published Thursday, October 15th, 2009

The New Banner

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

52
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
SCOTTYM said...

LOL!!!

October 15, 2009 at 12:07 a.m.
nucanuck said...

No better way to stir up a little controversy than either of the polar opposites,God or guns. Just stir the pot and step back.

October 15, 2009 at 1:34 a.m.
alprova said...

Hilarious!!

I wouldn't put it past someone to try something just like that.

I've been monitoring the various takes on the situation, falling short of actually attending any of the meetings that were held. One report that I watched included a speaker that basically summed up the sentiment behind the Bible Banners.

I don't know his name, but he was identified as a local Pastor of a local church.

I'm paraphrasing, but he clearly stated that "We have a generation of young people who have not been exposed to God," clearly indicating that the banners were, at least in his mind, an effort of indoctrinate the 'Godless' children who attend the school.

Another prominent speaker, interviewed outside the meeting, offered a rather strong threat, stating that if the members did not reverse the ruling, that they "should understand that as elected officials, that there would be consequences if they failed to do their jobs."

Folks, this one is headed for the courts. The minute it went national, that was an inevitable outcome of the dispute. It's just a matter of time before the first legal challenge will be filed. They'll lose, and lose big, but that's okay.

They think that they can wrestle control of the School Board by replacing members on it, and then they can then implement their own agendas. It will not work, because any incoming new members will still answer to the same people that those on the board do now.

The goal that Ms. Reese was trying to achieve when she banned the banners, was to avoid a lawsuit that would cause the School District to spend precious dollars for legal expenses, that are sorely needed to pay for the education of the students.

Mark my word, the legal challenges will be filed, and these home grown, albeit mild mannered holy warriors, are going to be responsible for Catoosa County spending outrageous sums to defend their legally justifiable decision -- dollars that will forever be lost and pocketed by attorneys who are merely attempting to make a name for themselves, and who have absolutely no dog in this hunt.

I think it's about time to remove the tax-exempt status that churches have enjoyed for years in this country. If their goal is to infiltrate public venues to "spread the gospel," according to their beliefs, then they need to pony up the dough in the form of income and sales taxes to be allowed to do it.

October 15, 2009 at 2:17 a.m.
woody said...

First, I found nothing wrong with the cheerleaders' banner that started this 'brouhaha'.

Secondly, Alprova, you have 'nailed' it perfectly when you stated, "I think it's about time to remove the tax-exempt status that churches have enjoyed for years in this country. If their goal is to infiltrate public venues to "spread the gospel," according to their beliefs, then they need to pony up the dough in the form of income and sales taxes to be allowed to do it.

I am not, admittedly, a church-goer. I do, however, believe in God. And in my limited excursions through the Holy Bible, I can't remember ever running across the words indoctrinate nor infiltrate, in reference to spreading the Gospel.

I was always taught the best way to show how, and in whom, you believe is to live the sort of life that would reflect your beliefs. In this way others may actually see God's handiwork in action.

Those girls have seemingly done this. Everything else is either political or religious rhetoric.

Thank you for your time and attention, Woody

October 15, 2009 at 6:16 a.m.
moonpie said...

I agree with alprova on nearly all points above.

(I haven't thought through removing the tax exempt status, so I'll withhold judgement on that one.)

I do think the cheerleaders have a case - from a constitutional point of view.

But, I agree with alprova, that the very likely conclusion is that the courts will rule against them based on the derivative case law.

In the unlikely event that the courts do rule with the cheerleaders, I think the inevitable ultimate outcome would be further court cases and we'd ultimately be right back here. (Many dollars later.)

October 15, 2009 at 7:23 a.m.
moonpie said...

A final note. My thinking has changed on this a bit. In uniform, in their capacity on the field, the cheerleaders are acting as agents of the school. You could argue that they are not employees and therefore aren't beholden to the same standard as teachers, but they are representing the school in an official capacity.

October 15, 2009 at 7:55 a.m.
maj said...

