It's too quiet.
J. Hugh Sullivan
I'm a big college football fan and it's nice to see how often both
teams now gather in the center of the field after the game for prayer.
The practice has grown exponentially in the last couple of years.
Last night, after the second biggest game of the season, the Texas
coach and three players spoke individually and each gave credit to God
and/or their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
If Florida beats Oklahoma for the National Championship, listen to
Tebow give thanks.
With the prominent place athletes have in our society the open
expression of religion will have a tremendous effect on young people -
thank God.
Hugh
Emma Pease
I think an ancient Greek invocation would be nice: sacrifice a cow (or
several) to an appropriate deity (probably Poseidon for Florida as it is
surrounded by sea and threatened by hurricanes and Zeus for Oklahoma
[thunderstorms]) and have a barbecue with everyone invited. It would
blend nicely with tailgaters.
I note that having the entire team gather for prayer is a bit problematic
if some members belong to minority religions. The Wisconsin Evangelical
Lutheran Synod for instance forbids its members from engaging in prayer
with others who don't have the correct concepts about God and Christ
(which to them means any non-Christian and most Christians). I also
wonder about the crowd response if an individual chooses to praise Allah
or recites a Buddhist prayer.
Emma
"And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for
they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street
corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they
have received their reward."
--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht
J. Hugh Sullivan
Of course the teams meeting is voluntary so not every member
participates. It's Christian so everyone is welcome. People who are
excluded exclude themselves. The crowd is usually too busy heading for
the exits to notice.
I am not aware of any prohibition against other groups doing whatever
their thing.
Are you interested in updating us on your personal situation? I think
everyone is wishing you the best.
Hugh
Chimp
> With the prominent place athletes have in
> our society the open expression of religion
> will have a tremendous effect on young
> people - thank God.
You make it sound as though the "open
expression of religion" is something novel,
rather than something that American culture
has been saturation-bombed with for many
decades.
Chimp
J. Hugh Sullivan
I remember when there was no TV and when athletes found it unnecessary
to make public professions of their Christianity. The audience has
expanded from face-to-face to millions watching the apparent backlash
on TV.
Hugh
Chimp
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 Chimp
>
>> You make it sound as though the "open
>> expression of religion" is something novel,
>> rather than something that American culture
>> has been saturation-bombed with for many
>> decades.
>
> when athletes found it unnecessary
> to make public professions of their
> Christianity. The audience has
> expanded from face-to-face to millions
> watching the apparent backlash
> on TV.
Oh I see, so they're praying in order
to be noticed? And the more that are
watching the bigger the display of
praying they put on?
I refer you to Emma's post. Who was it
who is reported as saying this Hugh?:
"And when you pray, you must not be like
the hypocrites; for they love to stand and
pray in the synagogues and at the street
corners, that they may be seen by men.
Truly, I say to you, they have received
their reward.
"But you, when you pray, go into your
inner room, close your door and pray to
your Father who is in secret, and your
Father who sees what is done in secret
will reward you."
Hint: he was fairly prominent in the
founding of your religion, and is
perhaps someone you guys oughta
take notice of. I mean you're all
supposed to be Biblical literalists,
right?, and the above is fairly
straightforward and explicit, isn't it?
Chimp
J. Hugh Sullivan
I think it is twofold. People meet in church and pray so people
gathering to pray is not unusual. I think it is also a bit
confrontational in view of the atheist movement over the past several
years.
I almost said Merry Christmas to all the atheists and agnostics here
but decided against it. We had one Christmas party and I wore a sign
that said, "Merry whatever makes atheists and liberals mad."
Hugh
Chimp
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 Chimp
>
> but decided against it. We had one Christmas party and I wore a sign
> that said, "Merry whatever makes atheists and liberals mad."
But nothing of that sort makes atheists mad! This whole
"war on Christmas" idea is a complete myth invented by
the religious right.
Christians -- it seems -- have a martyrdom complex, and
need to regard themselves as under threat or under
persecution for their beliefs. Of course they aren't
(the idea is utterly ludicrous in the US), so they invent
these myths, such as the myth that people are against
Christmas.
