Politics at Gigs
Dave Morefield
espouse your political views (whether left, right, up or down, I don't care)
from the stage or demean those with whom you disagree?
Yours truly,
Dave Morefield
George Gleason
including
john prines
Flag decal
the Beat farmers
Gun sale at the church
and a song called
Ruby ridge that I only know from
Peter Rowan
added
eve of destruction
and of course no night is complete with out a 1/2 dozen Dylan s like God
on our side, Times they are a changing,Master of War
TLT of Hattie carrol
Chris Rockcliffe
> Of those among you who perform professionally, who among you would choose to
> espouse your political views (whether left, right, up or down, I don't care)
> from the stage or demean those with whom you disagree?
I do get paid for performing on occasion. My political views are part of who
I am and part of how I live my life and I do sing several songs that would
be deemed political by someone. I admire any artiste who writes songs and
sings out against the deprivation of basic human rights, war, oppression,
slavery, intolerance, racism, hatred of minorities, exploitation and more.
CR
FirstAlternate
"Dave Morefield" <dmore...@commspeed.net> wrote in message
news:10999491...@news.commspeed.net...
netvegetable
> Of those among you who perform professionally, who among you would choose
> to espouse your political views (whether left, right, up or down, I don't
> care) from the stage or demean those with whom you disagree?
Well I'm a folk musician. Often my choice in songs reflects political
views, which tend to be to the Left. If anybody feels offended or demeaned
by that, so be it. But I don't set out to offend, or demean anybody.
--
to email me remove the word "NOT" from my addy
#political_forum irc.undernet.org
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are
conservatives." - John Stuart Mill
Carlos Alden
dmore...@commspeed.net wrote on 11/8/04 1:09 PM:
Me. I mean my group. We just did a folk festival this last weekend and I
was wearing a black support brace for tennis elbow, brought on by playing
too much erhu (Chinese violin.) We joked about it being a black arm band.
But in the past we've been outspoken. We've got an older song, "Pieces of
Hate" which describes the fanaticism side of the gun lobby, and how, in our
opinion, it tends to overshadow logic and reason. We've had catcalls and
jeers from folks before, but that's okay, we don't mind. A few years back
we played for an Irish festival in Montana, and because we had sung that
song the year before, some back-in-the-woods family band who had heard us
made vaguely threatening comments about "what to do if those Nots are there
next year." So they had - get this - SECURITY for us. Yep, a couple of
rent-a-cops in the gym. I knew we had made the big-time with that move.
We don't "demean" those with whom we disagree. At one gig, I made some mild
comment about how how I put up a "Proud to be an anti-Bush American" sign
under my outdoor flag, because I wanted to be known as a patriot but not
pro-right wing patriot. I told this story to bring on the punch line: I
heard from the kid down the street that his father said "What's he got
against shrubbery?" which I thought was pretty funny.
Also, I try not to demean those figures I criticize. It's easy to poke fun
at George because he comes off as so uneducated. However I'm not into ad
hominim personal attacks because it only makes me look like an 8th grader.
I'd much rather try and make my point by bringing up policies and religious
affiliations and things that matter.
Apparently during the break some audience member hadn't liked my commentary,
and spent a good ten minutes berating our poor drummer with invectives,
describing us liberals as "baby-killers" and "butt-buddies" or something
like that. My drummer kept trying to have him talk to ME, but he didn't
want to for some reason. I would have gladly had a discussion with him, but
apparently he was in a foul mood and didn't want to chat, just spew.
Why not say what you think? We don't rely on this for living income
(although we do get a healthy side income from it.) I've got once around in
life. In fact, I feel called on more than ever to state what I think is
gross injustice and extremely bad government. And I do think that. I
believe that this administration would love to pull us into WWIII framing it
as a religious crusade of good vs. evil, black vs. white. I can't see where
they have much historical perspective on global issues, except for repeated
references to Hitler. I think they have warped intentions that will lead to
evil. I would be a bad citizen and an even worse Christian were I not to say
anything.
Sorry for the verbiage, but it's the best answer I can come up with to your
question.
carlos
Bill Chandler
<dmore...@commspeed.net> brewed up the following, and served it to
the group:
I cheerfully share my politics in my music. (Haven't really made any
mystery of it, either.) My blues band isn't political at all (we have
some strongly divergent views in the band, but we are all good friends
as well...that happens...even on this newsgroup...)
BUT...When I play solo, my music reflects who and what I am. As does
the commentary between songs. I don't always get blatantly political,
but it does happen from time to time.
I try not to demean anyone.
-----
"Do we find the cost of freedom, buried in the ground
Mother Earth will swallow you, lay your body down."
--Crosby, Stills, and Nash
the above e-mail address remains totally fictional.
the real one is bc9424@spamTHIS!.concentric.net (if you remove spamTHIS!.)
...please check out my music at http://artists.iuma.com/IUMA/Bands/Bill_Chandler/ some time...
...TX-2 Pictures at http://www.concentric.net/~Bc9424/index.html
...TX-4 Pictures at http://bc9424.cnc.net/tx_4_web/tx4_main.htm
Bill Chandler
...bc...
Conrad Shiba
> <dmore...@commspeed.net> wrote:
>>Of those among you who perform professionally, who among you would choose
>>to
>>espouse your political views (whether left, right, up or down, I don't
>>care)
>>from the stage or demean those with whom you disagree?
Yes to the first part. For instance, I performed at a benefit for the
Adopt-a-Minefield campaign and a peace concert last year. It depends on the
audience, though. Some events, like those I mentioned, are overtly
political. At others, where a general audience is there purely for
entertainment, I would tone down or omit the politics. Sort of depends on
who's footing the bill and how the show was advertised; at some shows I am
billed as performing traditional folk music and that's what I play.
I was at a festival last July where some people in the audience got up and
left during Tom Paxton's set. I can't imagine anyone going to a Tom Paxton
performance and not expecting left-wing politics. His song about John
Ashcroft was a real hoot. In the appropriate setting, I would do that song,
too. Now, maybe it's time to go learn Pete Seeger's "Waist Deep in the Big
Muddy (The Big Fool says to push on)."
Conrad
foldedpath
news:BDB540D3.2C20B%cal...@msn.com:
> Why not say what you think? We don't rely on this for living income
> (although we do get a healthy side income from it.)
My $.02....
While I share (I think) your political views, I do think it's better to
"say what you think" with the music, and not lecture the audience verbally,
outside the musical context. Especially a paying audience. If I'm paying
money, it's to hear music. I want to be entertained. I can listen to a
night full of protest songs if the music is good, but even the briefest
verbal rant about politics tends to tick me off at a paid concert, even
when I agree with the politics.
Part of it is that I just have a natural resistance to being lectured to.
:) But I also get annoyed at performers who feel they have to step outside
their normal role (the one I'm paying to see) and use the microphone and a
stage as a platform, as if they're somehow special or uniquely priviliged.
They're not. At least not in that context. They're special when they
perform music, and that's what the audience is there for. If it's about
verbally expressing your political views at a public event, then I want my
turn at the microphone also.
--
Mike Barrs
Misifus
I prefer to keep my politics separate from my entertaining. I
often find myself playing to folks of differing persuasions, and
I really don't want to offend the folks who came to hear me.
-Raf
--
Misifus-
Rafael Seibert
mailto:rsei...@cox-internet.com
http://www.ralphandsue.com
George Gleason
> Dave Morefield wrote:
>
>> Of those among you who perform professionally, who among you would
>> choose to espouse your political views (whether left, right, up or
>> down, I don't care) from the stage or demean those with whom you
>> disagree?
>>
>> Yours truly,
>> Dave Morefield
>>
>
>
> I prefer to keep my politics separate from my entertaining. I often
> find myself playing to folks of differing persuasions, and I really
> don't want to offend the folks who came to hear me.
>
> -Raf
>
on the other hand
ART should at least make you a little uncomfortable if not outright
offend your sensibilities
George
RR
issues with another local folk musician. She knew for sure that that Kerry
was going to be the next president, and was determined that HER son wouldn't
ever have to fight for his country. Actually, now that I think of it, some
of her arguments could have easily been penned for her by any one of a
number of America haters who are trying to replace our resolve, and destroy
the things that are good about America with platitudes that are easily swept
aside once we become a 'more' weakened people.
Her stance was that folk singers are the voice of the people.
My stance was that many folk singers are merely their own voice and the
voice of a small minority who look at issues superficially and get all
excited. Or that have their own limited agenda and whose typical audience
would applaud for them if they chanted the mantra of that focus group while
swallowing a dozen raw eggs on stage.
Obviously the overwhelming number of folk/rock singers praising Kerry were
not the voice of the people. The people must have been somewhere else?
Benjamin Franklin stated it best; shortly after the War for Independance he
said: "we have won the war, now God save us from our own countrymen with
good intentions".
Music on stage? I'm singing "Sloop John B" and "Amy". I'm no prophet
wanna-be.
Randy R
George Gleason
> Prior to the election I was trying to have a rational discussion about the
> issues with another local folk musician. She knew for sure that that Kerry
> was going to be the next president, and was determined that HER son wouldn't
> ever have to fight for his country. Actually, now that I think of it, some
> of her arguments could have easily been penned for her by any one of a
> number of America haters who are trying to replace our resolve, and destroy
> the things that are good about America with platitudes that are easily swept
> aside once we become a 'more' weakened people.
>
> Her stance was that folk singers are the voice of the people.