Good thinking, girls! Seriously, who is hurt by these signs?? I get the whole separation of church and state thing, but who is being hurt here?? Along a little bit different line, but similar-- I'd much rather see this than the constant videos coming out of little kids at school singing Obama praise music! That's just getting downright ridiculous.

October 15, 2009 at 7:57 a.m.
aces25 said...

Maybe we could get a banner for CONgreSs?

October 15, 2009 at 8:17 a.m.
OllieH said...

Very funny cartoon!

To all of you who see no problem with the religious messages on the cheerleaders' banners, I would ask, how would you feel if they were displaying passages from the Islamic Koran? Would you still support them? Would you still be so understanding, if the signs were quotes from the Buddhist holy book- the Tipitaka?

I can't imagine you would find THAT as benign.

We have people out there who didn't even want their kids exposed to a speech from the President of the United States on hard work and personal responsibility, who think nothing of subjecting school kids to religious proselytizing.

It's absurd.

As for any pending civil litigation? I would advise the good people of Fort Oglethorpe to save the money. Because they don't have a prayer (no religious connotation intended)!

October 15, 2009 at 8:23 a.m.
maj said...

OllieH, Considering this country was founded on Christian principles, a nation under GOD, I don't think it would be quite the same thing!

October 15, 2009 at 8:38 a.m.
Jhenry said...

I lose a little bit more faith in my fellow man every time I read the posts on here. When did God become the enemy? I don't understand the comparisons to Islam. There is no Islamic majority. No one is forcing anyone to attend a religious service, or force them to pray, or knocking on their door with literature. Its a verse on a piece of paper thats ripped apart in just a few minutes. No one is forced to attend the game. So what law is broken? Please someone site the law so I can read it and understand it and then fight it. People truly show their complete ignorance every time they parrot "Separation of Church and State"! I challenge everyone to sit down and read our Deceleration of Independence and our Constitution.

October 15, 2009 at 8:46 a.m.
whoknows said...

This is still a story? We are that ridiculous??? Just when I thought this was over… I read this story on CNN the other day.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/10/07/scotus.mojave.cross/index.html

There goes the ACLU. That great organization of patriots bent and determined to take any freedom and liberty we have and destroy it. With the SCOTUS at the head of the destruction and misinterpretation of the constitution, this country is moving in a great direction.

Since a cross memorial that has been standing for 75 years on what is now government property should be taken down cause it offended one little man who is too insecure to look at it, that starts a precedent of what we should be doing around here. I say we all get a group together and go to the Veterans Cemetery downtown and kick over all the cross grave markers. That’s government paid for and supported property after all. Then we can drive up to Arlington and do the same thing there. While in the area, we should hop over to D.C. and practically raze the city. The Capitol building, judicial buildings and other memorials around D.C. are riddled with statues of Moses, Confucius, Draco, Mohammed, Justinian, Hammurabi, Menes, Solon, Minerva, Pope Innocent, Pope Gregory, pyramids, obelisks, crosses, stars, and dozens of other religious symbols. We can’t pretend to support any religion, even though our founding fathers were in support of any and all religions. But let’s not stop there. Reprint all of our money without “In God We Trust”. We can afford it, we are spending Trillions on other things, what’s one more. And if we do need the money then stop any government subsidized farmers and herders from getting money. After all, Cows are sacred to Hindus and we don’t want to offend them by supporting those raising them for slaughter. And Pigs are unclean to Jews. Be bad to offend them too. Can you all thing of some other stuff we should do? I’m sure I can, but I’m tired…

October 15, 2009 at 10:02 a.m.
whoknows said...

I don’t care what religion you practice, or if you practice no religion at all. These signs were not hurting anyone and they were not government supported. Our constitution has nothing to do with this battle. At least it didn’t 60 years ago. That was when the SCOTUS started really screwing things for anybody wanting to practice religion. Our country was founded on religion. Not any one religion in particular, but freedom of religion. And we were not founded as a nation under God, as many mistakenly believe. And our founding fathers had nothing wrong with having any religious symbol on any government building. The only restriction given against religion is the establishment of a national religion. We have become so “politically correct” and insecure in ourselves and own beliefs that we all act like babies that just had our pacifier taken out of our mouths any time anyone does something including religion anywhere government is involved.
This shouldn’t be an issue. And the “Christians” supporting the displaying of signs are not making things any better by giving threats acting the fools. I think we have bigger things to worry about in Catoosa County.

