Please present your lunch for inspection little Suzy...

nooshinjohn

BeefJerky wrote: »

Feel free to post some documents that support your point of view. I'll be happy to read them, as I enjoy reading about history. Until then, it sounds like you are grasping at straws.

I have read them, extensively. If you truly enjoy reading history, You know where you can find them and don't need my help for that.

You can start with Sam Adams,:cheesygrin: and how the differing faiths of the time came togather to oppose the English Crown and inspire the Revolutionary War. Once you understand that the war did not begin in Boston Harbor, but rather in the churches, you will begin to understand our forgotten history.

BeefJerky

nooshinjohn wrote: »

I have read them, extensively. If you truly enjoy reading history, You know where you can find them and don't need my help for that.

You can start with Sam Adams,:cheesygrin: and how the differing faiths of the time came togather to oppose the English Crown and inspire the Revolutionary War. Once you understand that the war did not begin in Boston Harbor, but rather in the churches, you will begin to understand our forgotten history.

So, in other words, you don't want to put forth any effort to support your claim. Well, then I have no reason to believe you or take your claims seriously. I'll just stick with what the founding documents say (or don't say), and that is, we are not a Christian country.

tonyb

BeefJerky wrote: »

I somewhat understand where you are coming from. I don't have children, but I still pay school taxes; oh well.

As for the excuse for not sending your child to a religious school because of the taxes, I don't buy it. I have a friend and his wife who sent their child to one. They had to work their arses off and sacrifice greatly to accomplish it, but they did it. In other words, you could do it if you wanted to.

Well now, we are getting somewhere. So your friends had to work their asses off to pay the double bubble. Ok, now didn't we just go over how the 2 working parents is a negative in the time spent/education of the child ? Parents lack the time because both are always working ? So how does this help them as parents to spend more quality time with their kids ? It doesn't, it in fact makes it harder. So when I talk about relief for parents, allowing their tax money to follow their education decisions, this is a perfect example of some common sense solutions that can help on the parental side of the education problem.

BeefJerky

tonyb wrote: »

Well now, we are getting somewhere. So your friends had to work their asses off to pay the double bubble. Ok, now didn't we just go over how the 2 working parents is a negative in the time spent/education of the child ? Parents lack the time because both are always working ? So how does this help them as parents to spend more quality time with their kids ? It doesn't, it in fact makes it harder. So when I talk about relief for parents, allowing their tax money to follow their education decisions, this is a perfect example of some common sense solutions that can help on the parental side of the education problem.

And, now you are making incorrect assumptions. They may have worked their asses off, but they were there for their child and were absolutely a part of his education. One is not exclusive to the other. The real problem is that too many parents don't want to put forth the effort required to do both.

In addition, both of my parents worked full time jobs as I was growing up. They also found the time to participate in my childhood and my education. I'm sure it wasn't easy, but they didn't make excuses and take the lazy way out.

tonyb

Yes but if those extra financial burdens were less, would that not allow even more time spent with their kids ?

Also, John already gave you documents supporting his claims. Maybe you think Christian means Catholic, I dunno. His document or link he provided put 54% alone in the Episcopal/Anglican catagory. Which is....a Christian faith, therefore, the majority were indeed Christians.

nooshinjohn

BeefJerky wrote: »

So, in other words, you don't want to put forth any effort to support your claim. Well, then I have no reason to believe you or take your claims seriously. I'll just stick with what the founding documents say (or don't say), and that is, we are not a Christian country.

So in other words, you expect me to do your homework FOR YOU. It is always easier to remain blissfully ignorant than it is to try and learn for yourself. I can understand why you wouldn't want to do this, because everything you have been taught will be exposed and you will find yourself questioning everything you ever thought you knew. I went through it, Tony went through it, and we came through the other side with our eyes WIDE open for the first time. You will be better for it too.


Hell man, you might even become a CONSERVATIVE!!!:twisted::eek::twisted::cheesygrin:

tonyb

nooshinjohn wrote: »

Hell man, you might even become a CONSERVATIVE!!!:twisted::eek::twisted::cheesygrin:

Oh..I wouldn't shoot that high my friend....libertarian at best.

BeefJerky

tonyb wrote: »

Yes but if those extra financial burdens were less, would that not allow even more time spent with their kids ?