>
> My stance was that many folk singers are merely their own voice and the
> voice of a small minority who look at issues superficially and get all
> excited. Or that have their own limited agenda and whose typical audience
> would applaud for them if they chanted the mantra of that focus group while
> swallowing a dozen raw eggs on stage.
>
> Obviously the overwhelming number of folk/rock singers praising Kerry were
> not the voice of the people. The people must have been somewhere else?
>
> Benjamin Franklin stated it best; shortly after the War for Independance he
> said: "we have won the war, now God save us from our own countrymen with
> good intentions".
>
> Music on stage? I'm singing "Sloop John B" and "Amy". I'm no prophet
> wanna-be.
>
> Randy R
>
>
>
What the America haters really support is the massive debt , gay
marriage bans and killing of Muslims
Perhaps you could try Loving America for a change
Regime change begins ion Washington
join us now and turn the earth in Washington in 2008
George
Misifus
With respect, George, I disagree. I can wander through an art
museum for hours admiring art and not be made uncomfortable by it.
So far as art vs entertainment, entertainment is all I really
aspire to. "I don't want to set the world on fire, I just want
to start...."
No Busking
> "say what you think" with the music, and not lecture the audience
> verbally,
> outside the musical context. Especially a paying audience. If I'm paying
> money, it's to hear music. I want to be entertained. I can listen to a
> night full of protest songs if the music is good, but even the briefest
> verbal rant about politics tends to tick me off at a paid concert, even
> when I agree with the politics.
Thank you Mike...that expresses my thoughts exactly.
If you're performing at a political rally, have at it. If I paid for the
ticket, and you have something political to say...please put it in a song.
There's no reason to think that your political views are any more relevant
than mine, just because there happens to be a microphone in front of your
face.
I don't care whether it's Toby Keith, the Dixie Chicks, Dylan, Springsteen,
or CSN&Y...I hate to be lectured as well.
- Mike Pugh
No Busking
> that is what entertainment should be
> on the other hand
> ART should at least make you a little uncomfortable if not outright offend
> your sensibilities
Sure, that's one tool an artist can use.
But it's a pretty narrow view of artistic expression if you think that's
what ALL art is supposed to do.
- Mike Pugh
No Busking
> Bush
> What the America haters really support is the massive debt , gay marriage
> bans and killing of Muslims
> Perhaps you could try Loving America for a change
> Regime change begins ion Washington
> join us now and turn the earth in Washington in 2008
George, you're slipping.
- Mike
George Gleason
stop to think
of course nothing is 100% but IMO a still life of a bowl of fruit is
just entertainment regardless of how skillfully it is done
George
Mike brown
foldedpath <mba...@NOSPAM.nightviewer.com> wrote:
What he said.
Another Mike.
MJRB
George Gleason
There is a huge contingent of BG fans that are trying to Ban Ricky
Scaggs for his stage sermonizing about Jesus
George
Leonardo
> George Gleason wrote:
>
>> that is what entertainment should be
>> on the other hand
>> ART should at least make you a little uncomfortable if not outright
>> offend your sensibilities
>> George
>
>
>
> With respect, George, I disagree. I can wander through an art museum
> for hours admiring art and not be made uncomfortable by it.
A piece of art should be considered, at least partially, in the context
of the period that it was created.
Today's pastoral scene might have been outright revolutionary in it's time.
Lenny Alcamo
No mas politica, por favor. (is that close?)
nylon rob
Translation: "It never occured not to abuse the sensibilities of those
around me with my prattling political agenda ... screw them if they
don't like it 'cause I'm right about everything!".
Debra Cowan
> number of America haters who are trying to replace our resolve, and destroy
> the things that are good about America with platitudes that are easily swept
> aside once we become a 'more' weakened people.
I never respond to these, but I guess this one just got to me. So I am
biting.
I don't hate America. I love America. This country is one of the most
fantastic places on earth. We are not held accountable by MEN, we are
held accountable by LAW. If I don't agree with the direction this
country is going, I have a CONSTITUTIONAL right to speak about it. I
also think that to want our citizens to healthy in body and mind is to
love America not hate it.
> Her stance was that folk singers are the voice of the people.
I agree. You'll never hear *these* names mentioned in popular media:
Lene Bourne Fish, Sarah Cleveland, Frank Proffit, Josiah Kinnison, Sam
Larner, Belle Stewart. These are just some of the people who sang songs
that they had learned from their parents and grandparents. They were all
labourers, homemakers, fathers, mothers. We were fortunate that people
like Ewan MacColl, Alan Lomax, Helen Flanders, and Frank Warner among
others decided that their songs would die with them if they weren't
preserved.
I proud to be a folksinger and I am proud to sing their songs. I am also
proud to sing the songs of Guthrie, MacColl, Kahn, Seeger, Paxton,
Rosselson, Gaughan and others who are called political songwriters.
Many of the songs I sing are about oppression, poverty and injustices
that have occurred in civilisations over the centuries. In that respect,
yes, folk singers ARE the Voice of the People. And I am not talking
about myself; I am talking about the millworker in Dundee who sang about
the conditions in the mills, or the songs about the Hull fishermen whose
trawlers were lost and the owners of the boats wouldn't meet with the
families to talk about compensation or sailors singing about not getting
paid after being at sea for four years. All of these songs helped make
people aware of situations.
In answer to David's post, I try to let the songs speak for themselves.
Debra Cowan
--
******************************
Debra Cowan - Singer
website: http://www.DebraCowan.com
USA BOOKINGS: (508) 662-9746,
SNAIL-MAIL: P.O. Box 1335, Westborough, MA 01581
UK BOOKINGS: Vivienne Bloomfield http://www.otheragency.co.uk
RECORDINGS/SALES: Falling Mountain Music (540) 877-2505
http://www.fallingmountain.com
******************************
Misifus
It's the same thing, George. Leave it off stage, in my opinion.
-Raf (Christian)
Misifus
Amen.
-Raf
Misifus
True, but some art was created more for beauty than for protest.
In my mind art isn't necessarily protest. "Beauty is truth,
truth beauty,- that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to
know."
>
>
> Lenny Alcamo
>
> No mas politica, por favor. (is that close?)
>
Bien dicho! (well said)
Carlos Alden
rsei...@cox-internet.com wrote on 11/9/04 7:56 AM:
>>> With respect, George, I disagree. I can wander through an art museum
>>> for hours admiring art and not be made uncomfortable by it.
>>
>>
>> A piece of art should be considered, at least partially, in the context
>> of the period that it was created.
>>
>> Today's pastoral scene might have been outright revolutionary in it's time.
>
> True, but some art was created more for beauty than for protest.
> In my mind art isn't necessarily protest. "Beauty is truth,
> truth beauty,- that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to
> know."
Years ago, in another lifetime, I studied art pretty seriously. I attended
a cutting edge art school in New York City (SVA, for those of you who are
interested) and really applied myself. I had a sculpture teacher who really
drilled into us the purity of what art is about, and that art made for art's
sake is much more important than "using" art to make a statement of some
type. He wasn't apolitical as a person, and he surely had strong beliefs.
he was just insisting that art can and ought to be a separate, and higher,
level of expression in and of itself than merely being a vehicle to express
something else.
So, for him, Picasso's Guernica (sp?) is a political poster. Well done,
nicely composed, but as such falls short of being true art. For us it might
be like the difference between an instrumental piece that exists solely for
the certain turn of a passage that intrigues us, as compared to a social
activist song.
As we're discussing this thread I'm reminded of this idea that was stamped
into me at an impressionable young age. Art can be revolutionary in how it
looks at reality and what it tells us about ourselves and the assumptions we
make about reality. It can do all this without addressing any particular
current social or cultural or political topic, and be apparently
content-less.
Not that I'm a total subscriber to this notion, especially with music. I
like content and narrative in songs, and like political content as well.
More and more I feel the responsbility to speak out. As I noted before,
sometimes things come up at our concerts. They are usually put in humorous
form, and aren't preachy. But they are there.
But I think the strength in our music, and any music, is in the total
abstract ideals we strive for - groove, beat, and intensity in melody.
Ramblings.
Carlos
Chris Rockcliffe
> in article 10p1q5j...@corp.supernews.com, Misifus at
> rsei...@cox-internet.com wrote on 11/9/04 7:56 AM:
> I had a sculpture teacher who really drilled into us the purity of what art is
> about, and that art made for art's sake is much more important than "using"
> art to make a statement of some type.
Art and purity ?
Every piece of so-called art, (what indeed is art) is a statement. This is
bollocks from your teacher IMO. I too went to art college (3 separate
courses in 3 colleges for a total of 6 years.)
(snip)
> So, for him, Picasso's Guernica (sp?) is a political poster. Well done,
> nicely composed, but as such falls short of being true art.
True art ?
Good grief. So what famous or infamous painting - if any - did he cite as
actually being *true art*. Without that, surely this contentious idea is
daft and meaningless?
CR
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
> in article 10p1q5j...@corp.supernews.com, Misifus at
> rsei...@cox-internet.com wrote on 11/9/04 7:56 AM:
>
>
>>>>With respect, George, I disagree. I can wander through an art museum
>>>>for hours admiring art and not be made uncomfortable by it.
>>>
>>>
>>>A piece of art should be considered, at least partially, in the context
>>>of the period that it was created.
>>>
>>>Today's pastoral scene might have been outright revolutionary in it's time.
>>
>>True, but some art was created more for beauty than for protest.
