Values Added: It's All True (Amy Sullivan & Mollie Ziegler Hemingway)

[Bloggingheads]

[opposable_crumbs]

Christmas seems to have become decidedly anti-Christian, and more about greed, gluttony and vanity. I recommend spending it, as a family, in a manger, especially if you are from Florida and worried about the creeping influence of reality tv.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs

Christmas seems to have become decidedly anti-Christian, and more about greed, gluttony and vanity. I recommend spending it, as a family, in a manger, especially if you are from Florida and worried about the creeping influence of reality tv.

I haven't listened to this diavlog yet. But I can relate to the content of your comment. Even when I'm not religious, culturally, my understanding of the Christmas season is associated with family, helping, giving, peace, altruism, well, you get the idea.

One of the most striking dissonances I've encountered here in the US, is a game that's played during Xmas' parties in workplaces and other gatherings, where everyone brings a present, people get numbers out of a hat, and they can pick a present, but the next person can steal the present from you, or something like that. Wow. It's all about taking, not giving! I've tried to participate, just to fit in, a couple of times, and each and every time I've felt perplexed by the dynamics of the game. It does bring up a lot of negative stuff out of people (greed, competition, desire to annoy others). I no longer participate, but I still feel odd trying to explain why I don't.

[seethruit]

Wow - Amy and Mollie are way off on Emergency Contraception!

First, it is NOT an abortifacient. EC pills work by delaying the release of the egg so that the sperm, which can live up to 5 days, miss their opportunity to fertilize it. EC MAY make the lining of the uterus less receptive to implantation but this is the same dubious argument made by some pro-lifers against the so-called "abortifacient" effect of birth control pills. Also, EC is NOT capable of dislodging a fertilized egg that has already implanted in the uterus. EC is not an abortion issue it's an access to contraception issue!

Second, contrary to Amy and the President's idea of "common-sense" it is highly unlikely that 11 and 12 years olds are going to snap up a $30-40 product like bubble gum. It's more likely that EC, due to its cost and the commercial practices of pharmacies, will continue to be a marginal product that fails to live up to its promise of preventing many unintended pregnancies. Multiple studies in America and Europe have shown that women who have received FREE EC at a clinic visit, don't use it after they have unprotected sex. Popular myths about how "dangerous" it is and that it is an "abortifacient" don't help.

Third, it is irresponsible to impugn Planned Parenthood with speculation that it didn't fight this issue hard enough because it has a commercial interest in the abortions that EC might prevent. Since Sebelius' overturning the FDA recommendation is unprecedented, why would they have expected this startling decision? Instead, Planned Parenthood has been focused on the contraception access issues such as religious exemptions and health plan coverage. Also, Planned Parenthood did release a very thoughtful op-ed piece protesting the Sebelius decision.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cecile...b_1139184.html

This was a truly disappointing, misinforming, and disheartening conversation.

[popcorn_karate]

Just Wow.

too much bullshit was spewed to respond directly to all of it, but Mollie, The reason that Christmas is within a few days of the winter solstice is so christians could coopt the existing holiday traditions of the people they were converting and subjugating - mistletoe, christmas trees, Santa Clause its all paganism. mmmm sweeet delicious paganism that you christians are celebrating. I do love the Irony - although i could do without y'all being so hateful while worshiping the sun god.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs

I recommend spending it, as a family, in a manger, especially if you are from Florida and worried about the creeping influence of reality tv.

Hard to find one big enough, no matter how worried one may be about reality TV.

Amy's discussion here seems to be inspired by an article she wrote, beginning:

If it's December, then it must be time to choose sides in the Christmas wars. One camp worries that the celebration of Christ's birth has become too commercial and frantic. Its goal is a simple Christmas season, stripped of consumption and flashing lights and endless holiday parties. The other camp thinks the problem is that our December festivities are practically religiously neutral. They want shoppers to encounter more nativity scenes and fewer "happy holidays" banners.

I find it hard to believe people are really bothered by either of these, at least bothered in the sense that they can't figure out a way to address it in their own lives and must create some kind of problem that faces us.