Sure, and I do support some changes regarding those taxes. However, some use that as an excuse to avoid their children and their education altogether.

Also, John already gave you documents supporting his claims. Maybe you think Christian means Catholic, I dunno. His document or link he provided put 54% alone in the Episcopal/Anglican catagory. Which is....a Christian faith, therefore, the majority were indeed Christians.

We're talking to different things here. I already acknowledged that many of the founding fathers were Christians. However, that link he posted doesn't really tell all either.
1) Both Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin were heavily influenced by deist beliefs.
2) There is evidence that James Madison and Alexander Hamilton were both deists.
3) Thomas Paine, another one of the founding fathers, published "The Age of Reason" which was a direct criticism of both organized religion and the bible.

It's funny how none of these things are actually mentioned in John's link. However, I'm not surprised since they don't support his claims. So, no, he has not actually provided documents that support his claim that this is a "Christian country." Once again, the founding documents do not support his claims. In addition, not all of the founding fathers were Christians, nor even theists. As far as I can tell, this country was truly founded on freedom of religion, not on Christianity.

BeefJerky

nooshinjohn wrote: »

So in other words, you expect me to do your homework FOR YOU. It is always easier to remain blissfully ignorant than it is to try and learn for yourself. I can understand why you wouldn't want to do this, because everything you have been taught will be exposed and you will find yourself questioning everything you ever thought you knew. I went through it, Tony went through it, and we came through the other side with our eyes WIDE open for the first time. You will be better for it too.


Hell man, you might even become a CONSERVATIVE!!!:twisted::eek::twisted::cheesygrin:

See my above reply to Tony. Even the one link you posted omits important information; information that doesn't actually support your claims. It seems you only want to post what supports your beliefs, and it seems you are unable/unwilling to post anything that does. It makes me further question the legitimacy of your claims.

nooshinjohn

BeefJerky wrote: »

As far as I can tell, this country was truly founded on freedom of religion, not on Christianity.

I think this is correct... it was NOT founded on freedom FROM religion. This is the doctrine that is been forced on us now, and make no mistake about it. You need no more proof than the salvo fired by the Gov at the Catholic church last week to see that.

Shoot me a PM when you get a chance and I will work up a reading list for you, books and links. Being George Washington is a must read.

BeefJerky

nooshinjohn wrote: »

I think this is correct... it was NOT founded on freedom FROM religion. This is the doctrine that is been forced on us now, and make no mistake about it. You need no more proof than the salvo fired by the Gov at the Catholic church last week to see that.

Shoot me a PM when you get a chance and I will work up a reading list for you, books and links. Being George Washington is a must read.

I agree that it is not freedom from religion. However, this whole thing started due to talks of school led prayer in public schools. That is not just being exposed to it, that is force feeding, and a public school is not the proper forum for that.

However, I still doubt your claim about this being a "Christian country." Just because many of the founding fathers were Christians doesn't mean that is what this country is actually founded upon. The founding documents simply don't support that. Even if that was their intention, that doesn't make it so. It would be like me writing up a business contract and omitting something or wording something poorly. I couldn't just go back later and say, "oh, but I meant this!" That wouldn't hold water either.

tonyb

Actually, the link John posted does note that some founders did/have changed their religious beliefs over time. Because the founders were religious men, they felt a need to make sure you had freedom to worship as you see fit, not just a christian religion. Their religious beliefs are evident in the Bill of rights and just about every document they wrote.

I think what we are doing here is splitting hairs. While christian beliefs may have laid a foundation for this country, it by no means holds it solely as the supreme religion to be followed. Remember, their ancestors came from a place where religious persecution was big, so they felt a need to address that. Also remember they were starting a country from scratch, so the only point of reference they had were their own countries over seas they all came from, their ancestors came from. They looked at things they didn't like about their former countries and tried to address those things. Life- it belongs to you to do with as you please. Liberty- freedom to do as you please within the boundaries of the law. Free from tyranny, oppression. The pursuit of happiness- doing what it is that makes you happy, not what you are forced to do by a King or Tyrant.
Did they spell this all out in lawyers tongue ? No, they used laymens terms as best they could so that all may understand. They were men of honor, a need to spell out every minute detail seemed irrelevant to them. They forgot however that men without honor would some day rule the roost and twist their meaning of the constitution to their liking. Such as we have today.

