104 1 min 9 yrs

The First Amendment to the US Constitution specifies freedom OF religion…not freedom FROM religion. This is a critical distinction. Here is the text:

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

Unfortunately, due to the totalitarian instincts of the political “diverse” Left, “tolerance” has morphed into the decided LACK of tolerance for tolerance, itself.

A school in Alabama has banished the word “Easter” from their annual Easter Egg Hunt.

Boys and girls at an Alabama elementary school will still get to hunt for eggs – but they can’t call them ‘Easter Eggs’ have the principal banished the word for the sake of religious diversity.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

104 thoughts on “We Are All Pagans Now

  1. I went to Our Lady of Angels Elementary School in Brooklyn,and we didn’t have an Easter Egg Hunt of any kind there.

    They taught us that Easter was about the resurrection of Christ. They didn’t speak of eggs and bunnies.

    Why should a public school have ” Easter Egg ” hunts when Easter Eggs have nothing to do with Christianity and not all the kids are Christian either, egg-believers or egg-nostics?

  2. ““We had in the past a parent to question us about some of the things we do here at school,” said Heritage Elementary School principal Lydia Davenport. “So we’re just trying to make sure we respect and honor everybody’s differences.”

    At some point this honouring of everybody’s differences has to break down. Human societies change. Sometimes they go forward, sometimes backwards and sometimes they get stuck. I think I could provide a current example of all three.

    The present freedoms we enjoy in western liberal democracies didn’t “just happen.” They were the result of religious or philosophical developments widely accepted as being both true and enhancing of human worth, dignity and freedom.

    However once a society abandons the underlying value system for whatever reason but still promote personal freedom and difference, it will not be very long before chaos and confusion take hold. Obviously not overnight but gradually. There has to be a sufficiently strong value system to hold things together.

  3. “Why should a public school have ” Easter Egg ” hunts when Easter Eggs have nothing to do with Christianity and not all the kids are Christian either, egg-believers or egg-nostics?”

    I partly agree Phantom. Eggs and Bunnies had symbolism once but are bow commercially empty of meaning.
    What I can’t understand is your apparent belief that by gradually stripping away the influence of Christianity in America, the values that made America great and free can be sustained.

  4. Whatever the religious significance or not of Easter bunnies and egg hunts, they are a harmless and genial cultural tradition and should not be banned or even considered to be offensive to anyone. No school should ever have to consider that hosting such an innocent event is against anyone’s rights or any part of the Constitution.

  5. That also refers to the use of the word Easter. It should be used without fear or restriction.

  6. A school in Alabama makes some decision about an Easter Egg hunt and suddenly we are all pagans? Hell, they have an Easter Egg event at the White House, it is hardly a dying tradition.

    I adopt Phantom’s note that the Easter Bunny himself did not die on the cross and get resurrected so I don’t think we are dealing with a sophisticated attack on Christianity itself. Sometimes in a misguided effort to seperate Church and State you get a stray incident like this. I wouldn’t worry about it too much.

  7. Seen on the street – yesterday – a bumper sticker declaring: ‘It’s OK to say “Merry Christmas!”‘

    sad reminder that Christmas is also under fire thanks to our tolerant totalitarian Left

  8. Sadly this post illustrates the totalitarian instincts of the political right.

    If a school choose to play a silly game with eggs and call it an Easter Egg Hunt that is acceptable to the totalitarian right.
    If a school choose to play a silly game with eggs and call it something other than an Easter Egg Hunt that is not acceptable to the totalitarian right.

    The principal should be able to run her school without attacks from the intolerant right.

  9. key word, here, Fews, is “banned.” This is a trending totalitarian instinct and it comes from the Left.

    other key words/phrases include: Political Correctness, Intolerance of tolerance (for Christianity)

    (and, lest I confuse you, I added “Pagan” just to stir it up a bit)

  10. Intolerance of tolerance (for Christianity)

    Does that include tolerance for gay ‘marriage’ or is it only ‘Christian’ concepts that should be tolerated?

  11. It sseems that mankind is the sort of creature that desperately needs something mystical – anything, – in which to believe. If for no other reason than having the unique intellectual powers we have been blessed with, we had to have some explanation or reason ‘for being’.

    Being at the top of the food chain, as it were, we have no-one else to blame but ourselves when things go bad, so a belief in something, or someone mystical is some sort of relief valve, to prevent us all going completely mad.

    As we enjoy a more sophisticated lifestyle than our ancestors, so do we have more sophisticated and more complicated beliefs.