To Amy, I'd just say ignore the portions of it that don't work for you, try to focus on Advent, and keep Christmas through the end of Christmas season and ignore the awful people who would toss out a tree on Dec 26 or insist that all talk of Christmas must cease as of Jan 1. I know the Advent part of this is probably harder with young children, but in a way the history of Christmas (and Christianity) is baptizing elements of traditions that can be seen as consistent and leaving what doesn't. This applies to our secular celebrations of Christmas and the kinds of things that get focused on there, in part. Black Friday, not so much, in my opinion.

The war on Christmas is, of course, the most ridiculous bit, and Mollie's effort to defend Perry's ridiculous ad (earlier in the discussion) was entirely unconvincing.

[harkin]

Originally Posted by seethruit

Second, contrary to Amy and the President's idea of "common-sense" it is highly unlikely that 11 and 12 years olds are going to snap up a $30-40 product like bubble gum.

Don't worry, the schools will probably find a way to provide it free to the kiddies with the taxpayers footing the bill and parents kept out of the loop.

Mollie claims that "everyone" knows that children can't pray in schools or celebrate Christmas. Of course, it's demonstrably false that prayer in itself is banned, the school just can't sponsor it. Also, not being able to celebrate Christmas has nothing to do with Obama, or even the Supreme Court. It's a decision made by morons at the local level. Of course, that wouldn't be a nice soundbite: "I'll end the war on Christmas waged by local schools desperate to be politically correct and to avoid offending Antiochus IV-haters."

In short, Perry shows himself to be a moron, once again. Too bad that he has disgraced himself utterly. And he can't even move to the country of Solyndra, because he opposed Obama's aid to that country, so now he's unwelcome there, too.

[uncle ebeneezer]

If Catholic businesses want to pick and choose which medical coverages they can provide to their employees, they should get out of business altogether. Goodbye guilty conscience, and goodbye to people having their right to legal medical procedures restricted by their employer through selective insuring.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer

If Catholic businesses want to pick and choose which medical coverages they can provide to their employees, they should get out of business altogether. Goodbye guilty conscience, and goodbye to people having their right to legal medical procedures restricted by their employer through selective insuring.

Provide abortion coverage or go out of business.

This type of agenda is beyond every portion of the welfare state.

In another 10 years, we'll see the campaign to strip Churches of tax exempt status if they refuse to marry gay couples.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer

If Catholic businesses want to pick and choose which medical coverages they can provide to their employees, they should get out of business altogether. Goodbye guilty conscience, and goodbye to people having their right to legal medical procedures restricted by their employer through selective insuring.

In the interest of disagreement among liberals and all that, I think this is the definition of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The desire to force Catholic employers to provide contraceptive coverage (which many do already, and which this controversy is probably making less likely, as well as sacrificing what was traditionally a strong support of the Catholic Church for universal health care) is basically important as a principle for many -- that contraceptives (and abortion) ought to be considered basic health care. That's fine, I understand that position, but for the most part we are talking about benefits given to people who were already pretty privileged under our system -- those with employer-provided health care -- when the bigger issue is extending coverage and protecting people should they leave a job or get laid off. The people we are talking about generally can afford to buy contraceptives, and in any case in reality contraceptive coverage generally doesn't make an insurance policy more expensive, which is one reason why many Catholic employers do provide such policies, in many cases without even thinking about it, I'm sure. Should we want to ensure, as a society, that people have access to affordable contraceptives, there are better ways of doing it.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by stephanie

The people we are talking about generally can afford to buy contraceptives, and in any case in reality contraceptive coverage generally doesn't make an insurance policy more expensive, which is one reason why many Catholic employers do provide such policies, in many cases without even thinking about it, I'm sure. Should we want to ensure, as a society, that people have access to affordable contraceptives, there are better ways of doing it.

As I recall, the boggle was about allowing people to get health care plans that made contraception coverage available for an extra charge, which the person could pay themselves. But the hardcore people didn't want to have employees even have access to a plan that could include contraception that they paid for themselves. The argument being that if the Catholic employers were paying for the plan minus contraception, they were actually subsidizing contraception because they were making it easier for people to get their own contaception. The irony of course was that this logic of non-fungibility would have meant that any government grants to any religious charitable organization could similarly be construed as subsidizing their religious efforts.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer

If Catholic businesses want to pick and choose which medical coverages they can provide to their employees, they should get out of business altogether. Goodbye guilty conscience, and goodbye to people having their right to legal medical procedures restricted by their employer through selective insuring.