Today, they are demonized as mean slave owners, the constitution is itself demonized as an aged document not relevant to today. Schools barely make mention of it, politicians who took an oath to uphold it, never do, never even give it consideration when forming legislation. People don't even know whats right or wrong anymore because they have been confused, misrepresented, as to the limits a governing body has and their own rights. If you want a suggestion for reading material, pick up Mark Levines book Ameritopia. It will give you more insight from a historical perspective of the founders and where they got their idea's from.

Well, we strayed of coarse here on the topic of education, so lets get back on track.
If you could, and thats a big if, start from scratch how would you form a public education system and fund it ? Should even the federal government be involved at all, or should the individual states set standards, fund it all ? Should teachers be able to bargain their own individual contracts with schools ? Much like many do in the private sector ? Or should the whole thing be outsourced to private parties willing to take on such a fiasco ? Starting from scratch again gives you many options instead of the bandaid approach which isn't working too well. Think like the founders, if you could start from scratch, how would you set up a public education system ?

tonyb

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/education/ct-met-ctu-proposals-0217-20120217,0,6829485.story

Of coarse Chicago teachers, in one of the worst performing public school districts in our country want a 30% raise over 2 years. They claim it's because of the longer work day...er babysitting, that was asked by the mayor. Well, hello, you agreed to it, duh.

Tony M

BeefJerky wrote: »

I did reread it, and parts of this post also confirmed my thoughts. You really do come off as a prejudiced and hateful person when it comes to other religions. Maybe you should reread what you typed out.


[citation needed]

Seriously. This has already been mentioned here, and actual biographies of many of the founding fathers refute your claim here. Yes, many had some form of deistic beliefs, however, they were not all Christian by any means. In addition, there is no where in any of the founding documents that state this country was specifically founded on Christian beliefs. You are simply trying to pass off your erroneous claim as some sort of fact.


I'm not entirely sure how this relates to the discussion at hand.


Huh? This makes no grammatical sense.


And that makes it right? It's nice that you are able to show your true colors though. You are basically saying that everyone should conform or go away. Talk about going against the very spirit that this country was founded upon. This country was founded upon the belief that all people are created equal, regardless of their differences in culture or beliefs. But no, according to you they should all conform and give up their cultures and beliefs. What a bunch of hogwash.

Besides, it is the various cultural differences from the many different immigrants that came to our country that make it so great (in my opinion).


But that is Iraq, not the United States. Just because some other country does something doesn't mean it is right or should be considered acceptable here in the U.S. This country was founded upon better principles than that, but because of people like you we are straying away from those principles.


Again, not exactly sure how this fits into the rest of the discussion.


Actually, you've stated a lot of incorrect information, and presented your opinions as facts. In addition, your clear hatred for those who are your enemies makes you no better than they are. In fact, it is that kind of intolerance and forceful involvement of ourselves in their business that brings about a lot of their hatred of us and this country. I can't say I really blame them, and this is a problem with this country in recent times. We need to stop pretending we are the World Police.


No, I see that your intolerance and hatred extends beyond Muslims.


You claim to hold Christian beliefs, but your words here certainly don't represent those beliefs very well. Maybe it wasn't the churches where hypocrisy laid.


You claim to not be racist, and I'm assuming you claim to not be prejudiced either. However, your last couple of posts clearly demonstrate that you are both.


While that phrase has been used poorly as of late, I suspect the original intent was positive. While that simple phrase may not completely describe the foundations of our country, I don't believe that it is that far off either.

You say I'm 180* from all of my implied laws and beliefs for my lifes values and direction. You are deranged in a dislexic (sp) kind of way. It seems you have to find the exact negative of what people say they believe in. My daughter was taught throughout her schooling to think the same way. It's uncanny to see your replies match what I would imagine (from years of escalated discussions) her to dream up.

I love everybody on the planet except anybody who has or plans on doing harm to another. I do have prejudice against anybody who wants to hurt another for no reason at all. I don't think you or anybody close to you has ever been a victim of anything. If you have felt agony or violation, maybe you would have a change of heart and thoughts.