    It was quite natural for our ancestors to believe in ‘natural’ phenomena, what else did they have? How easy it is to weave stories and fables about the unexpected and expected changes in weather.

    Now all we have to believe in are things which – with all due respect – stretch our credulity to the limits. That the basic tenets, – not so much the detail – of modern religion have their roots based in the long ago past is undeniable, things such as the passing of the seaons, communal life, family life, and a basic understanding of humanity in general, have all been in our collective psyche since time began and have been developed into what we have today.

    Of course it would be a fool who believes that we know it all, when there is so much not just beyond our knowledge, but beyond our understanding.

    When you look out on a beautiful spring morning, it is hard to believe that what you see has happened ‘by accident’, there has to be some design or intention involved, by what or whom, is the eternal mystery. It’s all beyond me, but then, being a simple soul, I have a problem even when considering the concept of infiniti.

    Are we meant to know, are we capable of understanding it if we do know, – I have a strange feeling that the day we do know, will be the end for us.

    So, on looking back, it is hardly surprising that so many of our traditional celebrations have an equivalent in the past, the seasons have changed, our needs have changed, and don’t we all just love looking back on the ‘Good ‘ole days!’ – as they say , – we live and learn!

  12. ‘The principal should be able to run her school without attacks from the intolerant right.’

    Or similarly snide attacks from the pissant left

  13. Christmas freely celebrated with joy by millions of Americans and is as “under fire” as eating. Likewise Easter is celebrated by millions of Americans without concenr and with great devotion and happiness.

    Of all the pretend wars (war on drugs, war on terrorism etc) the war on relgious holidays is the most nonexistent.

  14. “Does that include tolerance for gay ‘marriage’ or is it only ‘Christian’ concepts that should be tolerated?”

    Paul: The Left is intolerant of Christianity.

    The RIght is tolerant of homosexuality – and yes, I know the word “homosexual” is also banned these days.

    The issue of whether or not homosexuals can “marry” is not an issue of tolerance. Those days are long gone. Homosexuality is widely accepted as a choice freely enjoyed by many, including Dick Cheney’s daughter who was a political talking head on FOX news without any intolerance from the Right.

    The issue of “gay marriage” is one concerning the definition of “marriage” and not one of “tolerance.”

  15. The Left is intolerant of Christianity

    No it’s not. I know many lefties who would claim to have Christian beliefs.

    The issue of “gay marriage” is one concerning the definition of “marriage” and not one of “tolerance”

    So, if Churches aren’t forced to perform marriage ceremonies with same sex couples the right have no problem?

    A very considered comment Ernest.

  16. Daphne: Great news from the battlefront!

    Paul: “I know many lefties who would claim to have Christian beliefs.” you reminded me of this old anecdote: “I even have a black friend,” said the racist…..

  17. Daphne – Home Run. Well done.

    People of ATW – Who is this “Left” that is intolerant of Christianity? Certainly there are peopel who are, and some line up politically on “The Left”, but aren’t these broad stroke accusations are false witness (which I think is a no no according to the Good Book). There are millions of people who are Christian and happen to be liberal no doubt lumped into “The Left” here.

  18. Paul: “I know many lefties who would claim to have Christian beliefs.” you reminded me of this old anecdote: “I even have a black friend,” said the racist…..

    And your point is?

    So, if Churches aren’t forced to perform marriage ceremonies with same sex couples the right have no problem?

    Are you going to answer the question?

  19. Paul: to seriously address your concerns about the RIght’s problem with “gay marriage” – to seriously address why some feel that the definition of marriage: “a union between a man and a woman” should not be changed –

    – and please bear in mind that I am not an expert on this in any way –

    It is felt that by changing the definition, a can of worms is opened – can “marriage” exist than between several woman and man? will polygamy be allowed?

    can marriage than exist between a man and his daughter? will incest than be allowed?

    because homosexual couples already have legal unions which protect them from unfair practices at hospitals etc. the Right feel there is more harm than good to come from changing the definition of marriage.

  20. It is felt that by changing the definition, a can of worms is opened – can “marriage” exist than between several woman and man? will polygamy be allowed?
    can marriage than exist between a man and his daughter? will incest than be allowed?

    Straw men.

    You said the problem is the definition of ‘marriage’

    So, if Churches aren’t forced to perform marriage ceremonies with same sex couples the right have no problem?

    It’s a yes or no answer. Does the right’s tolerance extend to this?