Hell no! The state should force them to stay in business and provide any health care services the state sees fit to mandate. This is America for chrissake!

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by miceelf

As I recall, the boggle was about allowing people to get health care plans that made contraception coverage available for an extra charge, which the person could pay themselves.

I don't think the discussion was limited to that particular argument. Indeed, it was about the rule that insurance provide no cost contraceptives.

I think my instinctive reaction here is related to a couple of things. First, the priorities, as mentioned above. Second -- and related to the way that we handle health care in this country -- I really don't care for the micromanaging of employer health care policies when it comes to coverage for routine care and the like, the kinds of things that aren't catastrophic and unaffordable.

[eeeeeeeli]

Originally Posted by stephanie

The war on Christmas is, of course, the most ridiculous bit, and Mollie's effort to defend Perry's ridiculous ad (earlier in the discussion) was entirely unconvincing.

I was pretty grossed out by the arrogance they participated in here. As a full-on Christmas celebrating Atheist, who can't wait for the holidays because of the lights and aspirational humility and good cheer, and who finds Santa, the tree, the snow, the presents mesmerizing in a way that is completely non-religious, yet very spiritually fulfilling (for a materialist), I must recognize that it is, nonetheless an ethnic expression.

As such, I liken it to a holiday like Halloween, a holiday that many do not celebrate, and whose sentiment many schools wish to respect. While I love and prize both holidays, I prize even more the idea of public schools as a shared, secular space where all can feel equally welcome and included. In communities where Halloween celebrations are replaced with "Harvest" celebrations, I'm perfectly OK with that.

I can't help but feel that deep down, this is about an impulse of ethnic chauvinism - something, ironically, I find no greater contradiction of than in the aspiration of "peace on Earth and goodwill to men", an expression many religions could do to spend a bit more time on, instead of petty identity reinforcement.

[seethruit]

No, I do worry. Even if taypayer-funded school nurses provided emergency contraception to students, there would still be "kiddies" getting pregnant and either getting abortions when their parents did "get in the loop" or having babies they were completely unprepared to parent. Many folks seem to believe that withholding EC will prevent teen sex or, conversely, that providing EC will encourage teen sex. There's is absolutely no evidence that this is what happens. The studies that we do have on young adults (18+) is that EC has absolutely no effect on what they do. A decade ago, many clinicians were reluctant to prescribe EC because they believed that women would substitute EC for more reliable methods or take more risks. Multiple studies have shown this not to be true. EC is always shown to be underused. Participants continued to have unprotected sex (but no more than they did before EC) but NOT take EC. In fact, many of the study participants who DID take EC were worried that the birth control they had used didn't work well enough - they wanted to be super-sure of not getting pregnant. It's a mystery to me why so many people don't use EC even when they claim they don't want to get pregnant. The only thing I'm sure about it that making EC hard get is not going to improve anything.

PS. This reminds me of visiting a home for unwed mothers in the '70s which took in many very young, very pregnant "kiddies" - many under age 14. Many were surprisingly upbeat about their situation and eagerly told me how they couldn't wait to have their baby so they could dress her up pretty and taking her shopping. They had absolutely no clue as to what motherhood was really about.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by eeeeeeeli

In communities where Halloween celebrations are replaced with "Harvest" celebrations, I'm perfectly OK with that.

And I suppose you're perfectly OK with non-farmers feeling left out. typical.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by seethruit

It's a mystery to me why so many people don't use EC even when they claim they don't want to get pregnant. The only thing I'm sure about it that making EC hard get is not going to improve anything.

From what you say, making EC easier to get won't improve anything either. I think one reason people who oppose allowing youngsters to obtain EC easily is that it takes parents completely out of the loop.

[eeeeeeeli]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

And I suppose you're perfectly OK with non-farmers feeling left out. typical.

I'm assuming your jesting. I do however (and I didn't get into this in my prior post), that there seems to be a sort of dispositional difference between liberals and conservatives on the issue of ethnic chauvinism. That is, you'll often hear conservatives proudly claim this as a European, Christian, etc. country, making no bones about a particular nationalistic ethnic pride. Liberals tend to be skeptical of such sentiments, wanting to emphasize instead multiculturalism and plurality.