>>In my mind art isn't necessarily protest. "Beauty is truth,
>>truth beauty,- that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to
>>know."
>
>
> Years ago, in another lifetime, I studied art pretty seriously. I attended
> a cutting edge art school in New York City (SVA, for those of you who are
> interested)
Hey, Carlos--
I used to wade between the SVA students on 23rd Street on the way to
dental school on 1st Avenue.
You guys sure did get comfortable on the sidewalk!
Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
Chris Rockcliffe
> Translation: "It never occured not to abuse the sensibilities of those
> around me with my prattling political agenda ... screw them if they
> don't like it 'cause I'm right about everything!".
America is deeply divided - and I'm very thankful it IS deeply divided.
I'd be many times more worried if it wasn't. To think that politics is or
should or can ever be divorced from music is, IMO, stupid, unrealistic and
most of all - undesirable.
Not only is there political music all around us which is part of our culture
and consciousness, but we are all voters (or should be given a fair system
in a democratic country.). Music is often political - full stop. Folk
music is a means of expressing political ideas and of opposing the forces of
evil and tyranny, theocracy, fascism or racism.
Popular artistes from abroad who once toured America freely, are now banned.
There was Cat Stevens' infamous public humiliation of course. But the list
is hundreds long.
Getting a visa to the USA is more difficult and time consuming than ever and
it involves being both fingerprinted and photographed like a common
criminal. I also know some very famous artistes in the folk and acoustic
fraternity who now refuse to tour and play in America. Artistes of
intelligence and integrity.
Others who have had tours or concerts banned in the USA recently just for
their views - even mild comments - one of them just 2 weeks ago.
Conversely, some artistes can leave America, make a mild comment in public,
which is then reported by the republican controlled media circus. Then they
are virtually burned alive at the stake when they return by having their
records taken off-air or their CDs burned in the street.
Several examples of that.
I'm not naming any names because I've actually seen that process work in the
most insidious ways which it often does. Artistes often get a barrage of
abuse from the lunatic right and every Internet word is not only recorded,
but a subsequent search is likely to bring up all the negative lies and crap
generated.
These are extraordinary times when people are forced to take sides and vote
and make a stand for what they believe in. It is a war of sorts - a war of
political values and a war of allegiance.
The election is still fresh now and this newsgroup will probably die down a
bit with political stuff, but if anyone thinks its going to die away
completely with this fuckin' lot in power, they're living in cloud cuckoo
land.
Anyone who tells any artiste to shut up and play... deserves to be told fuck
you! If for instance, 80% of your audience are anti-Bush, that audience
might just want to hear you say you agree with them and say it loud and
proud - and screw the other 20%. The same would apply to some flag-waiving
gig in a country bunker.
Music could become much more political than it already is - I hope so. But
I'd much rather the artiste sang it (if that's what they do); and when they
do talk to the audience or some dumb heckler, that they did it with style
and wit.
One thing fascists don't have - as we witness here all the time - is any
style and wit.
CR
Steve
espouse your political views (whether left, right, up or down, I don't care)
from the stage or demean those with whom you disagree?
Yours truly,
Dave Morefield >>
I'd demean everyone. I'd not discriminate.
:-)
SEFSTRAT
solo webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
band webpage: www.timebanditsrock.com
Carlos Alden
Rockcliffe at chrisro...@scripto99.demon.co.uk wrote on 11/9/04 9:35
AM:
> Every piece of so-called art, (what indeed is art) is a statement. This is
> bollocks from your teacher IMO. I too went to art college (3 separate
> courses in 3 colleges for a total of 6 years.)
>
Sure, every piece of art is a statement, but he was trying to get us to make
the statement be about art and not something else. He was a big
abstractionist. He was simply drawing a line between art and craft.
> Good grief. So what famous or infamous painting - if any - did he cite as
> actually being *true art*. Without that, surely this contentious idea is
> daft and meaningless?
>
> CR
He was a heavy hitter in the NY Art scene and loved Henry Moore and
Mondrian, not to mention Jasper Johns who was huge at the time. I think it
was he who introduced me to Mark Rothko. Now THERE"S pure art.
So you were an art student, too, huh? As I remember it, all those early
rockers met in Art School, which in England had a different feel than the
States. What were you primarily interested in?
Carlos
Carlos Alden
bornfe...@dentaltwins.com wrote on 11/9/04 11:02 AM:
>
> Hey, Carlos--
>
> I used to wade between the SVA students on 23rd Street on the way to
> dental school on 1st Avenue.
> You guys sure did get comfortable on the sidewalk!
>
> Steve
Oh! Was that your bum I grabbed? I was into experimentation back then.
Carlos
George Gleason
I didn't know Art then but I lived in the westbeth artist
housing(Christopher&Bank) and hung out at cooper union for a year
smoking dope with some people who should be famous artists now, 30
years later
George
Carlos Alden
Gleason at g.p.g...@worldnet.att.net wrote on 11/9/04 1:07 PM:
>
> I didn't know Art then but I lived in the westbeth artist
> housing(Christopher&Bank) and hung out at cooper union for a year
> smoking dope with some people who should be famous artists now, 30
> years later
> George
Oh, those Cooper Union snobs. Each art school had it's own flavor and feel.
SVA, Cooper Union, Pratt. Fashion Institue of Design tried calling itself
an art school, too. SVA very much saw itself as the training ground for
artists who wanted to be heavy in the commercial art and illustration world
and also for those whose sole desire in life was to inhabit a loft and paint
large pieces and show them to rich people. Very esoteric and art-worldy.
We also had a photog school where everybody - I swear everybody - was from
Brooklyn and looked like they were right off the Saturday Night Fever set.
Chains, polyester bells, wide belts, patent shoes, huge do's.
So you were there in the early 70's? Hangin' around my hood? George,
George, George. You probably saw me roaming around the East Village with a
banjar in my hand looking for places to play.
Carlos
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
I don't have a bum, I have a skinny ass.
I actually believe the original NY College of Dentistry (before it
became part of NYU) was in the SVA building. I think it moved to First
Avenue about 1960.
I'm not too sure what well-known artists came out of SVA--I think I
remember that Keith Haring did. I knew a young lady that graduated from
SVA and walked into the NY Times and immediately got some work as a
cartoonist. I'm thinking it's a pretty special place.
Steve
Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
George Gleason
76-78 sorry not early 70's
I ran away from, get this, art school!!!1
I was in the visual and performing school SUNY New Paltz
Met Stephi who grew up in GV me and her left NP to go live with her
mother in the WestBeth
Her dad imported films for Red Carpet theaters under "Ellis Films"
and we had free lifetime passes to any red carpet theater
those were the days my friend I thought they'd never end we'd sing and
dance forever and a day
Great times
George
John Holbrook
> There is a huge contingent of BG fans that are trying to Ban Ricky
> Scaggs for his stage sermonizing about Jesus
> George
Cites?
John
No Busking
>> for his stage sermonizing about Jesus
>
>
Yup, I support their position.
If you see him at a tent revival, expect proselytizing. I won't pay for a
ticket to see him, though, if I have to spend the evening listening to his
religious views. There are plenty of other performers on which I can spend
my money.
- Mike Pugh
No Busking
> style and wit.
Actually, some of them do...you've just lost your ability to be amused by
it.
- Mike Pugh
George Gleason
the stage
lots and lots of people were wearing SHUT UP RICKY
buttons
George
Mitch
news:kl3kd.218$7i4...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
*Is* he sermonizing, or just sharing his love for Christ? Big difference.
I've caught Doyle Dykes a couple of times, and he tastefully shares his love
for God and the effect He has on the music that Doyle writes. But no
sermonizing to be had.
Mitch
George Gleason
for religion
but the definite pulse in the crowd is he was using his bully pulpit
George
foldedpath
news:mradnR4IEeO...@comcast.com:
> "George Gleason" <g.p.g...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:kl3kd.218$7i4...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> There is a huge contingent of BG fans that are trying to Ban Ricky
>> Scaggs for his stage sermonizing about Jesus
>> George
>
> *Is* he sermonizing, or just sharing his love for Christ? Big
> difference. I've caught Doyle Dykes a couple of times, and he
> tastefully shares his love for God and the effect He has on the music
> that Doyle writes. But no sermonizing to be had.
How do you "tastefully share your love of God?"
I'm an athiest and my S.O. is a Jew (although it's more cultural than
faith-based). Could we go to a Ricky Skaggs concert and enjoy the show?
--
Mike Barrs
Zippy the Pinhead
>> There is a huge contingent of BG fans that are trying to Ban Ricky Scaggs
>> for his stage sermonizing about Jesus
>> George
>
>*Is* he sermonizing, or just sharing his love for Christ? Big difference.
>I've caught Doyle Dykes a couple of times, and he tastefully shares his love
>for God and the effect He has on the music that Doyle writes. But no
>sermonizing to be had.
The religion of atheism is very uptight and intolerant of all other
religions. They cannot even bear the mention of God in public.
Bill Chandler
<the_corpo...@hotmail.com> brewed up the following, and served
it to the group:
Atheism is not religion.
-----
VITA BREVIS
CARPE GUITARUM
--Kinscherff Guitars
the above e-mail address remains totally fictional.
the real one is bc9424@spamTHIS!.concentric.net (if you remove spamTHIS!.)
...please check out my music at http://artists.iuma.com/IUMA/Bands/Bill_Chandler/ some time...