How about the Heritage Middle School coach? In an early game against the Ringgold Middle, the Heritage team was losing. The coach was being embarrassed by it, so he told his football players to kick, hit and otherwise hurt or maim the Ringgold players so they can come back from their loss. And the students did what he said. What happens to this coach? He looses his coaching position. He is still allowed to teach in the school however. Why is that? His father is on the Catoosa County School Board. So who cares that he is teaching his students and players about being bad sportsmen, being unfair, being cruel and supporting attacks on those who are playing fair. No one is protesting his remaining here as a teacher, but people are protesting a sign that gives an uplifting, spiritual message. The absurdity of our world…

October 15, 2009 at 10:04 a.m.
OllieH said...

maj- Granted, the earliest immigrants to our country were very religious people, but they came here to escape the domination of the Church of England over their own religious views.

Our country was not founded on Christianity, it was founded on liberty, democracy and justice. In fact, the founders went to great lengths to avoid just the kind of state sanctioned religion that lead many to flee England in the first place.

If a state school, or its representatives (in this case, the cheerleaders) display Bible verses at a school event, that is tantamount to endorsing a religion and therefore runs completely contrary to the spirit of the establishment clause of the first amendment.

The fact that a majority of the people in this country, or in Fort Oglethorpe, may share the religious views expressed on the banners, makes it no less a violation.

If our country was, indeed, founded 'under God' then the Treasury Department didn't get the memo. The words 'In God We Trust' weren't added to our currency until an act of Congress approved it in 1864.

The pledge of allegiance was even a later convert to such garish displays of religiosity. The words 'under God' were only added to the pledge in 1954, after Congress was lobbied by the Knights of Columbus (a Catholic fraternal service organization).

October 15, 2009 at 10:07 a.m.

Amen Jhenry. First of all there was no "indoctrination". These were high school students and their school had a long-standing tradition of making these banners with the verses on them. By the time we are of Jr. High age, we are less likely to be "indoctrinated". That's why Obama's cadre is starting at an even younger age: 3-5 yrs old.

Indoctrination is what those teachers did (and do) while teaching kindergarteners to worship Barack Hussein Obama. Falsities and agendas are taught children in History, Politics and Health Sciences across the nation everyday. If you want to talk "indoctrination", start with your Profs, the WH website, move on to ACORN, APOLLO and Moveon.org, then inject yourself with a dose of KOS/HuffPost. By then, you'll be reading the New York Times and swearing it is YOUR bible.

I find it pathetic that many of you are in great company with CAIR, the atheists, wiccans, satanists, RAINBOW, NAMBLA, the ACLU and various other 'reputable' groups in that, you all completely ignore (are complicit with?) their ability to go into schools across the country, with the School Boards permission and "talk" about their beliefs.

Guess what group of Americans are NOT allowed to do this or risk being sued? When you guys are able to demand clamping down on those others mentioned above re: tax-exempt status, then you may have some credibility to your rants. But you won't because it is the Christians you hate and want out of the picture.

It is YOU who are at risk because of the lack of your own true education but you risk your children's and the future generations as well.

October 15, 2009 at 10:43 a.m.
una61 said...

Ho Hum. Must be a slow day at the cartoon factory. Rainy days will do that. Years ago, the comedian Groucho Marx hosted a TV show called, "You Bet Your Life", during which, if the contestant said a certain word, a quacking duck would descend from the ceiling and the person would win $100. Today, there are certain words or phrases, when published, will almost certainly get a "quacking" response, i.e., "Church and State Separation", "Evolution", "Freedom of Speech", etc. Speaking of indoctrination, what about children being indoctrinated every Sunday with the myths of Genesis?

October 15, 2009 at 11:28 a.m.
whoknows said...

una61: sad that you have to try and attack a religion based on this. Especially since people who go to a Christian church on Sunday are choosing to be indoctrinated by that religion, whether true or not.
You must be pretty dang old to be able to disprove a book written around 6000 years ago. Please share your proof that Genesis is a myth. I'd like to know.