I'm not sure how much of this disposition comes out of the two ideological perspectives, or more a manifestation of other, less political factors (which in turn might reinforce an ideological disposition). For instance, geography likely plays a role, in that homogeneity would determine what kinds of experiences one has with other traditions. But other things would have an impact. Much of my own desire to respect the minority experience has been informed by studying the ways in which minorities have been marginalized, and subsequently questioning my own bias towards wanting to maintain what might be tradition, but has ultimately been unnecessarily harmful.

Anyhow, I do indeed have a kind of knee-jerk "just deal with it" reaction (my inner Rush Limbaugh). But I am skeptical of it, and recognize it as, while sometimes perfectly reasonable, also being a kind of dangerous road to fascism (in the majoritarian sense - I'll note this is probably a usage in direct opposition to the fascism many might see in the state deciding not to celebrate the birth of Christ! One's man's fascism... etc.)

[Diane1976]

Originally Posted by eeeeeeeli

I was pretty grossed out by the arrogance they participated in here. As a full-on Christmas celebrating Atheist, who can't wait for the holidays because of the lights and aspirational humility and good cheer, and who finds Santa, the tree, the snow, the presents mesmerizing in a way that is completely non-religious, yet very spiritually fulfilling (for a materialist), I must recognize that it is, nonetheless an ethnic expression.

As such, I liken it to a holiday like Halloween, a holiday that many do not celebrate, and whose sentiment many schools wish to respect. While I love and prize both holidays, I prize even more the idea of public schools as a shared, secular space where all can feel equally welcome and included. In communities where Halloween celebrations are replaced with "Harvest" celebrations, I'm perfectly OK with that.

I can't help but feel that deep down, this is about an impulse of ethnic chauvinism - something, ironically, I find no greater contradiction of than in the aspiration of "peace on Earth and goodwill to men", an expression many religions could do to spend a bit more time on, instead of petty identity reinforcement.

I generally agree with you. And yet, I have to say that when a friend who is a teacher told me there were complaints about the kids having a Halloween party at school, I thought that was stupid. Kids should be able to have a Halloween party at school. It has nothing to do with religion, even though it has religious origins. It's a secular custom. The tiny minority of parents who object should be free to keep their kids home that day, which is too bad for the kids but, unfortunately, you have to recognize that sort of parent right, up to a point.

Christmas is trickier, but I personally don't see anything wrong with the typical kids' Christmas play, providing it's not accompanied by pushing the Christian religion and is varied by recognizing stories from other religions too.

I find it hard to believe, as one of the diavlogers claimed, that there are public schools who are fine with activities related to other religions but not the Christian religion. That, of course, would be wrong, if it's true.

Originally Posted by Diane1976

Christmas is trickier, but I personally don't see anything wrong with the typical kids' Christmas play, providing it's not accompanied by pushing the Christian religion and is varied by recognizing stories from other religions too.

Especially the radical Islamist throat-slitters should be included in this, by including their Santa-lookalike Bin Laden. It'd be ridiculous and offensive not to include them.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by Diane1976

Christmas is trickier, but I personally don't see anything wrong with the typical kids' Christmas play, providing it's not accompanied by pushing the Christian religion and is varied by recognizing stories from other religions too.

We should burn history books, so that children never learn that Christianity was (or is) the predominant religion of the nation too.

[rfrobison]

Originally Posted by stephanie

To Amy, I'd just say ignore the portions of it that don't work for you, try to focus on Advent, and keep Christmas through the end of Christmas season and ignore the awful people who would toss out a tree on Dec 26 or insist that all talk of Christmas must cease as of Jan 1. I know the Advent part of this is probably harder with young children, but in a way the history of Christmas (and Christianity) is baptizing elements of traditions that can be seen as consistent and leaving what doesn't. This applies to our secular celebrations of Christmas and the kinds of things that get focused on there, in part. Black Friday, not so much, in my opinion.

The war on Christmas is, of course, the most ridiculous bit, and Mollie's effort to defend Perry's ridiculous ad (earlier in the discussion) was entirely unconvincing.

Only one thing bugs me about Christmas in Japan: Starbucks. So help me God, they start in with all the inane "Christmas" ditties in November. If I hear one more version of the 10,000,000,036 renditions of "Jingle Bell Rock" or "Winter Wonderland" I may strap on a pair of antlers and run, run Rudolf over the clerks!

Bah Humbucks!