  21. No Paul – it is not a “straw man”

    the definition of marriage is a “union between a man and a woman” – if the definition of marriage is changed, what is to stop it from being changed to “a union between a man and several woman” or a “union between “a man and his daughter” etc.

    it is a reasoned and serious argument and just because there is a very vocal minority claiming that homosexualilty is an inborn trait and they therefore are engaged in a civil rights struggle akin to black civil rights etc – just because some cry “bigot” doesn’t mean they are right and should be listened to.

    It is worth arguing over and thinking about.

    Does our society need strong marriage and families? what would happen if we dissolved the institution of marriage such that incest and polygamy were sanctioned? etc.

    I ask you, Paul, to be open-minded – not intolerant – and at least consider these ideas.

  22. Of course it’s a straw man. We are speaking about state recognition of a relationship of same sex couples. Relationshps based on polygamy and incest are different matters entirely different matters

    Please answe my original question with a simple yes or no and stop attempting to obfuscate.

  23. How does allowing gay people to marry make marriage less strong? The reverse is true.

    If you equate homosexuality with incest or polygamy then I suppose you make that argument. But if you don’t then why argue it?

  24. Since there are having an Easter Egg Hunt, shouldn’t the title of the post be changed to “We Are All Christians Now”?

  25. When I was working and trying to arrange shift rosters and leave during the Easter and Christmas holidays, it was always those of other religions and the non-believers who were absolutely insistent upon having these holidays then rather than having the equivalent time off at some other weekend. Yet whenever their particular celebration days came around, they always insisted on their absolute right to take leave.

  26. Paul, I’m not obfuscating. I’m repeating back to you some of the actual arguments presented yesterday in the Supreme Court; Im am attempting to seriously address your question.

    I can’t really answer “yes” /”no” to your question: “So, if Churches aren’t forced to perform marriage ceremonies with same sex couples the right have no problem?”

    n California, homosexuals can enter into “civil unions” with all the rights and privileges of a “marriage” but without being called a “marriage. ” Proposition 8 – the reason the Supreme Court is now weighing in on the argument – was passed by a huge majority in California – most people here do not want to change the definition of marriage. I believe DOMA is a federal law which compels people to recognize homosexual marriage, ie change the definition.

    Personally, I don’t think the Fed should be in the business of social engineering. But then I don’t think homosexuality is a civil rights issue – I think it is a choice and all adults are free to choose this if they like, without stigma. The Left has been arguing that homosexuality is determined by DNA and therefore it’s like “race” and therefore a civil rights issue and therefore, a federal case.

    regarding the Church – there are thousands of “churches” in California – even Scientology is a church – whether or not a church recognizes or marries someone is not really important in California – home of Proposition 8.

  27. Churches will not be forced to carry out same sex marriages.

    The Catholic church does not permit divorced people to remarry.
    The state does permit divorced people to remarry.
    But the Catholic Church has never been forced to carry out a marriage for a divorced person (or a Protestant or atheist). It is permitted to set it’s own rules for who it will marry and this will continue if the state permits gay marriage.

  28. lastly, Im not really invested in this issue although I do follow it.

    but, in conclusion, I don’t think the issue is Church versus Govt. permission – the issue is the redefining the word: “marriage.”

    no one in California is rejecting gays or even noticing gays much. Gays have integrated their lifestyle and most people just accept that this is what someone wants or does. No problem.

    I think the gay lobby is filled with unhappy attention seekers and they can’t stand the fact that even the naked gay parade, peopled now with masturbators and exhibitionists of all kinds has been accepted and is tolerated. (please see photos by Zombie at PJ Media before you accuse me of exaggerating “bad behavior” at the gay parades.)

    and I think that this is the driving force behind the gay marriage brouhaha. no one really cares. politicians wil l cave and agree. Supreme Court will caves and rules and life goes on.

    what’s next, then, on the gay outrage menu? well, polygamy might be good. incest? why not. men/boy horror? sure. anything for attention. – it’s a small – very small – group of activists driving this – and the rest of us are largely indifferent.

  29. Patty,

    Would you define me of the political left, the political centre or the political right? And also if you consider me of the left do you believe I am intolerant of Christianity?

  30. Fews: I think that if a person disagrees with their church or refuses to follow the churches tenets then they should leave their church. It is not for the Church to change.

  31. Fews,

    Divorced people are neither a suspect class or a quasi-suspect class. While homosexuals have not officially been granted it either there are major steps in lower courts to do so in the United States. So this is a case of apples and oranges.