...TX-2 Pictures at http://www.concentric.net/~Bc9424/index.html
...TX-4 Pictures at http://bc9424.cnc.net/tx_4_web/tx4_main.htm
...TX-5 Pictures coming Real Soon Now.
Bill Chandler
...bc...
George Gleason
Just as the lack of a ham sandwich is not just like having some other
sandwich
the lack of religion is not a religion
no turtle wax or home edition for you
but thanks for playing
Ed Edelenbos
news:p-6dnYuO1qo...@adelphia.com...
Tee hee. And sometimes you are SO amusing, Mike.
Ed
PS: intended in jest. If you could have heard the delivery, you might have
found it humorous. Ever have a moment of inspiration and know you'll never
have the opportunity to deliver that line?
Dave
"Bill Chandler" <dr...@yourown.risk.com> wrote in message
news:gau2p0pf1ejitlp7k...@4ax.com...
> Atheism is not religion.
To borrow from the writings of (Christian) Episcopal bishop John Spong,
"theism" is merely a way of defining God as a "person" with supernatural
attributes. Many people in our day and age define themselves as
"believers" -- yet they reject theism as a way of defining the experience of
God. Thus, these believers could also be referred to as "a-theists", but
they remain believers, spiritually speaking.
Chris Rockcliffe
Nothing amusing about war for me Mike. Lost my ability to laugh in the face
of it last Tuesday when that little smirking bastard won. Started
re-learning an old protest song, *Fixin' to Die Rag*; - new rhyming words
will bring it up-to-date. Nothing changes much does it?
CR
PKing26588
> Started
>re-learning an old protest song, *Fixin' to Die Rag*; - new rhyming words
>will bring it up-to-date. Nothing changes much does it?
I started relearning Lennons "Gimme Some Truth." I was listening to Bush give
his "I have political capital and I intend to use it" speech, and the words "No
short-haired yellow-bellied son of Tricky Dickies gonna Mother Hubbard
soft-soap me" just kinda popped into my head. We could use John around these
parts today.
Paul K.
Misifus
> in article 10p1q5j...@corp.supernews.com, Misifus at
> rsei...@cox-internet.com wrote on 11/9/04 7:56 AM:
>
>
>>>>With respect, George, I disagree. I can wander through an art museum
>>>>for hours admiring art and not be made uncomfortable by it.
>>>
>>>
>>>A piece of art should be considered, at least partially, in the context
>>>of the period that it was created.
>>>
>>>Today's pastoral scene might have been outright revolutionary in it's time.
>>
>>True, but some art was created more for beauty than for protest.
>>In my mind art isn't necessarily protest. "Beauty is truth,
>>truth beauty,- that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to
>>know."
>
>
> Years ago, in another lifetime, I studied art pretty seriously. I attended
> a cutting edge art school in New York City (SVA, for those of you who are
> interested) and really applied myself. I had a sculpture teacher
My high school art teacher was a scultor, George Segal. I don't
know where he went when he left Piscataway High School. The next
I knew of him, he was on the cover of Time, or something.
-Raf
--
Misifus-
Rafael Seibert
mailto:rsei...@cox-internet.com
http://www.ralphandsue.com
Chris Rockcliffe
> in article BDB6B04C.4CD91%chrisro...@scripto99.demon.co.uk, Chris
> Rockcliffe at chrisro...@scripto99.demon.co.uk wrote on 11/9/04 9:35
> AM:
>
>> Every piece of so-called art, (what indeed is art) is a statement. This is
>> bollocks from your teacher IMO. I too went to art college (3 separate
>> courses in 3 colleges for a total of 6 years.)
>>
> Sure, every piece of art is a statement, but he was trying to get us to make
> the statement be about art and not something else. He was a big
> abstractionist. He was simply drawing a line between art and craft.
>
>> Good grief. So what famous or infamous painting - if any - did he cite as
>> actually being *true art*. Without that, surely this contentious idea is
>> daft and meaningless?
>>
>> CR
> He was a heavy hitter in the NY Art scene and loved Henry Moore and
> Mondrian, not to mention Jasper Johns who was huge at the time. I think it
> was he who introduced me to Mark Rothko. Now THERE"S pure art.
I don't agree with the distinction, although I know what he was trying to
say. I've always liked Moore's work. I always want to touch them too.
I did meet a sculpter btw in NYC in the 70's in the Guggenheim and we
started a brief friendship - Charlie - I think he was called Sepurian or
something like that (long since lost contact details) - lived and worked in
the Bronx - and he was into sculptures made using bent plywood and the
shadows they could create from various light sources. Again that *pure* art
you referred to. He loved Moore's work too.
> So you were an art student, too, huh? As I remember it, all those early
> rockers met in Art School, which in England had a different feel than the
> States. What were you primarily interested in?
Well in Newcastle where I was doing graphics, we had a number of rockers as
you call them - not as famous as say Brian Jones or David Bowie but
including at slightly different times, Eric Burden, Brian Ferry one of the
members of Lindisfarne Ray Jackson - who attended an RMMGA meet - and later
a couple more hit band members in the 80's - I can't remember who now - and
after my time.
CR
Chris Rockcliffe
I've haven't seen Skaggs in concert for nearly 20 years and like his music.
There's nothing wrong with an odd comment from him or anyone which declares
his/her own faith in context 'cos many of the songs he sings are country
gospel in flavour. I wouldn't know how far he takes this sermonizing in the
US now, but I believe it's too far by far. He couldn't get away with it
over here.
But related to this, overt American politics and the religious right wing
are doing nothing as can be guessed for the promotion of Country, Old timey,
Bluegrass and other white American roots music in this country to a younger
audience.
In fact it is doing the opposite, which is sad because no political party
owns any American music. There have been one or two adverse ignorant
comments and I've just laughed them off. Good music is good music. It is
mostly what I am playing myself these days - simply because I enjoy it and
always have.
CR
Dick Thaxter
I just saw Ricky Scaggs and Kentucky Thunder in August (with Sam Bush on
the bill too) in Fredericksburg, Va.
While he got kind of maudlin introducing songs like "I Heard my Mother
Praying for Me" etc., his stage patter wasn't outright preaching. What
kind of tickled me is that he took every opportunity to talk about those
yankees up north who take the skin off their chicken, etc. I don't
think he realized he was 40 mi. from DC.
And while there may be a few BG fans who object to RS, it wasn't evident
at this concert. It has hurt them with the IBMA: Best Intrumental Group
Award: Ricky Skaggs & Kentucky Thunder - 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003,
2004 In the off year, Nickel Creek won in 2001.
Great band, BTW, and great vocal harmonies. Don't worry about being
preached to if you go see them. The songs have more powerful msgs than
the stage patter at any rate.
dick thaxter
George Gleason
> No Busking wrote:
>
>>>> There is a huge contingent of BG fans that are trying to Ban Ricky
>>>> Scaggs for his stage sermonizing about Jesus
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It's the same thing, George. Leave it off stage, in my opinion.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yup, I support their position.
>>
>> If you see him at a tent revival, expect proselytizing. I won't pay
>> for a ticket to see him, though, if I have to spend the evening
>> listening to his religious views. There are plenty of other
>> performers on which I can spend my money.
>>
>> - Mike Pugh
>>
>
> I just saw Ricky Scaggs and Kentucky Thunder in August (with Sam Bush on
> the bill too) in Fredericksburg, Va.
>
BTW did you care for Sam
I worked with him twice and he is a very gentle nice guy yet I did not
care for his rock and roll presentation
George
Mitch
>> news:kl3kd.218$7i4...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>>> There is a huge contingent of BG fans that are trying to Ban Ricky
>>> Scaggs for his stage sermonizing about Jesus
>>> George
>>
> "Mitch" <mka...@spam.nyet> wrote in
> news:mradnR4IEeO...@comcast.com:
>> *Is* he sermonizing, or just sharing his love for Christ? Big
>> difference. I've caught Doyle Dykes a couple of times, and he
>> tastefully shares his love for God and the effect He has on the music
>> that Doyle writes. But no sermonizing to be had.
>
> How do you "tastefully share your love of God?"
Just like you would any significant relationship in your life. It's one
thing to share your acceptance and appreciation for Christ, the way someone
would for a spouse, parent, or friend. It's another thing entirely to try
to persuade others, in the context of a secular concert, to accept and
appreciate Him too.
>
> I'm an athiest and my S.O. is a Jew (although it's more cultural than
> faith-based). Could we go to a Ricky Skaggs concert and enjoy the show?
> Mike Barrs
Probably not, if he's doing what George suggested. I don't know that I
would either, it he's truly attempting to evangelize an audience that came
to hear a concert.
Mitch
Dick Thaxter
I liked Sam Bush, but I'd rather see him as part of someone else's
ensemble. Ricky was a better and more polished show.
dick thaxter
Misifus
> But related to this, overt American politics and the religious right wing
> are doing nothing as can be guessed for the promotion of Country, Old timey,
> Bluegrass and other white American roots music in this country to a younger
> audience.
Odd, in light of the fact that the Country and Old Time music was
always explicitly religious. Until recent years, no major
country performer let too much time go by until they released a
gospel album. Check out the ouvre of the Carter Family.
>
> In fact it is doing the opposite, which is sad because no political party
> owns any American music.
Which is precisely the point. Musicians ought to be musicians,
not preachers or salesmen for religious or political positions.
Carlos Alden
wrote on 11/9/04 6:35 PM:
>> I'm an athiest and my S.O. is a Jew (although it's more cultural than
>> faith-based). Could we go to a Ricky Skaggs concert and enjoy the show?