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by rfrobison

Only one thing bugs me about Christmas in Japan: Starbucks. So help me God, they start in with all the inane "Christmas" ditties in November. If I hear one more version of the 10,000,000,036 renditions of "Jingle Bell Rock" or "Winter Wonderland" I may strap on a pair of antlers and run, run Rudolf over the clerks!

Bah Humbucks!

It's not just Japan.

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by rfrobison

Only one thing bugs me about Christmas in Japan: Starbucks. So help me God, they start in with all the inane "Christmas" ditties in November.

So, that's like the Anti-War on Christmas.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by Diane1976

Christmas is trickier, but I personally don't see anything wrong with the typical kids' Christmas play, providing it's not accompanied by pushing the Christian religion and is varied by recognizing stories from other religions too.

So there should be recognition of other religions in a Christmas pagent? What does it mean to 'push' the Christian religion in a Christmas play?

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by eeeeeeeli

I'm assuming your jesting. I do however (and I didn't get into this in my prior post), that there seems to be a sort of dispositional difference between liberals and conservatives on the issue of ethnic chauvinism. That is, you'll often hear conservatives proudly claim this as a European, Christian, etc. country, making no bones about a particular nationalistic ethnic pride. Liberals tend to be skeptical of such sentiments, wanting to emphasize instead multiculturalism and plurality.

I think a lot of liberals say they like muti-culturalism because it sounds so nice. What I wish is that we'd stop with all the hyphens. If you're a citizen of the US, you're an American...period. (but it is strange that we call ourselves Americans when that is obviously innaccurate).

For instance, geography likely plays a role, in that homogeneity would determine what kinds of experiences one has with other traditions. .

Yeah, those conservatives don't read or get out much.

But other things would have an impact. Much of my own desire to respect the minority experience has been informed by studying the ways in which minorities have been marginalized, and subsequently questioning my own bias towards wanting to maintain what might be tradition, but has ultimately been unnecessarily harmful.

huh?

Anyhow, I do indeed have a kind of knee-jerk "just deal with it" reaction (my inner Rush Limbaugh). But I am skeptical of it, and recognize it as, while sometimes perfectly reasonable, also being a kind of dangerous road to fascism (in the majoritarian sense - I'll note this is probably a usage in direct opposition to the fascism many might see in the state deciding not to celebrate the birth of Christ! One's man's fascism... etc

So, since I didn't get what you were saying in the prior paragraph, this one is compounds my confusion.

[Thanar]

Quoting seethruit: EC MAY make the lining of the uterus less receptive to implantation but this is the same dubious argument made by some pro-lifers against the so-called "abortifacient" effect of birth control pills.

The argument that birth control pills have a secondary abortifacient effect is (1) not made solely by pro-lifers and is (2) not dubious.

1) The argument has been made by abortion advocates to the Supreme Court!

The following dialogue is taken from the transcript of the 1989 Supreme Court decision Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (492 U.S. 490). The attorney Frank Susman advocated for the abortion industry:

Unidentified Justice: I don’t see why a court that can draw that line can’t separate abortion from birth control quite readily.

Mr. Susman: If I may suggest the reasons in response to your question, Justice Scalia. The most common forms of what we most generally in common parlance call contraception today, IUD’s, low-dose birth control pills, which are the safest type of birth control pills available, act as abortifacients. They are correctly labeled as both. Under this statute, which defines fertilization as the point of beginning, those forms of contraception are also abortifacients. Science and medicine refers to them as both. We are not still dealing with the common barrier methods of Griswold. We are no longer just talking about condoms and diaphragms. Things have changed. The bright line, if there ever was one, has now been extinguished.

(Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, “Oral Argument of Frank Susman on behalf of the Appellees,” http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1988/1988_88_605, emphasis mine)

Feel free to listen to it and read it yourself by clicking on the mp3 there and scrolling to 28:19.