  32. “Would you define me of the political left, the political centre or the political right? And also if you consider me of the left do you believe I am intolerant of Christianity?”

    unfortunately, I have to go. I would love to define for you the political Left (as I use the term). Not always, but usually, I use the The Left – to designate a fairly specific school of thought. I will specify when I come back and have time to do it justice. (athough not Social Justice. hahaha!)

    as for your tolerance or intolerance of Christianity, it is for you to define yourself. not me. please do so and I will be back later to read as I am very interested.

  33. Patty,

    Considering I am left wing practicing Catholic I would probably not be intolerant of Christianity and also a rebuttal of your left wing are intolerant of Christianity point.

  34. Paul,

    While I oppose anti-miscegenation laws they are not necessarily incompatible with a traditional definition of marriage. Limiting marriage to less than the traditional definition does not overturn the definition. Expanding marriage to more than the traditional definition does overturn the definition.

  35. While homosexuals have not officially been granted it either there are major steps in lower courts to do so in the United States. So this is a case of apples and oranges

    I think we’re being dragged down with the legal aspects of this Seamus. The crux of the matter is the alleged tolerance of the right v. the alleged intolerance of the left.

    Considering I am left wing practicing Catholic I would probably not be intolerant of Christianity and also a rebuttal of your left wing are intolerant of Christianity point.

    Excellent point.

  36. I don’t honestly believe the main groups on either side are more or less tolerant than each other. Most left wing and liberal groups are very tolerant of those they approve of and very intolerant of those they don’t approve of. Most right wing and conservative groups are very tolerant of those they approve of and are very intolerant of those they don’t approve of.

  37. I wouldn’t necessarily disagree Seamus but I did feel the need to comment on Patty’s allegation of ‘the tolerant totalitarian Left’

  38. Well you have all been busy little bunnies while I’ve been away!
    I had to accompany Mrs. Agit8ed to the surgery, and I fell asleep in the waiting room.
    It’s a real sign of aging when a thing like that doesn’t embarrass you!

    Well talk about throwing fresh meat to the lions! Patty’s post shows two things.
    One that we were all ready for a new thread to get our teeth into and two, this issue of unity and diversity within society is an important one.
    I am sick of discussing gay marriage gay anything, and if you don’t know where I stand that’s tough!

    What I would say is that I totally dislike the commercialisation of our traditional Christian festivals such as Christmas, Easter (although Paul is right: the Church “pinched” Easter) and All Souls Day (now horrible Halloween).
    Interestingly this commercialisation of religious festivals has only happened in the western world, nowhere else.

    The other problem of course is the pressure on the Christian church to abandon its core beliefs and embrace everything and everybody. As I said to Mahons one can have all sorts of doubts but they can be shared with other believers, and even accommodated as long as the doubter isn’t determined to change core beliefs.
    There should be a separation between church and state. As long as the faithful of any religion accept the laws of the state it shouldn’t be a problem. Only where the state wants you to do something contrary to your faith should you disobey.
    But of course if you are only dealing with ONE faith there can be give and take.
    But where you have a multiplicity of faiths then you will inevitably run into problems.

  39. The Christian church to abandon its core beliefs and embrace everything and everybody

    Shouldn’t anyone who believes in the teachings of Christ be embraced by the Christian Church?

  40. What if my faith tells me it is ok to kill people, therefore I should disobey the State laws against killing?

    in addition, a multiplicity of faith you don’t have the problems you do in a theocracy where everyone is compelled to obey the State religion.

  41. Plus where we would be if Jesus, Galileo, Luther and others didn’t challenge core beliefs?

  42. Plus where we would be if Jesus, Galileo, Luther and others didn’t challenge core beliefs?

    The holoco$t is a core belief, denial of which is severely punished in many countries.

    http://pauleisen.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/how-i-became-holocaust-denier-by-paul.html

    We are faced with a new, secular religion, a false god with astonishing power to command worship. And, like the Crucifixion with its Cross, Resurrection etc, the Holocaust has key and sacred elements – the exterminationist imperative, the gas chambers and the sacred six million. It is these that comprise the holy Holocaust which Jews, Zionists and others worship and which the revisionists refuse.