October 15, 2009 at 11:53 a.m.
nurseforjustice said...

yes una61.. please share. since there is much more PROOF that creation actually happened instead of the THEORY of evolution.

October 15, 2009 at 12:51 p.m.

First I would like to propose that the editors of the site enable an option for a direct reply to someone else's post instead of having to shift down to the bottom of the page to give a retort.

On the the matter at hand, OllieH. The first settlers established colonies based on religion. To say that the nation was founded under god or not under god is an extreme representation on both sides. The moral codes which the founders followed and implied were a derivative of God and a reflection of John Locke's equality of man based on religious toleration. It's best to look at it as a mesh. It is religiously inspired, though mainly deist, which a man cannot entirely separate from his personality.

The main reason for separation of Church and State was not to keep the Church out of politics, but just the opposite, to keep government from using the Church. In "American Baptists and the Jeffersonian Tradition". You can read about early churches of a lesser population paying taxes for funding of larger churches they didn't believe in. The Church's followed the Principles of separation of Church and State due to the fact they refused to fund another religion.

So addressing Ollie and those who think Church's should be taxed. Jefferson's and Madison's opinions on Church and State were instilled to keep government out of Church's first off, and to keep the Church from eventually running government. it really wasn't until about 1985 when the S.B.C. termed the country as going to hell and decided their needed to be a Social Christian State. Church's should not be taxed due to their religious freedom's that they are given in America.

To chip away at one part of the Constitution makes the Document vulnerable to be translated however the imperialists see fit in order to bring about and order to infringe on our personal liberties.

October 15, 2009 at 12:51 p.m.
redbearded said...

Basically, this country was founded on FREEDOM of religion without persecution. It shouldn't matter if cheerleaders or spectators held up signs that said Praise Allah or Buddha or whatever. Try to practice some tolerance for others, people. That's what it's all about.

October 15, 2009 at 12:59 p.m.
HiDef said...

@whoknows: the bible wasn't written 6000 years ago, it was written maybe 1600 years ago by unknown authors who never met their main character. 6000 years is the age of the earth according to fundamentalists. Of course, simply dating dinosaur fossils blows that theory out of the water. As well, the burden of proof isn't on the non-believer, it is on the ones making the outrageous claims. I can't prove Zeus didn't exist, but that doesn't make him real now does it?

As for indoctrination, the children being forced to church on Sunday with their parents are being indoctrinated and forced to follow a belief in which they have no choice.

@nurseforjustice: Please why don't YOU share your proof that a higher power created us and this earth. I am definitely curious to hear this....

October 15, 2009 at 1:31 p.m.

Una 61, the myths of Genesis is only for the idiots that can't grasp the concept of poem. Also since there are two creation stories in the bible, which one would you like to for someone to elaborate one. Evolution? The answer is who cares how he did it, the fact remains he did it. The theory of Evolution doesn't exactly sway my beliefs out of hand. and since most churches focus on the teachings of christ and god, Genesis doesn't get thrown out there by the scholar community as it used to. So why don't you present your opposition so that we can give you an answer.

October 15, 2009 at 1:51 p.m.
aces25 said...

HiDef

Mathematical probability is not on the side of life forming from chemical and elements forming the exact structures needed to form the most basic of cells. More over, life then surviving, multiplying, then evolving into completely separate forms, then developing a web of reliance between forms to survive?

I would much rather believe that a watch needs a watchmaker.

A book I recommend is The Privileged Planet. It reads much like a text book but offers that the universe was not only intelligently designed, but that Earth has a unique position within the universe to allow people to make great discoveries. It also explains that intelligent design (or more specifically, a Creator) and science are not competing entities, but rather complimenting ones. The book actually incorporates the theory of the Big Bang and does not discount the actual age of the planet as determined by science.

October 15, 2009 at 2:08 p.m.
rolando said...