2) The argument is made in articles in peer-reviewed medical journals, which state that “postfertilization loss” (i.e. abortifacient effect) can occur and this fact should be communicated to patients as part of informed consent:

“The primary mechanism of oral contraceptives is to inhibit ovulation, but this mechanism is not always operative. When breakthrough ovulation occurs, then secondary mechanisms operate to prevent clinically recognized pregnancy. These secondary mechanisms may occur either before or after fertilization. Postfertilization effects would be problematic for some patients, who may desire information about this possibility. This article evaluates the available evidence for the postfertilization effects of oral contraceptives and concludes that good evidence exists to support the hypothesis that the effectiveness of oral contraceptives depends to some degree on postfertilization effects. However, there are insufficient data to quantitate the relative contribution of postfertilization effects. Despite the lack of quantitative data, the principles of informed consent suggest that patients who may object to any postfertilization loss should be made aware of this information so that they can give fully informed consent for the use of oral contraceptives.” (Abstract)

(Walter L. Larimore, MD; Joseph B. Stanford, MD, MSPH, “Postfertilization Effects of Oral Contraceptives and Their Relationship to Informed Consent,” Arch Fam Med. 2000;9:126-133, http://archfami.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/9/2/126)

[seethruit]

So, do you think "in the loop" proponents would favor making condoms a prescription item for anyone under 17? Would that lower the teen pregnancy rate? Lower teen STDs? Would that be worth a hypothetical "improvement" in parent/teen communication?

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by seethruit

So, do you think "in the loop" proponents would favor making condoms a prescription item for anyone under 17? Would that lower the teen pregnancy rate? Lower teen STDs? Would that be worth a hypothetical "improvement" in parent/teen communication?

I think that the idea that it is somehow enlightened and edifying to allow some pathetic little teenaged girl the right to wander into Walgreens alone on a Sunday morning in search of a remedy to the fact that her creepy little boyfriend doesn't like the feel of condoms is depressing. And that this is somehow being tied to women's rights is nauseating.

It would be nice if instead her father had stood at the door of their home the night before and told this stud that if he touched his daughter he'd be wearing a bullet in his head. As you said, it doesn't matter a bit and I think this is just a sad indication of how our standards have fallen.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

I think that the idea that it is somehow enlightened and edifying to allow some pathetic little teenaged girl the right to wander into Walgreens alone on a Sunday morning in search of a remedy to the fact that her creepy little boyfriend doesn't like the feel of condoms is depressing. And that this is somehow being tied to women's rights is nauseating.

It would be nice if instead her father had stood at the door of their home the night before and told this stud that if he touched his daughter he'd be wearing a bullet in his head. As you said, it doesn't matter a bit and I think this is just an sad indication of how our standards have fallen.

Every loaded adjective and overwrought metaphor weakens the impact of any potential point here by half.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by rfrobison

Only one thing bugs me about Christmas in Japan: Starbucks. So help me God, they start in with all the inane "Christmas" ditties in November. If I hear one more version of the 10,000,000,036 renditions of "Jingle Bell Rock" or "Winter Wonderland" I may strap on a pair of antlers and run, run Rudolf over the clerks!

Bah Humbucks!

But the important question -- how do you feel about eggnog lattes?

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by stephanie

But the important question -- how do you feel about eggnog lattes?

Probably beats edamame lattes.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

Every loaded adjective and overwrought metaphor weakens the impact of any potential point here by half.

What loaded adjectives?

I think that the idea that it is somehow enlightened and edifying to allow some pathetic little teenaged girl the right to wander into Walgreens alone on a Sunday morning in search of a remedy to the fact that her creepy little boyfriend doesn't like the feel of condoms is depressing. And that this is somehow being tied to women's rights is nauseating.

It would be nice if instead her father had stood at the door of their home the night before and told this stud that if he touched his daughter he'd be wearing a bullet in his head. As you said, it doesn't matter a bit and I think this is just a sad indication of how our standards have fallen.

And by my reckoning there is no metaphor (overwrought or otherwise) contained therein.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by miceelf

Probably beats edamame lattes.

Doubt it.

[miceelf]

Finally getting around to listening. I am not questioning Mollie's honesty, but her presentation of how Christmas is putatively banned in school and people aren't allowed to mention Christmas is deeply strange. I actually have a lot of contact with a lot of different public schools (and with several charter schools as well), and unless I turn on Fox News I never see or hear such "bans." This just seems to more the case that parents who pre-emptively chose to send their kids to private school for religious reasons have an overblown idea about how secular public schools are.

Agree with her that corporate prayer in school is not a useful thing. (from a religious perspectively, having children recite a [meaningless to them] prayer seems like a weird thing to insist on as a Christian; there's Jesus' talk about public prayer and I can say that 15 minutes in my church of origin did a whole lot more for my religious well-being than the 8 years I spent reciting the lord's prayer with the rest of my class).