    For my money, a child of six can see that something’s not right about the Holocaust narrative, and the science simply confirms what I already suspect. But I differ from the Holocaust Revisionists. They are scholars – historians and scientists who apply ‘truth and exactitude’ to determine the truth or otherwise of the Holocaust narrative. I’m no scholar. I care nothing for the chemical traces in brickwork or the topological evidence for mass graves. But I’ve read the literature, and it just doesn’t add up.

  43. This manufactured controversy is being flogged by the perpetually aggrieved Bill O’Reilly.

    It was amusing to see on TV last night discussing the issue with a Protestant clergyman, a cartoon image of the Easter Bunny and his basket of eggs on the screen behind them.

    You can’t make it up.

    In which chapter of the Gospels do they speak of Bugs Bunny?

  44. Proposition 8 – the reason the Supreme Court is now weighing in on the argument – was passed by a huge majority in California – most people here do not want to change the definition of marriage

    Prop 8 passed by 5%. That’s about 1% more than Obama won by in 2012. 52-47 isn’t a huge majority. But what happened here in 2008 doesn’t tell us that “most people here” want to keep Prop 8, not today. In 2008 most pre-election polls were consistent with the election results. In the last couple of years the polls have changed dramatically; last month it was 61% in favor of same sex marriage.

  45. “Shouldn’t anyone who believes in the teachings of Christ be embraced by the Christian Church?”

    That’s not what I said Paul. In the context of a multiplicity of faiths in a multicultural society, the pressure is on for Christians to accept things that Biblical Christianity teaches against.
    I am making a distinction here between denominational/doctrinal issues and what the Bible clearly states.
    E.g. there is no evidence/precedent in the Bible for purgatory, the worship of Mary, transubstantiation, a celibate priesthood, bishops wearing funny clothes and living in palaces.. All these things are symbolic of religion, not the simple faith of the Bible.
    As I said before the role of the true Church is to preach the Gospel,show the love of God in the world and be salt and light. All of that is clearly taught in the New Testament.

    Mahons,
    a) What faith is telling you to kill people? You are hearing voices you say? Are you having second thoughts about converting to Islam on behalf of the ATW community? 😉
    b) Who wants a theocracy? That won’t happen until Jesus reigns over all the earth, and even then it will be a theocracy of the redeemed. So you won’t be expected to join.
    c)They DIDN’T challenge core beliefs, they challenged the INTERPRETATION of those beliefs.

  46. Hiya Allan!
    Glad to see you’re still in the land of the living.
    Anyone heard from Petr?

  47. All of that is clearly taught in the New Testament

    Yeah, but is that the Roman New Testament or the King James New Testament?

  48. Paul,
    21st Century King James Version (KJ21) Text
    American Standard Version (ASV) Text
    Amplified Bible (AMP) Text
    Common English Bible (CEB) Text (with Apocrypha)
    Complete Jewish Bible (CJB) Text
    Contemporary English Version (CEV) Text
    Darby Translation (DARBY) Text
    Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA) Text (with Apocrypha)
    Easy-to-Read Version (ERV) Text
    English Standard Version (ESV) Text
    Audio (NT)
    English Standard Version Anglicised (ESVUK) Text
    Expanded Bible (EXB) Text
    1599 Geneva Bible (GNV) Text
    GOD’S WORD Translation (GW) Text
    Good News Translation (GNT) Text (with Apocrypha)
    Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) Text
    Audio
    J.B. Phillips New Testament (PHILLIPS) Text (NT)
    King James Version (KJV) Text
    Audio
    Knox Bible (KNOX) Text
    Lexham English Bible (LEB) Text
    The Message (MSG) Text
    Mounce Reverse-Interlinear New Testament (MOUNCE) Text (NT)
    New American Standard Bible (NASB) Text
    Audio
    New Century Version (NCV) Text
    New English Translation (NET Bible) Text
    New International Reader’s Version (NIRV) Text
    New International Version (NIV) Text
    Audio
    New International Version – UK (NIVUK) Text
    New King James Version (NKJV) Text
    New Life Version (NLV) Text
    New Living Translation (NLT) Text
    New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) Text (with Apocrypha)
    New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised (NRSVA) Text (with Apocrypha)
    New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised Catholic Edition (NRSVACE) Text
    New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE) Text
    Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB) Text
    Revised Standard Version (RSV) Text (with Apocrypha)
    Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE) Text
    The Voice (VOICE) Text
    World English Bible (WEB) Text
    Worldwide English (New Testament) (WE) Text (NT)
    Wycliffe Bible (WYC) Text
    Young’s Literal Translation (YLT)
    http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/

    You choose!