I just thought about something after I posted this and went to the bathroom. My step daughter has never felt unjust or agony( besides her grandma dieing when she was 11) or violation or heart ache or worried where her next meal was coming from or anything close to what the generations before had to deal with. I guess she challenges everthing and when she gets backed up to the wall from my explanations, she short circuits and spazzes into a fullblown (like you did) rant of fallasies like you did. And it all being 180* from the real truth. WIERD. I've know 2 in my life and others who wanted my presence out of theirs because I in some way revealed their own shortcomings. You'll never know what I'm talking about in those regards so don't even try.


How do you .....ah, nevermind, I'm not going to respond to your posts anymore for as long as I can remember not to.

quadzilla

nooshinjohn wrote: »

I think this is correct... it was NOT founded on freedom FROM religion. This is the doctrine that is been forced on us now, and make no mistake about it. You need no more proof than the salvo fired by the Gov at the Catholic church last week to see that.

Shoot me a PM when you get a chance and I will work up a reading list for you, books and links. Being George Washington is a must read.

Freedom of religion implicitly includes freedom from religion, or at least for me to be free from your religion. Otherwise, how can freedom of religion exist at all?

All this just comes across as the typically muddled thinking I've come to expect of those that spend their time watching Fox and yelling about this stuff.

quadzilla

inspiredsports wrote: »

I'm not sure what your perspective is, but it would be helpful if you polled a classroom of college bound high school seniors and asked them what they are looking for in a college.

You might be astounded by the number who say they want to go to an instutition that will aid them in landing a "government job".

As far as how many want to land a gov job, you'll need to show me those numbers. But given the ups and downs in the economy, can you actually blame someone for wanting a stable employment situation?

nooshinjohn wrote: »

They used to be called Physical education instructors in a government program called gym class, or PE for short. They were replaced, in part, to save the ego's of little Willie, who's willie was really little, and Curly Sue who's boobies were smaller than Sexi Sallie's.

A PE teacher wasn't a personal trainer. Hell, even when I played high school sports we didn't have personal trainers. The coaches generally had nothing to do with our workouts beyond running the sports-specific drills on the field. After that, we were on our own. In PE, I thought we were getting a little exercise, burning off energy to keep us calm(er) in the classroom, learning teamwork, that sort of stuff. And most of the coaches I had in school taught something besides gym class.

But has gym class been phased out? I know my kids had it, and they haven't been out of school that long. And whatever your personal assertions/feelings, are you sure it wasn't part of the budget changes that schools have been going through even since the no child left behind mandate?

nooshinjohn

quadzilla wrote: »

Freedom of religion implicitly includes freedom from religion, or at least for me to be free from your religion. Otherwise, how can freedom of religion exist at all?

All this just comes across as the typically muddled thinking I've come to expect of those that spend their time watching Fox and yelling about this stuff.

Freedom from religion would be Secularism, or Atheism, both of which have been recognized as religions by the Supreme Court. I respect your choice to not believe as much as you respect my right to worship, If I pray in public and you see me doing so, do you have a right to ask me to stop? Yes, you can, but you will likely get a response from me telling you to mind your own business. That is fundamentally what is wrong here. We have let the ACLU, SEIU and everybody else tell us what we can and cannot do because someone like you has a bug up their **** when we should instead tell them to take care of their own lives and stop trying to intervene in mine.

the key thing that everyone seems to forget in this argument is the second part of that clause, which states thet the CONGRESS shall pass no law restricting the FREE EXERCISE thereof. Putting the two together, this clause means that congress can make no law whatsoever on the subject of religion, religious practice or anything else having to do with the beliefs of the people. This does NOT apply to the states, which were free to do so, and some did in fact have religious doctrines that were state recognized and supported. When the Fed started to assert their campaign of removing God from all aspects of public life, including at the state and local levels, they violated the Constitution IMHO.

steveinaz

Nevermind...it isn't worth the effort.

Tony M

quadzilla wrote: »

As far as how many want to land a gov job, you'll need to show me those numbers. But given the ups and downs in the economy, can you actually blame someone for wanting a stable employment situation?



A PE teacher wasn't a personal trainer. Hell, even when I played high school sports we didn't have personal trainers. The coaches generally had nothing to do with our workouts beyond running the sports-specific drills on the field. After that, we were on our own. In PE, I thought we were getting a little exercise, burning off energy to keep us calm(er) in the classroom, learning teamwork, that sort of stuff. And most of the coaches I had in school taught something besides gym class.