Well Hugh, I have never met or heard of a single atheist
who objects to "Merry Christmas" or who doesn't celebrate
Christmas in the usual way like everyone else (with the
possible exception of church attendance, though some
like carols and attend for those).
Yeah, we know the origins of the word "Christmas", but
we don't worry about that any more than Christians worry
about the pagan Sun-worship origins of the word "Sunday".
To us, Christmas is a Western cultural festival with pagan
roots, and is largely secular, though it does have optional
Christian elements for those who so choose.
So, atheists don't object to Christmas or "Merry Christmas"
or merry anything. They do object to Christians trying to
monopolize Christmas, such as by putting nativity
scenes in public buildings, unless similar non-religious
displays are also allowed, but that's mostly a church/state
separation issue, not an objection to Christmas. (You know,
we do have to be vigilant about church/state separation,
given the totalitarian tendancies of your fellow Christians.)
Anyway, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year Hugh
(Yeah, I know, slightly late)
Chimp.
PS Or maybe I should have said Happy Holidays, or
whatever it is that gives Christians their warm fuzzy
"I'm a martyr" feeling.
PPS We did notice your almost complete avoidance of
any comment on those words in Matthew 6!
J. Hugh Sullivan
<pan_pani...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 8 Jan, (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 Chimp
>>
>> I almost said Merry Christmas to all the atheists and agnostics here
>> but decided against it. We had one Christmas party and I wore a sign
>> that said, "Merry whatever makes atheists and liberals mad."
>
>But nothing of that sort makes atheists mad! This whole
>"war on Christmas" idea is a complete myth invented by
>the religious right.
I beg to differ. Maybe it's the way I say it.
>
>Christians -- it seems -- have a martyrdom complex, and
>need to regard themselves as under threat or under
>persecution for their beliefs.
There is a lot of that particularly from those who are nt
confrontational.
>Of course they aren't
>(the idea is utterly ludicrous in the US), so they invent
>these myths, such as the myth that people are against
>Christmas.
I absolutely disagree. Atheists have changed so many things regarding
displays and prayer. Those things were accepted until atheists
rebelled.
>Well Hugh, I have never met or heard of a single atheist
>who objects to "Merry Christmas" or who doesn't celebrate
>Christmas in the usual way like everyone else (with the
>possible exception of church attendance, though some
>like carols and attend for those).
That is most surprising. They have objected so much that almost all
commecial enterprises say Happy Holidays now.
>
>Yeah, we know the origins of the word "Christmas", but
>we don't worry about that any more than Christians worry
>about the pagan Sun-worship origins of the word "Sunday".
>To us, Christmas is a Western cultural festival with pagan
>roots, and is largely secular, though it does have optional
>Christian elements for those who so choose.
>
>So, atheists don't object to Christmas or "Merry Christmas"
>or merry anything. They do object to Christians trying to
>monopolize Christmas, such as by putting nativity
>scenes in public buildings, unless similar non-religious
>displays are also allowed, but that's mostly a church/state
>separation issue, not an objection to Christmas. (You know,
>we do have to be vigilant about church/state separation,
>given the totalitarian tendancies of your fellow Christians.)
Why weren't y'all observant for almost 200 years?
> Anyway, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year Hugh
> (Yeah, I know, slightly late)
> Chimp.
And back to you.
>PS Or maybe I should have said Happy Holidays, or
>whatever it is that gives Christians their warm fuzzy
>"I'm a martyr" feeling.
No martyr feeling for me - I view it as a challenge (unless I think
the man or woman can whip me).
>
>PPS We did notice your almost complete avoidance of
>any comment on those words in Matthew 6!
I referred to it as confrontation. If you say prayer can't be led by
teachers then non-teachers do it. Pure "stick it".
Hugh
Brian Salter-Duke
Well, it could be due to other religions not wanting everything to be
dominated by Christianity.