  49. I just want to mention that Madison, Alabama has a pop. of 51,000, an extraordinarily high median income of $75,000 and a lot of high tech and defense contractor industry.

    The principal who suggested making these changes was responding to the changing demographics in her school and over-erred on the side of caution to make sure none of her students felt left out or were unable to participate.

    I would hazard a pretty strong guess that this suburban community of very high earners has seen an influx of well-degreed Asian and Indian professionals in recent years, which is more likely the cause of this Easter non-story rather than intolerant Leftists.

    My children’s elementary (now well over 60% Indian, Asian, Middle Eastern, European) has worked through many of these cultural issues and differences by keeping the old standards of Christmas, Hanukah and Easter, while incorporating new aspects of other cultural celebrations such as Diwali and Chinese New Year that reflect the changes in our neighborhood and the children who live here.

    It’s about trying to be kind and understanding towards these sweet little kids who happen to come from a wide variety of backgrounds.

  50. All these things are symbolic of religion, not the simple faith of the Bible.

    Indeed.

  51. I see were off on religion again and I’ve had my fill of arguing gay marriage, so I’ll give this thread a rest except to say that Seamus (love that name) nailed it to perfection right here:

    I don’t honestly believe the main groups on either side are more or less tolerant than each other. Most left wing and liberal groups are very tolerant of those they approve of and very intolerant of those they don’t approve of. Most right wing and conservative groups are very tolerant of those they approve of and are very intolerant of those they don’t approve of.

    Buy that man a beer!

  52. If you don’t worship the Easter Bunny you hate Jesus.

    Thoughtful comment, Daphne.

    True Story

    When serving on board the USS McDonough one Easter Sunday, the cooks thought they’d have a little fun at dinner time. They had as the meat course rabbit. And the menu showed ” Roast Easter Bunny “. No one touched it.

  53. You left out “and all Christendom” in that first sentence, Phantom. And thanks.

    It’s easy to get caught up in the whole left/right outrage drama, totally overlooking the fact that many perfectly ordinary and entirely reasonable explanations might exist for xy&z other than your side’s deranged meme.

    I would have passed on the roast Easter Rabbit just because of the unbelievable amount of small bones. Bunnies are a pain in the ass to eat. Kind of greasy, too.

  54. Mahons, on March 28th, 2013 at 6:52 PM Said:

    Plus where we would be if Jesus, Galileo, Luther and others didn’t challenge core beliefs?

    Mahons, on March 28th, 2013 at 7:59 PM Said:

    Agit8ed – Great a holocaust denial poster warmly. How Christian.

    A parody of himself – superb!

  55. I don’t honestly believe the main groups on either side are more or less tolerant than each other

    That’s because there is no real ‘side’. The left/right nonsense is simply a stage created by the controllers of money for the masses to argue needlessly and uselessly over matters which mean very little. The important matters are decided by the Establishment which is both ‘left’ and ‘right’. It’s why whenever the public is opposed to something such as the EU or mass immigration, we end up getting it anyway.

  56. “Agit8ed – Great a holocaust denial poster warmly. How Christian.”
    Mahons
    But were I a liberal. you might say I was being tolerant.

    In any case I am seriously worried about our diminishing numbers.
    They seem to be dropping like flies..
    Geoff,
    Richard,
    Logical Unionist,
    Mumbai Indian,
    Jaz,
    Charles of Texas.
    and now the Troll and Petr seem to have dropped off the radar.

    Of course, I blame you….
    🙂

  57. “Plus where we would be if Jesus, Galileo, Luther and others didn’t challenge core beliefs?”

    Here, risking Mahons’ scorn by suggesting that the planets revolve around the Sun.

  58. “In any case I am seriously worried about our diminishing numbers.”

    Given that embarrassing display of narcissistic blog-wrecking yesterday, I’m surprised anyone’s left.

    That thread should have been pulled to protect ATW from someone who was becoming unhinged.

  59. The First Amendment to the US Constitution specifies freedom OF religion…not freedom FROM religion.

    Doesn’t freedom of religion imply the right to have no religion? Did the founding fathers intend that everyone had to believe in a sky-god but they were free only to decide how to worship and not whether to worship? That seems to be the Rightworld view, but I doubt if it was Jefferson’s.

  60. Patty,

    “It is felt that by changing the definition, a can of worms is opened – can “marriage” exist than between several woman and man? will polygamy be allowed?”