>> Mike Barrs
>
> Probably not, if he's doing what George suggested. I don't know that I
> would either, it he's truly attempting to evangelize an audience that came
> to hear a concert.
Heck. I'd say go and enjoy the show. If you know that evangelizing is part
of his music presentation, then get yourself prepared (garlic around the
neck, a firm belief in Darwin, etc. .. JUST KIDDING!) But I am serious.
For many of these bluegrass and country musicians their music is intertwined
with a particular brand of Christianity, and it goes deeper than just
content or a preach platform. It's what gives the music the fire and depth
and quality for them. If you know what's coming, just sit back and enjoy
the music.
Another example: Last weekend I played at our local Folk Festival (see the
recent thread "Instrument Tragedy" wherein I describe dropping my Sobell
cittern face down on the floor at this event. Yikes.) One of my
performances was doing Chinese trad music with a Chinese friend who plays
Chinese flute. I enlisted some local Chinese women friends who do Chinese
National Minority dances to help fill out the 45 minute time slot and
provide variety to the performance. The second dance consisted of a
"fashion show" of Minority costumes, with enough twirling and choreography
to call it a dance.
Superficially this looked very cheesy and somewhat sexist: putting smiling
women on display. But this kind of thing is very big in Chinese culture,
and to my eyes, having lived in China, looked very authentic. It is JUST
the kind of thing Westerners who live in China love to roll their eyes at.
So I'm watching this from the sidelines and wondering how the audience is
seeing it, and then suddenly realizing - Hey! This is what they get. This
"fashion show" is contemporary Chinese culture. If they don't like it,
think it's goofy, or sexist, or whatever, then that's their attitude. We
can't be untrue to ourselves to make it palatable for someone else.
And that's the attitude I try to carry with me if I see music tinged with
evangelism, that it's all wrapped up together and is a cultural experience
for me. I certainly don't have to believe in their message or buy it, even
though a lot of it is offensive to me, and I don't have to convert, either
(hell, I can't, I'm already a Christian.)
I suppose that I'd draw the line at Heavy Metal Nazi rock, though. Don't
know if I could passively appreciate THAT.
Carlos
Not enough coffee yet, sorry for the babbling
Bill Benzel
: > Actually, some of them do...you've just lost your ability to be amused by
: > it.
: >
: > - Mike Pugh
:
: Tee hee. And sometimes you are SO amusing, Mike.
:
: Ed
:
: PS: intended in jest. If you could have heard the delivery, you might have
: found it humorous. Ever have a moment of inspiration and know you'll never
: have the opportunity to deliver that line?
:
Yeah, it happens to me all the time, frequently after the fact. But the
line never contains "Tee hee."
--
Bill
reply to sirwill1 AT same domain as above
Bill Chandler
up the following, and served it to the group:
>
A-theism. By definition--absence of theism. Absence of belief.
Not religion.
I don't define myself as a "believer." I am an atheist. That means
"non-believer"...by definition.
"Atheism (n.): Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or
gods." --American Heritage Dictionary
Not religion.
Chris Rockcliffe
> Chris Rockcliffe wrote:
>> But related to this, overt American politics and the religious right wing
>> are doing nothing as can be guessed for the promotion of Country, Old timey,
>> Bluegrass and other white American roots music in this country to a younger
>> audience.
>
> Odd, in light of the fact that the Country and Old Time music was
> always explicitly religious. Until recent years, no major
> country performer let too much time go by until they released a
> gospel album. Check out the ouvre of the Carter Family.
Yes and - even though I am basically an atheist - I don't have a problem at
all singing most of them or listening to anyone sing their songs.
>> In fact it is doing the opposite, which is sad because no political party
>> owns any American music.
>
> Which is precisely the point. Musicians ought to be musicians,
> not preachers or salesmen for religious or political positions.
Well that last bit is a contradiction on your part surely?
But first - which music and musicians played at the Democratic party
headquarters during the election and who was playing at the Republican
equivalent?
So what are you saying... ? that no-one should hold an alternative view; or
voice political dissent or comment in public in a song; or otherwise speak
to an audience on anything political or religious; or that no-one should be
allowed to sing religious songs or include religious references? Or do you
mean no-one should be allowed to sing anti-religious songs or songs which
politically you don't agree with?
There seem to be two basic kinds of Christians in America and in this
newsgroup. Tolerant, intelligent Christians of some integrity - old
fashioned kind of church-going folk who don't wear their religion as a right
wing political badge.
OTOH, there is a neo-fascist Christian fundamentalist, creationist,
bible-bashing theocratic militia - anti-gay, anti-abortion anti freedom of
speech who not only support the Republican party, but are now dictating its
most right wing and contentious policies.
I guess we might find the separating line in the ordination of gay clergy -
but I guess it's not a simple as that. It's not just an American thing
either; we have the happy-clappy and speaking in tongues lot over here and
the American churches - thankfully in harmless numbers.
The point I was making and which you appeared to have missed entirely... A
lot of young people here in the UK do not want to align themselves with
fascism and extreme right or neo conservative views in any shape or form.
These are intelligent young people who want something different musically
from pop fodder and boring American rap music. But they largely avoid white
American music which they increasingly see associated with reactionary white
racist, sexist, fascist homophobic views - and they avoid it like a plague.
Pity. I am doing my best to fight that prejudice in my own small way
because I love the old-timey music and the music speaks for itself. Can one
still be a democrat and play bluegrass?
CR
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
You either take the good with the bad (read: acceptable with
potentially unacceptable) or you don't.
I'm not religious, but I don't believe I have to be Catholic to go to a
Catholic wedding or funeral.
This is a repeated topic over at rmcg re: Christopher Parkening, who
plays and gives his "Christian Testimony". I've only seen Parkening
once, and this was before he started his preachin', but on a certain
level you have to accept that this is part of what the performer is
about. I can't imagine finding that personally offensive, whether I
wish to buy into it or not. Whether I want to listen to it for an
extended period when I want to hear music is something else altogether.
Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
> On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 20:12:14 -0600, Zippy the Pinhead
> <the_corpo...@hotmail.com> brewed up the following, and served
> it to the group:
>
>
>>On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 18:06:48 -0600, "Mitch" <mka...@spam.nyet> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>There is a huge contingent of BG fans that are trying to Ban Ricky Scaggs
>>>>for his stage sermonizing about Jesus
>>>>George
>>>
>>>*Is* he sermonizing, or just sharing his love for Christ? Big difference.
>>>I've caught Doyle Dykes a couple of times, and he tastefully shares his love
>>>for God and the effect He has on the music that Doyle writes. But no
>>>sermonizing to be had.
>>
>>The religion of atheism is very uptight and intolerant of all other
>>religions. They cannot even bear the mention of God in public.
>
>
> Atheism is not religion.
We could argue definition. I think agnosticism is closer to the
opposite of religion. Belief in the absence of God is still a belief,
not a verifiable fact.
Steve
>
> -----
> VITA BREVIS
> CARPE GUITARUM
> --Kinscherff Guitars
>
> the above e-mail address remains totally fictional.
> the real one is bc9424@spamTHIS!.concentric.net (if you remove spamTHIS!.)
> ...please check out my music at http://artists.iuma.com/IUMA/Bands/Bill_Chandler/ some time...
> ...TX-2 Pictures at http://www.concentric.net/~Bc9424/index.html
> ...TX-4 Pictures at http://bc9424.cnc.net/tx_4_web/tx4_main.htm
> ...TX-5 Pictures coming Real Soon Now.
> Bill Chandler
> ...bc...
Bill Chandler
<bornfe...@dentaltwins.com> brewed up the following, and served it
to the group:
<snip>
>>>The religion of atheism is very uptight and intolerant of all other
>>>religions. They cannot even bear the mention of God in public.
>>
>>
>> Atheism is not religion.
>
> We could argue definition. I think agnosticism is closer to the
>opposite of religion. Belief in the absence of God is still a belief,
>not a verifiable fact.
>
>Steve
We're bandying semantics, Steve. Atheism isn't the belief in the
absence of a supreme being...it is the absence of belief in a supreme
being.
There is a difference there--a BIG difference, as far as I'm
concerned.
Agnosticism is a different ballgame entirely.
I was raised Baptist...don't get me started...
B-{)}
No Busking
> newsgroup. Tolerant, intelligent Christians of some integrity - old
> fashioned kind of church-going folk who don't wear their religion as a
> right
> wing political badge.
>
> OTOH, there is a neo-fascist Christian fundamentalist, creationist,
> bible-bashing theocratic militia - anti-gay, anti-abortion anti freedom of
> speech who not only support the Republican party, but are now dictating
> its
> most right wing and contentious policies.
So convenient that the religious portion of our 220 million plus
population - spread across a land mass larger than all of Europe - can be
neatly categorized into two camps (which seem to be equivalent to "good" and
"evil" by your description).
I'd always thought we were just a bit more complex than that. Silly me.
> I guess we might find the separating line in the ordination of gay
> clergy -
> but I guess it's not a simple as that. It's not just an American thing
> either; we have the happy-clappy and speaking in tongues lot over here and
> the American churches - thankfully in harmless numbers.
What, exactly, would be a harmful number of such people?
> Pity. I am doing my best to fight that prejudice in my own small way
> because I love the old-timey music and the music speaks for itself. Can
> one
> still be a democrat and play bluegrass?
