Deleted
Posts: 0
Location:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2012 14:05:51 GMT -5
"God is love" is opinion. "God" is an opinion. Teaching kids to recite the Lords Prayers is teaching a religious opinion. A moment of silence to pray (if they want) isn't good enough because kids must be taught how to do so correctly? We should leave the schools the responsibility of teaching children "love" and morality and being a part of a greater good? Because schools have left these things to families to teach in their individual ways, society has gone to pot and kids grow up to be mass murderers? The fact that in the past 20 years huge changes including kids being exposed to violence on tv, music and gaming, exposure to the media 24/7, working parents, single families, day care raising our children, a society that encourages children to grow up too soon, etc etc. are overshadowed completely by no prayer in school? And by the way, separation of church and state doesn't mean there can be no church. Just that it is not for the government to endorse. Why would we want the government to be in the business of teaching morality? What happened to family responsibility?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Location:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2012 14:11:17 GMT -5
"God is love" is opinion. "God" is an opinion. Teaching kids to recite the Lords Prayers is teaching a religious opinion. A moment of silence to pray (if they want) isn't good enough because kids must be taught how to do so correctly? We should leave the schools the responsibility of teaching children "love" and morality and being a part of a greater good? Because schools have left these things to families to teach in their individual ways, society has gone to pot and kids grow up to be mass murderers? The fact that in the past 20 years huge changes including kids being exposed to violence on tv, music and gaming, exposure to the media 24/7, working parents, single families, day care raising our children, a society that encourages children to grow up too soon, etc etc. are overshadowed completely by no prayer in school? And by the way, separation of church and state doesn't mean there can be no church. Just that it is not for the government to endorse. Why would we want the government to be in the business of teaching morality? What happened to family responsibility? I have nothing more to contribute to this conversation, but wanted to bow out with the suggestion of actually engaging with ideas that people on this board actually posted. :-/ |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Location:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2012 14:22:41 GMT -5
Actually, kay ... people don't just think they have the right to protect their property. They actually do have the right. It has to be justified, e.g., you are prosecuted if you kill a petty thief who poses no threat to you. But the owner has the right to use any degree of non-deadly force necessary to protect his possession or recover his property, regardless of no physical threat to his person. Yes, you are correct unfortunately. I meant the moral right. To kill a person for property is unfathomable to me. And the right to own guns to make us of equal power with our government is arcaic. Think about that because, we, the people, built a might army. Does that argument mean we should be allowed to carry weapons from assault weapons to bazookas to weapons of massive distruction? Our protection against our government is in being a repressentative government, the power of voting, recalling, checks and balances, limiled terms etc. That's the security our founding fathers left us. I encourage everyones right to post their opinion regardless of their role on Atop. Because I disagree doesn't show disrespect. Eta I believe I was addressing issues posted earlier!? |
|
|
|
Post by midwifespal on Dec 15, 2012 14:32:33 GMT -5
I began responding to the discussion here last night, but found I was getting too upset and had to stop. I tried again this morning, after a fitful night's sleep and my regular Saturday morning soccer game, hoping the run around would make me calmer, but it didn't. I just composed a very long and admittedly angry response (in Word, so I wouldn't lose it) and logged on to post it. I do not share the tolerance expressed by a few people here for some beliefs that differ widely from my own. My own feelings on this matter are far more extreme (within this culture) than I have expressed so far. But while I feel justified in my anger and in my beliefs, I feel bad bringing that tone into this gentle, civil discussion. I recognize and admire, Mahalia, your bravery in swimming against the tide, but I can't agree with what you wrote, and frankly I find it deeply offensive. There are of course many people in this world whom I genuinely like, who I think are good, kind-hearted people, interesting people, impressive people, who happen to hold beliefs that I find abhorrent even as I acknowledge their right to hold them. (They probably find my beliefs abhorrent in turn.) My response, which I now will not post after all, was an attack on those beliefs, not those people.
I think, however, that I need a break. It was a while in coming, and certainly not in response to any one individual or comment. I'm not trying on a theatrical flounce--I've just found that more often than not I'm upset rather than cheered by something I've found here, and what's the sense in that? Real life is stressful enough at the moment. Perhaps I should just slip away quietly with no comment, but I wanted to explain, partly for you, but mostly for myself. I'm not giving up on Adam, certainly--and knowing me I'll be tempted back in in no time--you guys know how much I love some things about this place--but for now I think I'm taking some much needed space, which seems a silly thing to feel, and even more to dramatically announce, about an internet forum, but is nonetheless how it feels to me. I'm sorry if this comes across as juvenile--I'm not sticking my tongue out, stomping out, and slamming the door. I'll hang around for a bit so as to give others a chance at their say. Best wishes and happy holidays and happy Diva show tomorrow to you all.
|
|
|
|
Post by rabbitrabbit on Dec 15, 2012 14:47:29 GMT -5
midwifespal - please post your response, or if you really feel uncomfortable, please PM it to me.
I also was unable to sleep last night reading that post and am still upset this morning, and have been wondering whether it's worth bringing actual statistical facts about dropping crime rates, cross-border immigration/refugees (rates dropping, deaths rising), guns in altercations and the problem of vigilantism into this discussion.