Knowledgeable scholars place the first WRITTEN Book of Genesis [the Book of which whoknows spoke] was between 3,000 and 4,000 years ago. There are differences in opinion, just as with any other ancient anything. Some say "J" wrote down various Israeli oral histories circa 1,000 BC, others say Moses wrote it 4oo years or so before that. "J"'s writing style is distinct and recognizable in a number of the Books -- about all that is known of him. [Just Yahoo "Genesis written" to see cites for the above dates. Pick any listed...there is even a denier or two there.]

If you cannot back up your claim or that of another you support, HiDef, you have no business making it, although IMO or even IMHO works...

In short, don't play "Mine is bigger than yours" or "Show me yours and I will show you mine" games. That is as bad as criticizing someone's grammar or spelling. We have enough of both here.

October 15, 2009 at 2:14 p.m.
whoknows said...

I didn't say the Bible, HiDef. una mentioned Genesis. That is what I was referring to. It is widely excepted by Christians and Jews that Moses wrote Genesis. It is dated to about 1500-1400 BC. So that would actually make Genesis (if that is the correct time period) about 3500 years old. As for the rest of the Bible, the other texts were completed with in the 1st century, AD, making them nearly 2000 years old. However, Constantine, who is credited with having the "Christian Bible" compiled, did not do so until the 3rd century. You’re welcome for the history lesson. For anyone to say that the earth is only 6000-10000 years old with absolute certainty is being narrow-minded. We don’t know. And I haven’t read a religious text that offers the age of the Bible. I have no idea how old the earth is, nor do I care, as I was not there. No one knows how old the earth is, for there is no way for anyone to prove it. I ask for proof that Genesis is not true for simple reasons. Christians believe that Genesis is true based on faith. Hindus simply believe that the earth is a reconstruction of past worlds going into their "reincarnation" beliefs, based on faith. Muslims believe that Allah pulled everything into being, based on faith. Big Bang theorists believe that there was simply a dense gas state that exploded, or that a few particle collided and exploded creating everything, and is still in expansion, based on faith, for again, there is no proof of this.
Everyone believes something based on faith, as no one is able to completely prove, or completely disprove the other.

As for the indoctrination of children. To say that they are indoctrinated is one thing. To say that they are forced to follow a belief is just ignorant. No one is forced to follow a belief, because you cannot force someone to BELIEVE anything. You believe what you believe. You might be forced to go to church and to practice some semblance of that religion for a time, but that is different all together. That’s the beauty of free will. I was indoctrinated as a child, as all children are. When I was old enough (in my early-mid teens), I spent countless hours researching religions and science, to decide which one I felt was true. I settled on one, and am happy with my faith.

So other than saying they are “outrageous claims”, provide proof that they are untrue. And no, saying you cannot prove Zeus didn't exist does not make him real. But saying you cannot prove Zeus didn't exist does not make him false either.

October 15, 2009 at 2:16 p.m.
whoknows said...

I just read the last part of my comment. Wouldn't that be a triple negative? Does that take it one step farther than a double negative and make it true again? Oh well... you all get my meaning, right? :)

October 15, 2009 at 2:24 p.m.
whoknows said...

And let me clarify... when I mention "religions" or "religious texts", that also includes scientific texts and theories. I could go into why I include those, but as I said earlier in one of my posts, I'm just tired...

October 15, 2009 at 2:28 p.m.
una61 said...

"Quack" "Quack" "Quack". Wonderful! Final point. Given that the LFO school buildings and athletic fields are publicly owned, then if it's o.k. to display religious banners on the athletic fields why not in the school hallways and classrooms? Imagine an LFO science classroom with a banner displaying a quotation about Adam and Eve or Noah's Ark. Many schools display school spirit banners in their hallways and in their gyms during pep rallies.

October 15, 2009 at 3:20 p.m.
gngriffin said...

Many, if not most, of the comments posted in this section seem quite concerned with the intent of the founding fathers or the seeming conflict between "Separation of Church and State" and "Freedom of Expression," both of which come from our 1st Amendment.