The fact that you're asking that question in that way is an indication that
you might need to fight "that prejudice" a little harder.
Chris, you've conjured for yourself a cartoon image of religious Americans,
when the complexity and diversity of the group is far greater than you can
imagine (at least, that's the impression you're giving).
- Mike Pugh
Chris Rockcliffe
> So convenient that the religious portion of our 220 million plus
> population - spread across a land mass larger than all of Europe - can be
> neatly categorized into two camps (which seem to be equivalent to "good" and
> "evil" by your description).
>
> I'd always thought we were just a bit more complex than that. Silly me.
Well of course it is simplistic short post. So why don't you tell me where
the line between what is acceptable to non-Christians actually lies or
should lie IYO?
>> I guess we might find the separating line in the ordination of gay clergy -
>> but I guess it's not a simple as that. It's not just an American thing
>> either; we have the happy-clappy and speaking in tongues lot over here and
>> the American churches - thankfully in harmless numbers.
>
> What, exactly, would be a harmful number of such people?
I could say any at all. But it's when they start to impose their will on
the majority. When a right-wing hateful theocracy becomes Government policy
it's gone too far.
>> Pity. I am doing my best to fight that prejudice in my own small way because
>> I love the old-timey music and the music speaks for itself. Can one still be
>> a democrat and play bluegrass?
>
> The fact that you're asking that question in that way is an indication that
> you might need to fight "that prejudice" a little harder.
I was being humorous about bluegrass democrats Mike. Now who's lost their
sense of humour? We're talking about perceptions here in the UK - which are
often mistaken for realities by many - especially the young.
> Chris, you've conjured for yourself a cartoon image of religious Americans,
No these people aren't funny either. But members of my own family are deeply
involved with an American church here in the UK. I do know more about it
than you give me credit for.
> when the complexity and diversity of the group is far greater than you can
> imagine (at least, that's the impression you're giving).
One of the things about so many posters here is they attack the views of
others, but actually say nothing much at all really.
Yes, it is more complex than that. And in spite of that, you Mike have
managed to sound like you're actually saying something and yet have said
nothing new in the discussion here. You are a self-confessed libertarian,
conservative and a Christian, so I guess I am very different from you in my
political and religious views.
Doesn't stop me agreeing with you on most of your posts in this NG though.
CR
George Gleason
> Bill Chandler wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 20:12:14 -0600, Zippy the Pinhead
>> <the_corpo...@hotmail.com> brewed up the following, and served
>> it to the group:
>>
>>
>>> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 18:06:48 -0600, "Mitch" <mka...@spam.nyet> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> There is a huge contingent of BG fans that are trying to Ban Ricky
>>>>> Scaggs for his stage sermonizing about Jesus
>>>>> George
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Is* he sermonizing, or just sharing his love for Christ? Big
>>>> difference. I've caught Doyle Dykes a couple of times, and he
>>>> tastefully shares his love for God and the effect He has on the
>>>> music that Doyle writes. But no sermonizing to be had.
>>>
>>>
>>> The religion of atheism is very uptight and intolerant of all other
>>> religions. They cannot even bear the mention of God in public.
>>
>>
>>
>> Atheism is not religion.
>
>
> We could argue definition. I think agnosticism is closer to the
> opposite of religion. Belief in the absence of God is still a belief,
> not a verifiable fact.
lots of people have lots of beliefs but beliefs are not religion
Having religion IS religion
nOT having religion IS NOT religion
George
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
> On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 11:54:51 -0500, Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
> <bornfe...@dentaltwins.com> brewed up the following, and served it
> to the group:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>>The religion of atheism is very uptight and intolerant of all other
>>>>religions. They cannot even bear the mention of God in public.
>>>
>>>
>>>Atheism is not religion.
>>
>> We could argue definition. I think agnosticism is closer to the
>>opposite of religion. Belief in the absence of God is still a belief,
>>not a verifiable fact.
>>
>>Steve
>
>
> We're bandying semantics, Steve. Atheism isn't the belief in the
> absence of a supreme being...it is the absence of belief in a supreme
> being.
>
> There is a difference there--a BIG difference, as far as I'm
> concerned.
>
> Agnosticism is a different ballgame entirely.
>
> I was raised Baptist...don't get me started...
>
> B-{)}
> -----
Thanks for the clarification!!
Steve
> VITA BREVIS
> CARPE GUITARUM
> --Kinscherff Guitars
>
> the above e-mail address remains totally fictional.
> the real one is bc9424@spamTHIS!.concentric.net (if you remove spamTHIS!.)
> ...please check out my music at http://artists.iuma.com/IUMA/Bands/Bill_Chandler/ some time...
> ...TX-2 Pictures at http://www.concentric.net/~Bc9424/index.html
> ...TX-4 Pictures at http://bc9424.cnc.net/tx_4_web/tx4_main.htm
> ...TX-5 Pictures coming Real Soon Now.
> Bill Chandler
> ...bc...
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
Misifus
> Misifus10/11/04 3:00 PM
>
>
>>Chris Rockcliffe wrote:
>
>
>>>But related to this, overt American politics and the religious right wing
>>>are doing nothing as can be guessed for the promotion of Country, Old timey,
>>>Bluegrass and other white American roots music in this country to a younger
>>>audience.
>>
>>Odd, in light of the fact that the Country and Old Time music was
>>always explicitly religious. Until recent years, no major
>>country performer let too much time go by until they released a
>>gospel album. Check out the ouvre of the Carter Family.
>
>
> Yes and - even though I am basically an atheist - I don't have a problem at
> all singing most of them or listening to anyone sing their songs.
>
>
>>>In fact it is doing the opposite, which is sad because no political party
>>>owns any American music.
>>
>>Which is precisely the point. Musicians ought to be musicians,
>>not preachers or salesmen for religious or political positions.
>
>
> Well that last bit is a contradiction on your part surely?
>
> But first - which music and musicians played at the Democratic party
> headquarters during the election and who was playing at the Republican
> equivalent?
I've no idea. I never heard either. However, my point remains
the same. The music played at political rallies is not the same
as music played at concerts. Oh, some tunes may be the same, but
the purpose is different. I go to concerts to hear music. I go
to church to hear religeon, and I would go to a political rally
to hear politics.
No Busking
> the line between what is acceptable to non-Christians actually lies or
> should lie IYO?
You're missing my point. There isn't a line.
> I could say any at all. But it's when they start to impose their will on
> the majority. When a right-wing hateful theocracy becomes Government
> policy
> it's gone too far.
Wait a minute...you were referring to people that were "happy clappy" and
speaking in tongues. When I asked how many of them constituted harmful, you
equated them to a "right-wing hateful theocracy."
That pretty well establishes my point, Chris...your prejudices about people
of faith prevents you from having a reasonable discussion on the subject.
> No these people aren't funny either.
I didn't say they were funny...I said you had created a cartoon image of
what "religious Americans" are like. For clarity, Chris, I meant that your
simplified description of a large and varied portion of our population is
exaggerated and surreal. I don't think it's funny either.
> But members of my own family are deeply
> involved with an American church here in the UK. I do know more about it
> than you give me credit for.
Gee, I didn't realize that you had extensive second-hand experience with a
single American church, located in the UK. That makes you an expert?
> One of the things about so many posters here is they attack the views of
> others, but actually say nothing much at all really.
>
> Yes, it is more complex than that. And in spite of that, you Mike have
> managed to sound like you're actually saying something and yet have said
> nothing new in the discussion here. You are a self-confessed
> libertarian,
> conservative and a Christian, so I guess I am very different from you in
> my
> political and religious views.
No, I said plenty...you just didn't hear it.
- Mike
(don't recall confessing to be a libertarian, but who knows)
Dave
> On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 03:56:24 GMT, "Dave" <da...@thedesert.com> brewed
> up the following, and served it to the group:
>
>>
>>"Bill Chandler" <dr...@yourown.risk.com> wrote in message
>>news:gau2p0pf1ejitlp7k...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> Atheism is not religion.
>>
>>To borrow from the writings of (Christian) Episcopal bishop John Spong,
>>"theism" is merely a way of defining God as a "person" with supernatural
>>attributes. Many people in our day and age define themselves as
>>"believers" -- yet they reject theism as a way of defining the experience
>>of
>>God. Thus, these believers could also be referred to as "a-theists", but
>>they remain believers, spiritually speaking.
>
> A-theism. By definition--absence of theism. Absence of belief.
>
> Not religion.
>
> I don't define myself as a "believer." I am an atheist. That means
> "non-believer"...by definition.
>
> "Atheism (n.): Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or
> gods." --American Heritage Dictionary
>
> Not religion.
Atheists may not practice a particular religion, but some have not abandoned
spirituality -- and spirituality doesn't necessitate a belief in God.
Hedberg
[...]
>Atheists may not practice a particular religion, but some have not abandoned
>spirituality -- and spirituality doesn't necessitate a belief in God.
>
I've never understood the claim that spirituality doesn't require a
belief in God. Perhaps it's a birth defect that I suffer or perhaps
it's a problem with the definition of "God" or "atheism." To me,
"atheism" is probably best defined as lack of belief in spirituality.
I guess I also equate religion and spirituality. I don't understand
Fermat's theorem either, neither the first nor the last.
Harold
Chris Rockcliffe
> For clarity, Chris, I meant that your simplified description of a large and
> varied portion of our population is exaggerated and surreal.
They've all grouped together to vote for Bush and have helped shape his
policies though.