    Just as it used to be “felt” that if the definition of marriage was changed to include men and women of different races, a can of worms would be opened. Exactly that argument was used indeed. It was BS then and it’s BS now.

    Similarly it is “felt” that if marriage is limited to one woman and one man, then a can of worms is opened. Can marriage also be limited to just one woman? Could she then claim the widow’s allowance?

    If adults are allowed to marry, then will children be allowed to marry? If humans are allowed to marry, will marriage between chimpanzees be allowed? If the living are allowed to marry, will it be allowed to marry dead people? If divorced people are allowed to marry again then will furniture be allowed to marry? Should furniture of the same type be limited to civil unions? If women are given the vote then what stops giving it to cats? If slaves are freed then what stops the prisons being opened?

    With all these clearly inevitable slippery slopes it’s surprising that the right ever got up the courage to define marriage at all.

  61. http://www.atangledweb.org/index.php?s=Cotton+eyed+joe

    I’d like fior Charles from Texas to come back. His was a voice of reason. When last heard from I believe that. He was working in Fort Bliss Texas, way out west in El Paso. I welcomed him back in 2009 when he wandered back, and if he comes back again I’ll play Cotton Eyed Joe once more.

    I bet Petr is back soon. He does travel.

  62. I wish Madrin Ruad would come back. I disagreed with evrything that he said but he was always an absolute gentleman and a great conversationalist.

  63. Agree.

    He’d really listen to you, then do his research, and could then concede a point not so easy to concede.

    Yes, he should come back.

  64. For all we know he’s gone to that great internet in the sky. People’s participation ebbs and flows. I suppose that is more natural than appearing regularly. I’ve wondered lately if my hanging around rather than leaving or at least participating less is a sign of being unhinged.

  65. Given that embarrassing display of narcissistic blog-wrecking yesterday, I’m surprised anyone’s left.

    Wow, just read the thread, Pete. I ducked out after he who shall not be named started swinging. It’s slightly more nasty in personal animus than past arguments, but not by much.

    This site has always tended to be a brutal slugfest, I think the biggest difference now is the american contingent has definitely split ways and has no problem bleeding their intense dislike of one another into every topical discussion. We can’t seem to find a middle ground of mutual agreement, so tend to strike the easy jugular at every opportunity.

    Apologies are owed on my part. I should have never casually mentioned a certain someone in my response to Mahon’s cat call. I honestly didn’t intend to shame him, it was a cast off, thoughtless response and I deeply regret any personal hurt I caused and the ensuing chaos that ensued.

    I tend to take for granted that everyone who regularly comments or writes on atw is a decent human being who loves their family, behaves decently in the world at large, meets their responsibilities and innately tends to respond with genuine empathy when shown a way through the ideological wilderness.

    Cushioned as we are by impersonal keyboards, I think we all conveniently forget that one can’t erase the effects of typed ugly words or delete the painful scars and bruises left behind.

  66. ” I’ve wondered lately if my hanging around rather than leaving or at least participating less is a sign of being unhinged.”

    Bingo!

    (just kidding…you left yourself wide open, Dude)

  67. I am not afraid to say that there are oafish people who I will happily call them out on their bs. I don’t go hunting for them but I no longer grant them the leeway they have gotten for years. I don’t believe everyone who writes or visits is necessarily decent or good, and when they are indecent or behave badly they should be told so.

    I’d do the same in real life, probably quicker.

  68. Seamus: “Considering I am left wing practicing Catholic I would probably not be intolerant of Christianity and also a rebuttal of your left wing are intolerant of Christianity point.”

    ok. point taken.

    but you are only one individual, Seamus.

    while you as an individual might not be intolerant of Christianity, I believe a strong case can be made that The Left as a group is intolerant of Christianity.

  69. “Just as it used to be “felt” that if the definition of marriage was changed to include men and women of different races, a can of worms would be opened. ”

    with one huge glaringly obvious difference, Frank. Race is different from sex preference.

    “All Men are created equal” …..and therefore, men of any race should be allowed to marry one another as they like. But a preference for sex is not the same as race.

    Gays don’t have civil rights separate and distinct from their already existing rights – – it’s not a civil rights issue. It’s just that gays want to “marry” or more specifically, they want to describe their unions as “marriage.”

    should we change our definitions of words just to make one group happy? because they want it? i don’t think so.