But has gym class been phased out? I know my kids had it, and they haven't been out of school that long. And whatever your personal assertions/feelings, are you sure it wasn't part of the budget changes that schools have been going through even since the no child left behind mandate?

That's exactly reflecting on my post about Little Susie and this new Gov. mandate of a sorts. If I had any authority in some branch of state Gov. and my daughter, niece, nephew was getting a degree or had one already in Ed., I'd see what I could do or who I could ask about getting them *ON*. It's been happening forever. Even in non Gov. sectors. It's life. But the jobs and programs start small and then escalate to who knows who's in charge and does what anymore.

Did you see the program on TV about the Gov. Writers Division. It grew so large and out of control, they were out counting light poles for something to print about. that was around 1930 or later I think. People were still in food lines and these Gov. hired people were dreaming up things to warrent their jobs. They were exposed but only after a massive outcry from the unemployed.

SolidSqual

Here is a simple reminder of why you guys are wasting your time:

steveinaz

As a Federal Government worker, I can see the "myths" still exist. I cannot "get anyone on" government work. Those who believe this have no understanding of the announcement/hiring process of the Fed Government. I can alert people to openings, but these openings are available for application by anyone, and viewable at USAjobs.com. They still have to make the selection list (the most difficult part). Now, having said that---if you can get a friend to mystically appear on a selection list, and you "know" the hiring official, you MIGHT be able to sway someone to take a look at your "horse." Most times you don't even know the hiring official; and even if you do, they may or may not like your candidate due to lack of experience, degree, etc, etc.

Contrary to popular belief, most any Government worker will tell you it is plain GOOD LUCK...or being at the right place at the right time. My first fed job was dumb luck. I had already received my "dear john" letter for an announcement I submitted a resume for, and all of a sudden I get a phone call that they want to interview me.

I highly recommend to any of you that want real stability, to look at the announcements on USAjobs. Follow the instructions on how to apply, polish up the resume---and give it a go. It's kind of hard for "pure" civilians because of the military preference "points"--but this doesn't guarantee a prior military person will be beat you out of a position, it just gives them an advantage of being on the selection list. They still have to fully qualify for the position, AND be selected.

steveinaz

Here's another myth to bust---our counter-part contractors make much better money than we do. That's why the benefit package is better for Fed employees; you have to offer something to attract new talent. Surprised? Oh yeah, and we don't get free healthcare, free life insurance, free food, free money, company cars, etc, etc. The "few" contractors who do end going for a Gov job, do so because they are more interested in job security than higher pay. It's a trade-off, and sometimes a risk.

EndersShadow

6 pages.... I never thought we would get this far..... no additional commentary here, others are doing it for me

nooshinjohn

EndersShadow wrote: »

Jesus, 6 pages.... I never thought we would get this far..... no additional commentary here, others are doing it for me

Your post is a clear example of what is wrong with our public education system... we are now on SEVEN pages and ready to go to an eighth page. You dont know how to read obviously or how to count!:razz::cheesygrin:

quadzilla

nooshinjohn wrote: »

So in other words, you expect me to do your homework FOR YOU. It is always easier to remain blissfully ignorant than it is to try and learn for yourself. I can understand why you wouldn't want to do this, because everything you have been taught will be exposed and you will find yourself questioning everything you ever thought you knew. I went through it, Tony went through it, and we came through the other side with our eyes WIDE open for the first time. You will be better for it too.

It's common courtesy to provide something to support your assertions. It's not our job to prove your claims for you. If you can't back up what you say, then you shouldn't say it. Or at least not expect us to first provide evidence for your claim before refuting it. That's just lazy and childish. But that's also part and parcel of what I've come to expect from the so-called conservative movement in America today. It's anything but conservatism. And it's the only way to explain why government and government spending have expanded under that last several "conservative" administrations, while shrinking under democratic administrations. I mean, it seems to me that for that last 30 years, the only way a real conservative has a chance of getting elected is to run as a (D) instead of an (R).

And you may, by way of example, find this enlightening.