So not sure why she thinks complaining about this not occurring makes sense.

[stephanie]

Taking this out of order:

Originally Posted by miceelf

So not sure why she thinks complaining about [corporate prayer] not occurring makes sense.

I guess her point was that some people are (wrongly) upset about it, so Perry was speaking for some group among whom the commercial would be effective. What seemed odd about that is that I don't think the criticism of the commercial has ever suggested that there are not people who would agree with it.

What irritated me more about Mollie's commentary is her suggestion that the people who say "uh, kids can celebrate Christmas and pray in school" are failing to realize that Perry means corporate prayer. Obviously everyone knows the history of the issue, but there's a long practice of those who are against the ruling about corporate prayer to misstate the law as if private prayer, any individual references to Christianity or God, were banned from public schools. So Perry's failure to be explicit about it being corporate prayer that he's talking about, only, is clearly because of a usual desire to muddle the two things.

Indeed, him bringing in the ridiculous war on Christmas rhetoric is evidence of this, as the right apparently likes to claim that random merchants seeking to encourage purchasing by people of all religions and none by not assuming everyone is Christian somehow is a violation of our rights. Damn those crazy PC leftwing capitalists.

Finally getting around to listening. I am not questioning Mollie's honesty, but her presentation of how Christmas is putatively banned in school and people aren't allowed to mention Christmas is deeply strange. I actually have a lot of contact with a lot of different public schools (and with several charter schools as well), and unless I turn on Fox News I never see or hear such "bans." This just seems to more the case that parents who pre-emptively chose to send their kids to private school for religious reasons have an overblown idea about how secular public schools are.

This was precisely my reaction. No such "singing other holiday songs for the winter festival but not Jingle Bells" policy is required by the law. It would be a rather silly, if well-intended, choice by individual schools. It's certainly not what I experienced as a child and, more relevantly, does not seem to be reflective of what I hear from my friends with children of school age. Might it happen some places? Sure.

Agree with her that corporate prayer in school is not a useful thing. (from a religious perspectively, having children recite a [meaningless to them] prayer seems like a weird thing to insist on as a Christian; there's Jesus' talk about public prayer and I can say that 15 minutes in my church of origin did a whole lot more for my religious well-being than the 8 years I spent reciting the lord's prayer with the rest of my class).

Yes -- I really don't see why this is such a desire by some. Well, in fact it seems clearly just a desire for a public acknowledgement that the US is basically Christian (or religious, I suppose, when people try to make it a non-sectarian prayer or moment of silence).

[Diane1976]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

So there should be recognition of other religions in a Christmas pagent? What does it mean to 'push' the Christian religion in a Christmas play?

Also to Sulla:

Not in the pageant.

I suppose some people feel everybody should be free the practice their own religion but the state shouldn’t have any favourite among religions, or give any precedence to one over the other. Other people think the state, including public schools, should give precedence to the religion of the majority. I think that’s contrary to the principle of separation of church and state, myself. I see the role of the public schools as teaching respect for differences, and also assimilating children in the sense of teaching them the values of our society, at the same time.

I see a difference between culture and religion, although they overlap. Our cultural traditions come from many countries and religions. I would see the Christmas play or the Hallowe’en party as part of our culture, and something that can be celebrated in the schools, along with other traditions at various times, depending on the community. Preaching, spreading, promoting a particular religion belongs in the church, or other religious body, not in public schools, or political parties.

I don't know how much any of this has to do with religion, as such, though. It's probably an identity issue. I think for some people, Christianity and national identity are tied together. They aren't for me. But there other things that are tied to natonal identity for me, and I resent it when people don't respect those. So, I understand how people would feel if they see Christianity as part of national identity. I think this is a very emotional issue that's hard to talk about logically.

Originally Posted by Diane1976

I see the role of the public schools as teaching respect for differences, and also assimilating children in the sense of teaching them the values of our society, at the same time.

Can you tell me whether the values of your society clash with the values of radical Islamist throat-slitters? You (revealingly) consider it "offensive" to compare them to Nazis, or even communists (maybe you're just the sole Canadian supporter of Sen. Joseph McCarthy).