  70. Without even hitting old man google I can name-check Martin Luther King, Jr., Stephen Colbert, Eunice Kennedy Shriver, Bobby & Jack Kennedy, Sr. Helen Pregan, Bishop Tutu, Bono, Cesar Chavez, George McGovern, William Sloan Coffin, Eugene McCarthy, Dorothy Day, Martin Sheen, Thomas Merton, Daniel Berrigan, Hans Kung, Dennis Kucinich, Jesse Jackson, Jimmy Carter, as Christians who happen to be on the left (to different degrees). Don’t get me started on Quakers, Unitarians, Liberation Catholics. Seamus is not alone.

  71. because there are Christians on the Left does not mean The Left is not intolerant – or is tolerant – of Christianity

  72. just the tip of the iceberg that constitutes The Left’s bigotry when it comes to Christianity (from Breitbart News):

    “If HBO personality Bill Maher habitually attacked any other group in the same way he slurs the Catholic Church he would be summarily dismissed, says the president of The Catholic League.

    The organization compiled a “greatest hits” package of Maher’s anti-Catholic rants and sent a strongly worded letter to Glenn A. Britt, Chairman and CEO of Time-Warner, the group which owns HBO.

    “Catholics need to know just how far Time Warner is prepared to play the role of spectator … it is evident that Maher’s bigotry is not merely visceral, it is relentless. The time has come for someone in a position of responsibility to sit down and have a serious talk with this man.”

    The Catholic League’s report on Maher’s anti-Catholic bashing goes back to 1998, and includes Maher mocking the death of Pope John Paul II, calling Catholics schizophrenics and demanding the government restrict religion, not drugs.

    Many of the comments were said on the HBO show Real Time with Bill Maher, while others came from various talk shows and news programs.

  73. After church today we shall be enjoying a traditional dinner of roast Easter Bunnie with chocolate egg sauce and Green vegetables. The room will heated using human methane and lit by candles made from the finest earwax.
    The catering company is run by trendy lefty/liberals employing illegal immigrants, and they also offer other services…. 🙂

    How trendy are we?!

  74. But of course my dear boy, of course.
    Not only am I full of it, the quality is only surpassed by that Albanian Chardonnay we shall be quaffing!

  75. Because there are Christians on the Left does not mean The Left is not intolerant – or is tolerant – of Christianity

    With all dur respect Patty that comment is rubbish.

    Not only am I full of it

    Well, you’re full of something anyway 😉

  76. Just because Bill Maher is intolerant of Christianity does not mean the Left is. Just because many of the groups on the Left are intolerant of Christianity does not mean that the Left is. How do you know this. A large section of the left are Christian. The overwhelming majority of America’s Catholics vote Democrat. Do they hate Christianity as well?

  77. Patty often makes good arguments and does and can argue well her points, but to me they are often spoiled by her virtually automatic need to sweepingly generalise every political fault as being systematic of the entire Democrat party/left/liberals.

  78. Her views are a very simple Manichaeism. No issue is thought through.

    Last night’s censorship will be addressed today.

  79. Oh no – please not the issue of censoring comments again. When will post contributors with editing rights here on ATW realise that such actions always explode back in their faces.

  80. On a serious note, Phantom – let it be. It isn’t worth raking up last nights burnt embers.

  81. Colm, this isn’t any score settling, it is a statement of principle and it must be said, and it will. Especially in the context of Patty’s censorship.

  82. Patty –

    Please – please – don’t respond to Phantom. Let him have his say and then let it go.

  83. Phantom, LA probably isn’t awake yet, so post again the comment she deleted and we won’t tell.

    Colm, I’ve just read that mess of a thread from the other night and asked myself why others should have all the fun.

    I now propose that David give you, Colm, posting rights to take the place of Troll till he returns.

  84. Colm

    You are a thoughtful writer.

    Should you ( or Ross, or Frank ) ever choose to ask for posting rights, the rest would benefit from it.

  85. Thanks Phantom, but in all honesty, I think I am more suited to the smaller pithier element of the comments fields rather than typing longer more detailed original posts. If I could contribute anything to ATW though it would be to sprinkle some of my mellow light hearted and cooler attitudes onto some of the more hot headed individuals here who need it 🙂

  86. Understood.

    I’m more of a counterpuncher myself.

    Writing a good newspaper column / blog post is harder than it looks. It takes time, regardless of the length of it.

  87. Paul: I see that I have not convinced you. I will try harder, later. I don’t have much time today.

    ——-

    unrelated thought for the day: we have no control over what other people say or think about us. we do have control over our own behavior.

Comments are closed.