Both of these clauses were included in our Bill of Rights to protect the citizens from the Federal Government, but the courts have recognized that individual rights and liberties can be infringed upon by majorities in our society, and, accordingly, have repeatedly held that schools must in no way be seen to endorse any religion, because that would equate to a de facto establishment of religion for those affected.

If this seems to be a stretch, try, for a moment, to imagine how singled out a young Muslim student on the LFO football team might feel if his public school asked him to run through a sign quoting another religion's holy book.

In an example most of the readers might appreciate a bit more, with the growing hispanic population in the area, we are seeing a correllated rise in Catholicism. I wonder how comfortable the protestant and evangelical populations that are so numerous in the area might be if the cheerleaders performed a Hail Mary for each player as they came out.

I find that the Supreme Court's current reading of the 1st Amendment works for the benefit of all involved, and eliminates the apparent conflict between freedom of expression and separation of church and state. By keeping religion out of the schools, all people feel more free to practice and believe as they see fit.

October 15, 2009 at 4:32 p.m.
moonpie said...

Canary,

NAMBLA can go into schools and to talk about their beliefs?

Is that true?

That would be a stunning revelation, for sure.

October 15, 2009 at 7:27 p.m.
Clara said...

My objection to taxing churches would be that Churches generally take up the slack in people care that the governments do not supply, food, probably a place of temporary shelter, counseling, etc. The congregation also pays for the building and grounds, upkeep, and damage. Churches also pay on electricity, telephone, and a bunch of other hidden taxes. I imagagine that the pastor and congregation all pay income tax and anything else that applies.

Of course, there is the need to consider the other side of religion as a source of lots of income for the criminal and greedy.

I had a teacher in grade school that was Communist, but I don't think it took although strongly hinted at. Then we had the old-fashioned, proper, and concerned where we saluted the flag, said a silent prayer and the Catholic children were let off early on Wednesday afternoon to go to Communion Class.

We also had the meanies! Mean kids, too.

October 15, 2009 at 8:17 p.m.
ricardo said...

I wouldn't have a problem with religious signs, as long as the cheerleaders paint Islamic, Jewish, Buddhist, Scientology, and other religious verses on a rotating basis.

October 15, 2009 at 8:44 p.m.
rolando said...

The cartoon has "God" in it, ricardo; that covers three major religions so it spreads the wealth around. Buddists could care less [nod to Lightnup]; they are too busy contemplating their navels or something to bother with trivialities. [Everyone to his own thing.]

Scientology is not a religion; it is a way of thought for self-improvement; it didn't go for religion status until they threw out L Ron Hubbard. He was holding the back. They went for it for the tax-free angle. Last I heard they were still battling with the IRS.

Hey, cheerleaders --- Maybe painting some Biblical verses about atheists, agnostics, unbelievers, etc would be in order. That might please the old grumps. Oh wait...there is little favorable about them in any religion, is there...never mind. No wonder they so dislike religions.

October 15, 2009 at 9:35 p.m.
ricardo said...

The actual Bible verses were Christian in nature, rolanzo. This was Christian indoctrination being promoted by a public school.

October 15, 2009 at 9:52 p.m.
SeaSmokie59er said...

God and guns gets 'em every time Clay. Go Big Red! (Baylor)

October 16, 2009 at 4:07 a.m.
alprova said...

The issue at hand is rather simple, but some people would prefer to complicate it by offering hypotheticals that are not part of the equation.

NAMBLA, to the best of my knowledge, has never been allowed to have any speaker address a student body anywhere in the world. To inject it into this issue is ludicrous.

When people attend a high school football game, they are there to see the game. When students attend school, they are there to be educated.

For some unexplained reason, many people who find themselves part of organized religion are not content to keep their beliefs private and personal. They feel the need to impart their beliefs at any opportunity upon others.

While painting Bible verses on a banner may not seem to many to be an overt act of prosthelytizing, it is a foot inside the door, and one that makes people uncomfortable.

There is a time and a place for everything.

It's just that simple.

October 16, 2009 at 6:01 a.m.
rolando said...

The actual cartoon is about God, rickie my child. He is worldwide in nature by whatever name. Hurts, does it? /chuckle

October 16, 2009 at 7:15 a.m.
OllieH said...

