make it easier to fit in and be accepted? Voluntary assimilation instead of massa beating it into you?
I obviously think Frances head scarf ban is stupid, and prejudicial.
Did your female ancestors wear cross necklaces? If they did, then they didn't totally integrate.Quote:
Originally Posted by earl237
I'm with Earl on the headscarf ban... But then I've spent enough time in Europe to see first hand how they tend to immigrate, then cluster and associate only with their own kind... then burn cars and cause mayhem when everyone doesn't bend to their way of doing things... because heaven forbid they change their behaviour to fit the norm of their host country.
My own Grandparents inmmigrated here... and they all did their damnest to integrate and assimilate. I have no lost love for those who refuse to.
There is a huge differnce between forgetting your culture and assimilating. They aren't different sides of the same coin. You can assimilate and keep part of your culture. The people who refuse to even try to fit in are welcome to return to their home country where they can do things that way... here we do things our way.
Sorry but that's a real sore point with me.
There is a VERY old saying... "when in Rome do as the Romans do...." There is a very good reason for that.
When in Rome, do as the Romans do
Meaning
It is polite, and possibly also advantageous, to abide by the customs of a society when one is a visitor.
Origin
Why should an English proverb single out Rome and Roman values as especially to be emulated? Couldn't we have had a 'when in Ipswich, do as the Ipswichians do' for example? As it turns out, it's all to do with the travel arrangements of a couple of early Christian saints.
St Augustine: Letters Volume I was translated from the Latin by Sister W. Parsons and published in 1951. Letter 54 to Januarius contains this original text, which date from circa 390AD:Romanum venio, ieiuno Sabbato; hic sum, non ieiuno: sic etiam tu, ad quam forte ecclesiam veneris, eius morem serva, si cuiquam non vis esse scandalum nec quemquam tibi.which was translated as:When I go to Rome, I fast on Saturday, but here [Milan] I do not. Do you also follow the custom of whatever church you attend, if you do not want to give or receive scandal.Januarius, who was later canonised as a martyr saint, was Bishop of Naples at the time.
The above dates the source of the proverb to at least as early as the beginnings of the Christian church. The implied flexibility on dogma and acceptance of the religious and social practices of other cultures seems to be more akin to the contemporary Buddhist teachings of the Dalai Lama than those of present day Christian authorities.
The use of the proverb in English isn't recorded until much later - well into the Middle Ages.
Robert Burton's The Anatomy of Melancholy was first published in 1621. Burton makes oblique reference to the phrase, without using it explicitly:...like Mercury, the planet, are good with good, bad with bad. When they are at Rome, they do there as they see done, puritans with puritans, papists with papistsHe was slightly predated by Henry Porter, who came a little nearer to the present day version of the proverb in his play The pleasant history of the two angry women of Abington, 1599:Nay, I hope, as I have temperance to forbear drink, so have I patience to endure drink: Ile do as company dooth; for when a man doth to Rome come, he must do as there is done.The Interesting letters of Pope Clement XIV [a.k.a. Lorenzo Ganganelli] were published in 1777. Letter XLIV [to Prior Dom Galliard] contains the earliest version of the proverb as currently used in English that I have found in print:The siesto, or afternoon's nap of Italy, my most dear and reverend Father, would not have alarmed you so much, if you had recollected, that when we are at Rome, we should do as the Romans do - Romano Romanus eris.
People in my family were not religious, so I don't recall any of them wearing cross necklaces. Cross necklaces are not exclusively a German tradition, I see people of all cultures wearing them, even some who are not Christian.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
I'm sure like most immigrants - German or otherwise - it was a difficult transition and they worked hard at learning the customs and ways of their new home. But are you suggesting that IF they had ever worn lederhosen in public they should have been arrested?Quote:
Originally Posted by earl237
The head scarf (mentioned in both the Bible and the Koran) is a religious and modesty symbol, not a cultural one -- similar to wearing a cross necklace, another religious symbol, (not cultural). Cross wearing should be forbidden too?Quote:
Originally Posted by earl237
Of course not, I have no problem with headscarves or turbans in public places, as long as their faces are visible, I don't support the burqua or niqab, because they cover the face, and could be used by a wanted criminal or terrorist to hide their identity or conceal a weapon. I think headscarves and turbans are fine for public places, but they should not be worn in schools or workplaces.Quote:
Originally Posted by ebaines
How about we just be nice to each other. Let people wear what they like be it cross necklaces, or head scarves... to be honest how does that affect your day? I have no religious beliefs at the moment but will still go to church with my mom. I hate it but will do it. It means nothing to me as I don't believe so it is like I am sitting at a movie I don't like.
This banning head scarves and the like is silly. How would you like it if government told you what color underwear to wear, what style of pants, shirt etc? Do we all want to be exactly alike and have no individualism?
Now banning people for intentially trying to hurt others by picketing funerals with signs that is infringing on others. I don't agree with that.
Short version: Just be nice to each other, respect our differences and try to make the world a better place.
Why not?Quote:
Originally Posted by earl237
I think integration is a good thing for schools because kids who are different are more likely to be bullied or excluded by other kids and that can lead to isolation and extremism as they get older. I think that people should all be nice to each other, but I know that kids are immature and very mean to anyone different and wishful thinking isn't going to change that. A kid who fits in will be more likely to fit in and make friends. I think making friends with kids from different backgrounds is the best way to encourage tolerance and a kid who conforms will have an easier time making friends. Integrating is also a good idea at work, I read a story not long ago about a Sikh man with a beard and turban who wasn't getting called back after job interviews, and someone advised him to trim his beard and stop wearing the turban. Not long after, he found a job. It's unfair that we are judged by our appearance, but that is reality. Studies have even shown that attractive defendants are more likely to be found not guilty in a trial and even get lighter sentences if found guilty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Earl I do agree with what you said BUT how will it change if we don't work on making it change. Make it unacceptable to judge others on appearance, make it so bullies are the outcasts etc. It starts with a few people and can grow that is how change happens.
I agree that culture should change but it isn't happening yet. I just heard a sad story about a 9 year old kid who was being bullied because he wore a "My Little Pony" backpack to school. Instead of punishing the bullies as they should have done, the school banned him from wearing the backpack. I hate the way schools blame the victim instead of punishing the bully nowadays. I remember in the 90s, some thought I was uncool because alternative grunge rock was popular and I still liked 80s glam metal bands. No one said that I couldn't wear a Def Leppard shirt to school. I hope that schools will start punishing bullies, kids should have a right to feel safe at school.
So that means students all need to be the same height, weight, skin color, wear the same clothes (uniforms?), have the same hair length and color, the same number of freckles, bring the same food in their bag lunches, so that they all get along? The problem is with the bullies, not with the bullied.Quote:
Originally Posted by earl237
It's impossible for everyone to be exactly the same, and that's fine. As I said in my earlier post, schools should be discouraging and punishing bullying and not blaming the victims. Anyone have any thoughts on how bullying should be made socially unacceptable?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by earl237
I know many schools now promote anti-bullying programs, but once again the schools are having to pick up where the families fall short. Of course they also get blamed for not doing enough.
The public can't have it both ways however. "They" want the schools to hold the bully accountable and punish them on one hand, but take away any power for them to do so. Many parents will blame the victim, who must have done something first to their child, or they blame the school, or they encourage their child to behave in such a manner. Perhaps holding parents accountable when it is determined that their child is a bully will have some result. Either provide support for the parent to make appropriate parenting changes, or something more punitive if necessary.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:28 PM. |