I agree it is surreal. If you've ever had a conversation with a creationist
Christian, it IS surreal. But if they want to believe the world is only
3000 years old or the world is flat, or Adam and Eve are our ancestors and
were real people, they can do.
But should they should be allowed to teach such crap in schools?
> No, I said plenty... you just didn't hear it.
You mean I didn't agree with what you wrote and vice versa. As you've done
so many times before in all kinds of discussions, you say nothing really,
but just twist words around in a rather silly way.
CR
No Busking
> so many times before in all kinds of discussions, you say nothing really,
> but just twist words around in a rather silly way.
OK, let me try to be a bit more direct.
You often group Americans and Christians into very simple caricatures so
that you can rail against our inadequacies and stupidity. What I've been
trying to point out is that reality is somewhat more complex, given that the
populations you deride are made up of a bunch of individuals.
You are as prejudiced and close-minded about Americans and Christians as
George Wallace ever was about blacks, and you repeat your ignorant
platitudes constantly, wrapped in endless paragraphs of nonsense.
Here's a quiz, Chris...I'm conservative, I'm from the midwest (the middle of
a sea of "red states"), and I'm a Christian. Who did I vote for president?
What's my view on gay marriage? How do I feel about Affirmative Action?
What about the legalization of marijuana? Prostitution? Stem cell
research? Abortion? Parental consent for abortion for minors? The Supreme
Court ruling on Bush vs. Gore? Legalized gambling?
Now....what is my minister's view on all of the above? What about my
mother, or my siblings? All of us share the same superficial traits that
you use to lump us all together...do you think we answered all the questions
the same way?
I'm offended that you lump me and people with whom I share a FEW opinions or
beliefs into an "ignorant" category, simply because you're not able to
process the fact that real people are more complex than your media-driven
view of the world.
I was trying to be more polite, but you just weren't getting it.
- Mike
Misifus
>
> I don't understand
> Fermat's theorem either
Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
Chris Rockcliffe
> Here's a quiz, Chris...I'm conservative, I'm from the midwest (the middle of
> a sea of "red states"), and I'm a Christian.
I thought you lived in DC or Maryland or somewhere? Or are you being
hypothetical here?
As we've seen from other less simplistic voting maps and actual vote counts
the voting patterns are much more complex than the electoral college system
allows... Be that as it may...
> Who did I vote for president? What's my view on gay marriage? How do I feel
> about Affirmative Action? What about the legalization of marijuana?
> Prostitution? Stem cell research? Abortion? Parental consent for abortion
> for minors? The Supreme Court ruling on Bush vs. Gore? Legalized gambling?
This thing is certainly heading up a cyber alleyway here...
You tell me Mike. I'm not that interested, although I could take a stab at
at guessing the above. But it matters not if your own view on any of those
things differ wildly from mainstream Republican policy and agenda. If you
have surrendered the decision to that party and to the senate who will vote
on those issues - you'll get what they decide.
> Now....what is my minister's view on all of the above? What about my
> mother, or my siblings? All of us share the same superficial traits that
> you use to lump us all together...
What superficial traits - that they are also Christians you mean? I
understand that 50 million Americans are church going Christians of all
denominations and beliefs - so what?
> do you think we answered all the questions the same way?
Possibly not, but if they voted Republican the result will be as I stated
above won't it?
> I'm offended that you lump me and people with whom I share a FEW opinions or
> beliefs into an "ignorant" category, simply because you're not able to
> process the fact that real people are more complex than your media-driven
> view of the world.
I didn't use the word ignorant - you did.
But it doesn't matter how complex and sophisticated you may be or how
intelligent or liberal on some issues you are... If you voted Republican -
you voted in a wide church - agreed - but with a narrow political agenda
AND you aligned yourself with religious extremists who also voted for George
and who are driving the party's agenda and with whom you now suggest you
might even disagree.
If you voted for George - you said yes to his lies; to his warmongering and
killing, his hateful and oppressive foreign policies; his anti-gay and
anti-abortion stances and more... If that's what you wanted. You voted.
Donšt feel bad about it.
Here's a different question - or two - for you then.
If it was proven that Bush's election machine did deliberately fix the vote
by a substantial margin wherever and by whatever combination of tricks - and
enough to seriously alter the outcome - would you give a shit? And given
that in such a case your man possibly won unfairly and undemocratically,
would it matter to you and what would you expect then to happen next?
CR
Hedberg
<chrisro...@scripto99.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
>Here's a different question - or two - for you then.
>
>If it was proven that Bush's election machine did deliberately fix the vote
>by a substantial margin wherever and by whatever combination of tricks - and
>enough to seriously alter the outcome - would you give a shit? And given
>that in such a case your man possibly won unfairly and undemocratically,
>would it matter to you and what would you expect then to happen next?
>
Of course it would matter to him, as it would to me, but the
probability of what you are describing is somewhere between 0 and -1.
You need to get over it. Bush won by a clear margin -- in Ohio, in
Florida, in Utah. He won the popular vote (though there is really no
such contest) and he will win the electoral count.
There are a couple hundred thousand Democrats out there trying to
disprove the obvious, we'll see if it goes anywhere.
Harold
Chris Rockcliffe
So you do at least have an open mind Harold?
CR
No Busking
You're too much, Chris.
BTW...you got the first question wrong.
- Mike Pugh
Bill Chandler
up the following, and served it to the group:
<snip>
>>>> Atheism is not religion.
>>>
>>>To borrow from the writings of (Christian) Episcopal bishop John Spong,
>>>"theism" is merely a way of defining God as a "person" with supernatural
>>>attributes. Many people in our day and age define themselves as
>>>"believers" -- yet they reject theism as a way of defining the experience
>>>of
>>>God. Thus, these believers could also be referred to as "a-theists", but
>>>they remain believers, spiritually speaking.
>>
>> A-theism. By definition--absence of theism. Absence of belief.
>>
>> Not religion.
>>
>> I don't define myself as a "believer." I am an atheist. That means
>> "non-believer"...by definition.
>>
>> "Atheism (n.): Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or
>> gods." --American Heritage Dictionary
>>
>> Not religion.
>
>Atheists may not practice a particular religion, but some have not abandoned
>spirituality -- and spirituality doesn't necessitate a belief in God.
That may well be true, Dave--but what was said was:
>The religion of atheism is very uptight and intolerant of all other
>religions. They cannot even bear the mention of God in public.
[posted by Zippy]
That's what I was responding to. I haven't abandoned spirituality,
myself. But that doesn't make atheism a "religion". I was attempting
to clarify that point.
The First Amendment to the US Constitution makes it clear that anybody
and everybody in the USA can worship whatever they perceive to be a
supreme being, however they want. What they CAN'T do is use the
government to force anybody else to do so. And THAT'S the problem--so
many are trying to do just that. (Including the line added to the
pledge of allegiance; the decalogue displayed on government buildings,
the "national motto"...all these things are clearly unconstitutional.
Just read the damned thing.)
I won't let that pass. I don't care how holy the president thinks he
is...or his administration...or his influential friends.
Enough from me...need more coffee...
Mitch
> The First Amendment to the US Constitution makes it clear that anybody
> and everybody in the USA can worship whatever they perceive to be a
> supreme being, however they want. What they CAN'T do is use the
> government to force anybody else to do so. And THAT'S the problem--so
> many are trying to do just that. (Including the line added to the
> pledge of allegiance; the decalogue displayed on government buildings,
> the "national motto"...all these things are clearly unconstitutional.
> Just read the damned thing.)
>
> I won't let that pass. I don't care how holy the president thinks he
> is...or his administration...or his influential friends.
An honest question, Bill. If the First Amendment is as you interpret it,
why did the writers of said amendment allow for, encourage, and even
instigate expressions of honor to God in public life? Why does the document
itself owe our very existence and basis for freedom to this same God?
There's a disconnect here somewhere.
Mitch
George Gleason
public policy was deemed above personal beliefs , esp one that is not
only not 100% shared but could become discriminatory or repressive to
lawful citizens who do not share the faith
Every thing I have read is the constitution is a secular document based
on secular ideals, specifically to allow the maximum freedom of or from
religion without endorsing any one God
George
Mitch
> Mitch wrote:
>> "Bill Chandler" <dr...@yourown.risk.com> wrote in message
>> news:dnt6p0hrgkrh05per...@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>>>The First Amendment to the US Constitution makes it clear that anybody
>>>and everybody in the USA can worship whatever they perceive to be a
>>>supreme being, however they want. What they CAN'T do is use the
>>>government to force anybody else to do so. And THAT'S the problem--so
>>>many are trying to do just that. (Including the line added to the
>>>pledge of allegiance; the decalogue displayed on government buildings,
>>>the "national motto"...all these things are clearly unconstitutional.
>>>Just read the damned thing.)
>>>
>>>I won't let that pass. I don't care how holy the president thinks he
>>>is...or his administration...or his influential friends.
>>
>>
>> An honest question, Bill. If the First Amendment is as you interpret it,
>> why did the writers of said amendment allow for, encourage, and even
>> instigate expressions of honor to God in public life? Why does the
>> document itself owe our very existence and basis for freedom to this same
>> God? There's a disconnect here somewhere.
>>
>> Mitch
> the strong personal belief in God is encouraged while establishing public
> policy was deemed above personal beliefs , esp one that is not only not
> 100% shared but could become discriminatory or repressive to lawful
The purpose of the amendment we're discussing here was to prevent the state
from declaring a particular church denomination to be the state church (i.e.
the Church of England). See Jefferson's response in a letter to the Danbury
Baptist on the matter, from which the infamous, oft mis-contextualized "wall
of seperation" quote was lifted.