The establishment clause does not prohibit the establishment of 'a particular religion', it expressly reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

The mention of 'God' certainly qualifies as the promotion of religion in general. As such, it would be a violation of the establishment prohibition.

October 16, 2009 at 8:47 a.m.

Most of the above comments do not merit a response as typically, they take one's words out of context to further ram their points down our throats.

Yet, I will say that those of you that are absolutely sure you know everything about everything in this wide world and know all this because KOS or whoever told you so, need a huge dose of wakeup reality. Your little world here is not the norm anymore (but you all are working overtime to change all that aren't you?) Precious ones.

If you live in other states like NY or CA (more Liberal states in other words) NAMBLA is indeed very active. Do you think when Gays want to speak in our schools, they let the School Board know they are with NAMBLA or say, the Black Panthers? People who are perverts and those who commit violence are not the sort to be telling the truth at anytime. It takes the extra digging for facts that some are willing to risk in order to get the truth out there. It takes parents who are willing to get involved and find out what their children are being taught and who is talking to their kids at school on the taxpayers dime.

None of the above naysayers have an answer for the central, valid issues we were raising, issues that are crucial to a society surviving intact.

October 16, 2009 at 9:19 a.m.
rolando said...

Only since the mid-1940s, OllieH.

"Establishment" was not a problem the prior 200 years. We accepted -- we were even taught -- the truth of the fact we were founded on religious principles and conseqwuently we prospered. That held true up until shortly after SCOTUS made their erroneously broad [mis]interpretation, at which time we started our long slide into today's world mediocrity.

SCOTUS again created shoddy cloth out of spider webs and dust as they did in the Dred Scott and Lawrence decisions. But we are again taking back what they took away.

"When in the course of human events..."

October 16, 2009 at 9:27 a.m.
moonpie said...

Canary,

When you say, "Do you think when Gays want to speak in our schools, they let the School Board know they are with NAMBLA or say, the Black Panthers?"

That makes about as much sense to me as saying something like "Do you think when Christians want to speak in our schools, they let the School Board know they are with the KKK?"

Obviously some Gay people are in NAMBLA. (I think that's pretty much a prerequisite). But just because someone is Gay does not mean they are in NAMBLA.

So, I don't think you've furthered the argument that NAMBLA is allowed to come into schools and speak on behalf of NAMBLA - which is essentially what you originally said.

I will concede that it is probable that a NAMBLA member has addressed a student body in some capacity. For all we know there may be NAMBLA members working as teachers, youth ministers, or even commenting here (I don't suspect you, rolando. Really, I don't. scottym, either.)

As for more liberal states, I've lived in New York. I did not see NAMBLA anywhere. Of course, I wasn't looking for them, either.

Finally, as for naysayers not having answers to central valid issues that you are raising, I'm not sure even what central, valid issues you are talking about. Many of your posts seem more like pointed judgements on others with implied dire consequences for our society if we don't agree with you.

October 16, 2009 at 12:45 p.m.

Moonpie: you really are an A-R nitpicker aren't you? I did not say ALL gays speaking in schools were with NAMBLA or that NAMBLA speaks out using its org's name in the schools. The fact remains, NAMBLA's members believe in Man-Boy "love" and are all gay.

Just because you "lived in New York" doesn't mean you knew everything that went on there. No one does. But my experience with your ilk (and your posts prove it) is that you guys conveniently ignore what is right in front of you-like the facts for instance.

If you were a parent and if you lived in certain states where gays are overly-active and if you were concerned about your child's education and if you were honest and brave, you would know what I wrote is very true and you would have strongly opposed the hypocrisy and you wouldn't be arguing about an issue you obviously know nothing about.

October 16, 2009 at 1:10 p.m.
rolando said...

Canary -- re: your last para of yr last...

I was a parent living in the San Francisco East Bay region for five years when the girls were 7 and 9 and my son 18. I didn't worry about my son -- he was well able to protect himself and make his own decisions...and he was quite protective of the girls. I know exactly what you are talking about and second your position. NAMBLA has and had a very strong presence there and in L.A., to say nothing of their lobby in Sacramento.