I'll be honest, tip-toeing around people's feelings and quiet discourse don't in my mind take precedence over issues this important and timely.
|
|
mika
Member
Posts: 542
Location:
|
Post by mika on Dec 15, 2012 15:22:27 GMT -5
as i think my post only aggravated things by being heavy handed, i'm going to delete it. i do still hope we can pursue vigorous, emotional debates with respect for the individual without that having a chilling effect. i don't know, maybe i'm off base. wishing everyone peace and comfort.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Location:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2012 15:41:10 GMT -5
I won't chime in on my opinions of gun control other than to say people with guns scare me to death. Most have NO idea of the destructive power of a gun, and some are used as an extension of their manhood. One of my most powerful memories from my childhood was of my Grandfather who NEVER scolded me but on the occasion of my pointing my toy Roy Rogers gun (hey it was the fifties!) at him and going bang! bang! the man went ballistic. What occurred was a lecture to that 8 year old that has stayed with me forever. I've traveled all of these United States and one of the things that I have discovered is that the use of guns, the idea of guns, are similar. The western states are, of course, more inclined to the use of guns for personal protection. Look at blue and red states and you get the picture. Considering the "national consciousness" of the right to own guns I think, imo, that trying to eliminate all guns will never happen but stricter laws, supervision and all the additions you can think of to increase the laws will gradually etch that national consciousness to better thinking. But...do consider this for mahailia. www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/transcript/texas-rancher039s-pictures-are-worth-1000-words-about-death-and-danger-borderShe lives in an area that is rife with not just crime, such as someone who may invade your home but people who deal with death as a living. I too live close to the border but the difference is I can choose not to go into areas that I know are dangerous, ex. we no longer will take our jeep off-road for fun in the desert. Her husband is a rancher who must roam his land to provide a living. In one of our favorite riding places two months ago drug runners chased down a rancher and killed him, because he stumbled upon their meet. Mexican drug cartel killings near Nogales increase with people killed in a mass slaughter on an American street. I guess my point is all your points are valid and your feelings about guns are in imho correct. But think about walking in mahailia's shoes for a few minutes. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Location:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2012 15:45:58 GMT -5
Midwifespal
So as to prolong your stay, I will make a comment although I do feel it is not my place to, not being an American.
A few random facts:
~ I come from a country with a long history of warring over religious beliefs.
~ We never had a mass shooting here, not in malls, cinemas, let alone schools. I believe it is because we are not armed.
That aside, I feel that this is not the time for debates over gun laws and religion. Absurdly, they are obviously related with the tragedy, but imo, the endless discussion should not be allowed; it is time for fast action. Knowing that in the USA, you send your children to school not knowing if they will come home alive is mind boggling. I am so sorry. This horrible tragedy is something which requires immediate action from all your law, social, military, medical, government... experts to make important decisions/laws so as this could never happen again. Whatever it takes. Nothing is more important, no one's property, beliefs, interests...
Please don't leave. Hugs from an atheist teacher.
|
|
|
|
Post by midwifespal on Dec 15, 2012 16:52:28 GMT -5
Mika~ you're a dear and I'm sorry you deleted your post. It was thoughtful and kind and utterly reasonable. It certainly didn't upset me, and I genuinely felt my anger on this issue would be misplaced and unhelpful, so I swallowed it. That's something that came from me, however, not from you in any way. And I, too, hate a pile-on, and feel bad for Mahailia, with whom I happen to strongly disagree on this issue, but who, as you say, has always been and continues to be a kind and open and generous and thoughtful poster. It is always hard to be in a minority.
Gosh, I feel like such a drama queen, guys, I'm sorry. I don't think I'll post my diatribe, rabbitrabbit, though I understand your wider point. I'll just summarize quickly to say that it went a little bit into statistics both on the increased risk of shooting death for gun owners (even correcting for the other socio-economic risk factors associated with gun-ownership)—3X according to one study, and a 5X higher risk of suicide--and on the link between religion and violent crime. It's easy to see that the countries with highest rates of violent crime are also those that are, by various factors, the most religious in the world--the correlation is direct rather than inverse. This is for the most part because gun-violence and religiousness are both strongly correlated to poverty. The US is of course a wealthy nation, but one with enormous income disparity and a weak social safety net; it also the most religious "industrialized" country in the world and has, according to one study, a fire-arm homicide rate almost 20 times that of other wealthy nations.
It makes me angry that the very people who are waving the Constitution around in the air and shouting about some misguided interpretation of the 2nd Amendment are in the same motion happily and carelessly trampling all over the 1st Amendment. To suggest it is impossible to teach Love without teaching God is as ridiculous, from my atheistic perspective, as suggesting it would be impossible to teach giving without teaching Santa Claus. And it offends me—I have a firm, warm morality despite my godlessness, and a right not to be proselytized by my government. Others have a right to worship whom they want in their churches and homes.