> Every thing I have read is the constitution is a secular document based on
> secular ideals, specifically to allow the maximum freedom of or from
> religion without endorsing any one God
> George
And I can't begin to see where you get that take. The very fact that God
is referenced removes the "secular" element. Our Constitution is absolutely
based upon the acknowledgement of a Transcedent Authority. Remove Him, and
you've got license for every violent, twisted act imaginable.
Mitch
Chris Rockcliffe
> The very fact that God is referenced removes the "secular" element. Our
> Constitution is absolutely based upon the acknowledgement of a Transcedent
> Authority. Remove Him, and you've got license for every violent, twisted act
> imaginable.
Is an American government Christian theocracy looking more like a
possibility with ideas expressed like this?
CR
Bill Chandler
up the following, and served it to the group:
>"Bill Chandler" <dr...@yourown.risk.com> wrote in message
I respect honest questions. My honest answer: read the document.
They made it crystal clear: religion is the domain of the individual,
not the government:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
<soapbox>
What they did in their public life was their free exercise. What they
PROHIBITED was the government MANDATING the exercise of religion.
Which is as it should be. Those words are so clear, and so perfect.
The meaning of all of them, and their appropriate use, was well under
my command by the second grade. People go to such great effort to
pretend these words mean something other than what they say, and that
is ridiculous.
Congress (the part of the government which makes the laws, which state
how the government can/must work) shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion...The government cannot establish a
religion. Period. ...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...The
government cannot tell the people that they cannot exercise their
religion...or the lack thereof. That clause is so simple, so perfect:
the government is NOT allowed to be in the religion business. Not at
all. And Congress and the courts have ignored this repeatedly.
My honest answer.
</soapbox>
Bill Chandler
up the following, and served it to the group:
<snip>
>> Every thing I have read is the constitution is a secular document based on
>> secular ideals, specifically to allow the maximum freedom of or from
>> religion without endorsing any one God
>> George
>
>And I can't begin to see where you get that take. The very fact that God
>is referenced removes the "secular" element. Our Constitution is absolutely
>based upon the acknowledgement of a Transcedent Authority. Remove Him, and
>you've got license for every violent, twisted act imaginable.
Mitch, that last line is just so much crap. I, for one, am damned fed
up with the implication (and indeed the outright statement, as above)
that without belief in some supreme being (you name it...God, Allah,
Krishna, Vishnu, L. Ron Hubbard, Big Ju Ju...), people will
automatically go out and rape, loot, pillage, burn, and eat babies.
Morality is most DEFINITELY not the sole property of religion.
Carlos Alden
Rockcliffe at chrisro...@scripto99.demon.co.uk wrote on 11/11/04 8:03
AM:
No, it's not, because there are plenty of people like me. I'm a Christian
who has strong family values who is disgusted with a certain particular
branch of religion trying to tell me how to run my life. I have and will
continue to fight an American Christian theocracy. It's going to take me
and my kind to stand up and stop the hijacking and warping of Jesus'
principles by theocratists.
Carlos
JD
news:BDB8D44E.2C695%cal...@msn.com
Amen!
JD (Armed free Christian Democrat)
George Gleason
I simple respond
I do not see it that way, even after long and complete study
Peace
george
foldedpath
news:FaWdnSJdcrW...@comcast.com:
> "Bill Chandler" <dr...@yourown.risk.com> wrote in message
> news:dnt6p0hrgkrh05per...@4ax.com...
>
>> The First Amendment to the US Constitution makes it clear that
>> anybody and everybody in the USA can worship whatever they perceive
>> to be a supreme being, however they want. What they CAN'T do is use
>> the government to force anybody else to do so. And THAT'S the
>> problem--so many are trying to do just that. (Including the line
>> added to the pledge of allegiance; the decalogue displayed on
>> government buildings, the "national motto"...all these things are
>> clearly unconstitutional. Just read the damned thing.)
>>
>> I won't let that pass. I don't care how holy the president thinks he
>> is...or his administration...or his influential friends.
>
> An honest question, Bill. If the First Amendment is as you interpret
> it, why did the writers of said amendment allow for, encourage, and
> even instigate expressions of honor to God in public life?
Public life is different from government policy. Here's the amendment,
just to make sure we're all on the same page:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Speaking of public life... today Bush gave a Veteran's Day speech where
(paraphrasing here) he thanked God for watching over the U.S.
As a nonbeliever, it always makes me squirm a little, when I see overt
expressions of faith from an elected official. Aside from bad taste, I
think it's also dangerous to suggest even a hint of "us vs. them"
religious war when we have troops killing Arabs (and vice-versa) in the
Middle East right now. But setting aside those implications for a
minute... I do think it's his right to express his faith this way in
public life, even though he's an elected offical. That right is
specifically protected in the 1st amendment, above.
It's when it invades puplic policy that it becomes something completely
different. Don't ask me to pay taxes that will go towards installing
religious monuments on government owned property. Don't force my kids to
feel left out, and not a member of the group, if they feel uncomfortable
reciting the Pledge in school due to the "under God" phrasing (which is
a relatively recent addition). Don't use the government to force
unsupported, religion-based ideas into my kid's science textbooks, or
the information displays in National Parks.
See the difference?
And if you don't, then pick a different religion than Christianity, and
think about how you'd feel if that was the dominant religion in this
country, and all these things were being forced into your life... paid
for by your taxes.
> Why does
> the document itself owe our very existence and basis for freedom to
> this same God? There's a disconnect here somewhere.
I don't understand what you're saying here. The word God doesn't show up
in the Constitution or the amendments. The white males who wrote the
document may have been religious men, but they understood the importance
of separating religion from government.
And I would strongly disagree (although maybe this isn't the place for
it), that we owe "our existence and basis for freedom" to this same God.
I would defend your right to hold and express that belief, but it sure
isn't my belief.
--
Mike Barrs
JS
> Remove Him, and
>you've got license for every violent, twisted act imaginable.
Oh, BULL--SHIT!!!
JS
Can you say, "South Africa, 1948"?
Kol_Isha
"Dr. Slick" <radi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1d15af91.04111...@posting.google.com...
> George Gleason <g.p.g...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:<yjLkd.883302$Gx4.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
>
>
>
> we should strive for, but it's only an ideal at this
> point.
>
> Only white male Protestants for President except
> for Kennedy? Not very religiously diverse, is it!
>
> Then again, we have to remember that "All men
> are created equal" was written by slave owners...
>
>
> Slick
Yeah... and by MEN!
Regards,
Arlene
Paul Asbell
Carlos Alden wrote:
My wife has been a music minister in the Catholic Church since age 9.
Her stand on the newer evangelical sects is pretty much as Carlos
describes above.
I'm often surprised by her "liberal" stands on various policy issues, in
relation to what I IMAGINE to be her fellow catholics stance on them.
Her answer is usually the same...
"You'd be surprised".
>
>
Paul
Paul Asbell
foldedpath wrote:
Nice to see a well-thought-out, well-expressed post on this ticklish of
topics.
--
Best regards
Paul
Sleepy Fingers Jones
(Big snip)
> Our Constitution is absolutely
>based upon the acknowledgement of a Transcedent Authority. Remove Him, and
>you've got license for every violent, twisted act imaginable.
>
>Mitch
>
Mitch, I respect your faith, but you know as well as I do that the
phrase 'One Nation Under God' was written into the constitution in the
middle of the last century, and there has been some interesting
rulings on it recently.
I don't want to lecture you or anyone else but please remember that
one of the reasons the Pilgrim Fathers sailed for America in the first
place was to escape from religious persecution.
It's also worth remembering that when the constitution was written the
idea of there not being a god was virtually inconceivable - it was
nearly 100 years before Darwin blew the whole God thing to pieces.
It's possible to strip the whole constitution down to one sentence:
"As long as you don't hurt anyone, you can do what you damn well
like".
Of course, there are various amendments to it which suggest you can
take retribution on people who hurt you...but I won't go into them:-)
It's a secular document, simply because the people that wrote it had
memories of religious persecution in other countries and wanted to set
up the land of the free.
It's man-made morality, not God given morality, and there's a big
difference between the two.
Pete
Hedberg
[...]
>
>And I can't begin to see where you get that take. The very fact that God
>is referenced removes the "secular" element. Our Constitution is absolutely
>based upon the acknowledgement of a Transcedent Authority.
I strongly, strongly disagree with you here -- particularly
considering that the Constitution, as far as I know, makes no
reference to God or any transcendent authority.
>Remove Him, and
>you've got license for every violent, twisted act imaginable.
And you wonder why right thinking people want to keep religion out of
government?
Harold
Carlos Alden
at persisten...@NOSPAM.yahoo.com wrote on 11/11/04 4:22 PM:
> I don't want to lecture you or anyone else but please remember that
> one of the reasons the Pilgrim Fathers sailed for America in the first
> place was to escape from religious persecution.
Interesting historical sidenote:
That was true for a lot of them, but a great number were in it just for the
adventure. John Alden was a cooper (tended the beer barrels and beermaking)
living in Portsmouth, and got interested in coming on the trip because of
one Priscilla Mullen, whom he later courted and wed. He wasn't running away
from anything, but rather, as a 21 year old fella, was thinking with his
private parts, more or less, I guess.
Carlos (Alden - 11th generation)