A high ME population can also be a problem outside the schools since they view man-boy love quite differently than we do. To them [in general, moonpie, in general] it is a way of life and not considered a perversion. It is homosexual relations between two adults to which they object for some reason.

October 16, 2009 at 5:19 p.m.
rolando said...

My son was under one year when we arrived in Athens, Greece for three years...I watched him like a hawk. It was most often young boys who disappeared over there, not girls.

October 16, 2009 at 5:24 p.m.
moonpie said...

Canary, perhaps if you were a little more A-R, you would realize that I never said you said ALL gays were associated with NAMBLA. Far from it.

You justified your prior assertion by implying that Gay people who speak at schools would not disclose associated with NAMBLA. So it was YOU who made the implication.

When I first asked the question, I thought perhaps you knew something I did not.

When you answered, I realized that this was a concern of yours, not something you actually have any knowledge of happening. Given the lack of supporting evidence, I will take your example as a tacit concession that to your knowledge public school boards do not allow NAMBLA members to speak in public schools to promote NAMBLA beliefs.

Or do you REALLY believe otherwise?

My "ilk" is curious about the veracity of bold claims such your assertion that NAMBLA is allowed to promote its views in schools with the approval of the school board.

If you're going to be a Canary in the Coal Mine, we're going to have to know that your assertions have a basis in fact, not just fear.

Otherwise, you're more like Chicken Little.

I do remain open to what you have to say. Just because we don't see eye to eye on all political or social issues, I don't dismiss your point of view. I'm honest and brave enough to realize that I'm not always right and people I strongly disagree with are sometimes going to be right and I will be wrong. It is my hope that I am not too egotistical to recognize this. When you level an accusation I just expect you to accurately account for it. That's all.

I expect to be held accountable, as well.

October 16, 2009 at 5:36 p.m.
alprova said...

This has gone beyond bizarre.

Banning Bible banners promotes NAMBLA.

Whooda thunk it?

October 16, 2009 at 6:50 p.m.

Talk about twisting our original comments, you last few are really pathetic. My original comment @ 10:43 was right on the topic and one of you haters took one word and created an issue.Think you're good, eh? The ignorance just continues in your posts.

October 16, 2009 at 8:31 p.m.
Clara said...

My goodness! We have a poster who judges, assumes, is a homophobe, proud, claims superior intellect and experiene, AND is a professed Christian.

Sorry, I won't humble myself before you!

I'm out of this.

October 16, 2009 at 8:45 p.m.
rolando said...

Look, Canary. We have someone here who objects to truth spelled out for what it is and not as they think it should be. Check out the "votes".

Not only that, someone else objects because this forum allows a rather free-roaming discussion and an essentially uncensored, un-bowdlerized exchange of ideas/opinions. THAT is pure anathema to the liberal left... The conservative side of ANY issue freely discussed??? Heavens to Murgatroid. NEVER!

About the only thing they have left is to point out our grammar/spelling errors.

October 16, 2009 at 9:25 p.m.

Thanks Rolando, you're this site's Warrior and Truth-speaker, that's for sure. I know you and others have noticed that these empty ones don't let truth, facts and life experience get in their way of 'spreading the KOS agenda'. If they have to tell lies, well so be it. If they must intimidate, then go for it!

Reminds us of other times and places where those who stood up to them and protested or spoke the truth were not only denigrated, they were quickly terminated. Lovely folks aren't they?

October 17, 2009 at 10:14 a.m.
moonpie said...

Clara, you said it a mouthful.

I, for one, cannot assume that I am right and Canary is wrong. But I do expect people to back up their claims.

Given my late post on this, I regret that you might not read this.

But, you are one of the most humble people I have encountered. I try to offer charity, but you embody it.

I believe you are a better person than me.

October 17, 2009 at 8:22 p.m.
Clara said...

I expected a repriimand for being so...difficult, probably a very stubborn old lady in some eyes. Someone seems to disagree. I'm not too humble! Thank you!

October 17, 2009 at 9:30 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.