EndersShadow

nooshinjohn wrote: »

Your post is a clear example of what is wrong with our public education system... we are now on SEVEN pages and ready to go to an eighth page. You dont know how to read obviously or how to count!:razz::cheesygrin:

John, I wont disagree that public schools suck (and that I am bad at math) and as much as I hate to prove you wrong in this instance that wont stop me :cheesygrin::razz:, we are 6 pages in on my computer screen. It can vary depending on what your user settings are for your forum profile.

Go to Settings - General Settings - Number of Posts to Show Per Page. Mine is set to 40 posts per screen. If your was 30 you might be on page 7 while I am on page 6. And we would be be right.....

YEAHHHHH BOOYYYYYEEEEE!

quadzilla

nooshinjohn wrote: »

Freedom from religion would be Secularism, or Atheism, both of which have been recognized as religions by the Supreme Court. I respect your choice to not believe as much as you respect my right to worship, If I pray in public and you see me doing so, do you have a right to ask me to stop? Yes, you can, but you will likely get a response from me telling you to mind your own business. That is fundamentally what is wrong here. We have let the ACLU, SEIU and everybody else tell us what we can and cannot do because someone like you has a bug up their **** when we should instead tell them to take care of their own lives and stop trying to intervene in mine.

the key thing that everyone seems to forget in this argument is the second part of that clause, which states thet the CONGRESS shall pass no law restricting the FREE EXERCISE thereof. Putting the two together, this clause means that congress can make no law whatsoever on the subject of religion, religious practice or anything else having to do with the beliefs of the people. This does NOT apply to the states, which were free to do so, and some did in fact have religious doctrines that were state recognized and supported. When the Fed started to assert their campaign of removing God from all aspects of public life, including at the state and local levels, they violated the Constitution IMHO.

I couldn't care less what you do in public, up to and including stripping bare and doing a chicken impression, just so long as I neither have to look nor participate. But if you, or the government, tries to tell me in what way I must, or must not, worship, then we do not have freedom of religion. It's a simple point, really. I fail to see why it's so difficult for you to grasp.

That said, someone buy the SCOTUS a dictionary. Atheism means simply not theist. So how you can have a religion based on not-religion is beyond me. On the other hand, they're lawyers, so they probably couldn't help it.

That said, your assertion that "someone like me" is responsible for you somehow not being able to pray (no one is actually stopping you that I'm aware of, you just don't get to tell anyone else to pray, or if they do, how they'll pray) is like me saying that all Catholics are are responsible for the acts of a few priests involving young children. Or that because the Evangelical Robert Tilton was nothing more than a con man, that all Evangelicals are con men. That could only be interpreted as an appeal to emotion, and an attempt to inflame those same emotions. Let's not go there. I certainly don't think that, and don't know of anyone who does, though it wouldn't surprise me to find out there's some bat-crap crazy people that do. I recommend ignoring them.

Tony M

steveinaz wrote: »

Here's another myth to bust---our counter-part contractors make much better money than we do. That's why the benefit package is better for Fed employees; you have to offer something to attract new talent. Surprised? Oh yeah, and we don't get free healthcare, free life insurance, free food, free money, company cars, etc, etc. The "few" contractors who do end going for a Gov job, do so because they are more interested in job security than higher pay. It's a trade-off, and sometimes a risk.

I know it's hard for the general masses to get hired on. I've seen the Postal steps a friend had to go though. But if you were Govenor, I think some strings could be pulled. But, maybe not now that you say it really is complicated.

Privately, I've seen a couple of managers in different Co. just bring in their kid and put em on the pay-roll over the summer months and all they did is hang around and talk to different people all day long who just happen to be passing by.

I sure wish I had a Gov. job to work and then retire from. My fault for never applying is my most foolish regretable act in my life or up there at the top 10 somewhere. Congrats on getting hired and I'm sure you're doing more than the other person I mentioned who just copied a little here and there.

obieone

SolidSqual wrote: »

Here is a simple reminder of why you guys are wasting your time:

Chix with hairy armpits are SO HOT!!!:razz:

tonyb

obieone wrote: »

Chix with hairy armpits are SO HOT!!!:razz:

Yeah, so the French claim....or was that the Neanderthals....doesn't matter,almost the same.:cheesygrin:

Heck, I remember some nuns in catholic grade school, hairy armpits, ear wax built up like a Betty Crocker cake, nose hairs that would put Greek men to shame. They couldn't have been human...right ? I mean...who does that ?