I agree that this is a complicated issue, and that regulating guns would only partially address the problem. This is also a mental health issue, an education issue, a poverty issue. But (with, I'm sure, some exceptions) the people who consistently vote against gun regulation are the same people who also consistently vote against expanding affordable and easy access to health care, including mental health care that would have brought help to some of these sick individuals before they committed such atrocities. They are the same people who consistently vote against increasing funding for early childhood education programs, and public schools in general, and expanding Pell grants for college that give impoverished people a path into the middle class. And they are the same people who consistently vote against a fairer tax code that would send some of the obscene wealth made in this country to where it is needed most, help correct the ever-growing wealth gap in the US, and do something about the ballooning underclass that has nowhere to turn but the streets.
I can’t help feeling angry and sad at the impossible uphill battle against such attitudes.
Okay, now I’ve gone and posted much of what I wanted to say anyway, although in a somewhat calmer fashion. I appreciate your posts, and didn’t want to make this personal, either about others, or about myself. I’ll be around.
Hugs,
MWP.
|
|
|
|
Post by rabbitrabbit on Dec 15, 2012 19:10:40 GMT -5
thank you for your post midwivespalGrandduchess, your point is taken about someone else's shoes. But here's the thing, perception of danger can vary widely from actually statistical reality. And I can't help but think when people are making decisions based on information that is incomplete or distorted, that doesn't keep anyone safe. A report this year by the FBI says the US is experiencing the lowest violent crime levels since WWII : usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/06/11/12170947-fbi-violent-crime-rates-in-the-us-drop-approach-historic-lows?liteAs an aside they also mention this among the many factors leading to this decline which I found interesting: "“We also have a record number of immigrants, and contrary to popular belief,” LaFree said, “immigrants have lower crime rates than the rest of society." "The overall violent crime index has tumbled by one-third since the early 1990s. The worst crimes -- murder and rape -- have declined even more. American citizens are safer today from crime than at almost any time since record-keeping began, very likely safer than at any time in the history of the country." from CNN: www.cnn.com/2012/07/23/opinion/frum-guns/index.html---------------------- Let's look more closely at the specific areas where the US borders with Mexico: content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/07/usa-today-analysis-border-crime-rates-dont-match-rhetoric/1#.UM0I62_AfVE"The USA TODAY team's analysis of a decade of crime data, plus interviews with local and federal authorities, finds that violent crime along the U.S. side of the border has been falling for years -- even before the security buildup in recent years by thousands of law enforcement officers. A key finding: U.S. border cities were statistically safer on average than other cities in their states. Those border cities, big and small, have maintained lower crime rates than the national average, which itself has been falling."Here's a breakdown of the study with interactive maps: usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2011/07/us-mexico-border-violence/49399232/1Also a followup story from last month, same pattern still holds: www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/11/04/violent-crimes-drop-overall-in-us-border-cities/1681821/************** My shoes, for full disclosure: I live in a mid-sized American city which I love and is considered a bit of a progressive haven. I take reasonable precautions, am not naive, and have unfortunately had random gun violence occur very near my house (I came home to find the police checking our siding for stray shots once), and yet I feel safe here and my neighborhood is cooperative, friendly and diverse. I compared violent and property crime rates from my neighborhood to Nogales since it was mentioned, and some Texas border towns using www.neighborhoodscout.com . Not surprisingly the violent and overall crime rates per capita were much higher in my city. I have shot clay pigeons, have veterans in my family, my father in law is a hunter and game keeper, and my husband has had pre-airforce military training on firearms in the UK, and yet I would never have a weapon in my home, and neither would he. The statistics clearly outline the risks this would pose to my family, and it's not just a risk I'm taking on, but we might be endangering complete strangers should a weapon be stolen or taken or an accident occur. The idea of buying an assault weapon possibly in addition to other firearms for home defense? I can't make the mental leap. I also don't watch television news, and in particular know that the Fox network while good for all your 'if it bleeds it leads' coverage, and remarkable effective at building network ratings based on fear doesn't have a financial incentive to provide a complete or accurate picture. **** The CNN article I linked above draws some conclusions about this which while open to debate are worth considering: "TV news -- and especially local TV news -- is dominated by news of violent crime, the more spectacular and murderous the better. TV news creates a false picture of a country under attack by rampaging criminals, and especially nonwhite criminals. The people who watch the most TV news, Americans older than 50, also happen to be the group most likely to own a gun. Only one-fifth of young Americans own a gun; one-third of over-50 Americans do. Republicans are twice as likely to own a gun as Democrats. Maybe not so coincidentally, Republicans are more likely to watch the scariest news channel of them all: Fox. Whites are twice as likely to own a gun as nonwhites -- and it may also not be a coincidence that gun purchases have suddenly spiked since November 2008." www.cnn.com/2012/07/23/opinion/frum-guns/index.html***** One other thing. The Fox article that Grandduchess linked to, makes an important point perhaps unintentionally. There are a lot of vulnerable people dying during the crossing in the border areas, and these death rates are rising even while migration across the border has dropped to historic lows. That is a serious humanitarian concern to me, the fact that they aren't US citizens in no way diminishes that. openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/09/14300178-deadly-crossing-death-toll-rises-among-those-desperate-for-the-american-dream?lite |
|