Me, I celebrate all Public Holidays, including here in Victoria,
Australia, Melbourne Cup Day, even though I have absolutely no interest
in Horse Racing, soir in the Territory, Additional Day (I loved that
one). I went to hear some church music in the Anglican Cathedral too.
>>
>>Yeah, we know the origins of the word "Christmas", but
>>we don't worry about that any more than Christians worry
>>about the pagan Sun-worship origins of the word "Sunday".
>>To us, Christmas is a Western cultural festival with pagan
>>roots, and is largely secular, though it does have optional
>>Christian elements for those who so choose.
Exactly.
>>So, atheists don't object to Christmas or "Merry Christmas"
>>or merry anything. They do object to Christians trying to
>>monopolize Christmas, such as by putting nativity
>>scenes in public buildings, unless similar non-religious
>>displays are also allowed, but that's mostly a church/state
>>separation issue, not an objection to Christmas. (You know,
>>we do have to be vigilant about church/state separation,
>>given the totalitarian tendancies of your fellow Christians.)
>
> Why weren't y'all observant for almost 200 years?
>
>> Anyway, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year Hugh
>> (Yeah, I know, slightly late)
>> Chimp.
>
> And back to you.
>
>>PS Or maybe I should have said Happy Holidays, or
>>whatever it is that gives Christians their warm fuzzy
>>"I'm a martyr" feeling.
>
> No martyr feeling for me - I view it as a challenge (unless I think
> the man or woman can whip me).
>>
>>PPS We did notice your almost complete avoidance of
>>any comment on those words in Matthew 6!
>
> I referred to it as confrontation. If you say prayer can't be led by
> teachers then non-teachers do it. Pure "stick it".
No, it it the public display of being more holier than others that Jesus
objected to. I see prayer at footy games as exactly that.
> Hugh
Happy New Year to all here at r.s.i.
Brian.
--
Brian Salter-Duke Melbourne, Australia
My real address is b_duke(AT)bigpond(DOT)net(DOT)au
Use this for reply or followup
Scouting: Tolerant, Pluralistic and Open to all young people.
Steve Hansen
> Oh I see, so they're praying in order
> to be noticed? And the more that are
> watching the bigger the display of
> praying they put on?
as practiced in the US and around the world.
Weekly church meetings and associated activities provide a social
framework that is useful and helpful to a lot of people. This is
independent
of any actual "belief". The leaders of any such organized activity are,
well, the leaders. They get the social, and usually financial, benefits
that go with being leaders in that organization. It is natural for them
to want to increase their influence and wealth by increasing the scope
of their church to include other activities.
Steve
J. Hugh Sullivan
But, in this country Christianity is dominant. Lots of us get very
unChristian when that dominance is challenged.
Blacks have always been more visibly observant of their Christianity.
And most of the athletes are now blacks. They are just "doing their
thing". Whites copied blacks with backward baseball caps, earrings and
butt-showing pants - visible religion is just getting in step.
But I prefer to think of it as confrontation even though that is not
very Christian.
Hugh
J. Hugh Sullivan
This is probably more true of the TV evangelists than local preachers
and priests. Locals rarely have Rolexes.
Hugh
do...@open.nul
What is pathetic is that for exhibitionist trailer trash without a
life who must act out and make everyone watch them, a football game is
the biggest event of which they will ever be a part. And like most
people, they then try to turn that Great Event into Everything for
Everyone and ram it down everybody's throats.
It is as stupid to pray for a game as it is to expect Jesus to bless
your dice when you go gambling in Vegas. It isn't a life and death
thing...it's JUST A GAME...someone wins...someone loses...nothing
more. Just like the Cowboys were never God's Team.
I guess when you play football without your helmet, you hear Jesus a
lot.
J. Hugh Sullivan
>On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:27:32 GMT, Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh
>Sullivan) wrote:
>
>>Seems to me the atheist movement is beginning to create a backlash.
>>
>>I'm a big college football fan and it's nice to see how often both
>>teams now gather in the center of the field after the game for prayer.
>>The practice has grown exponentially in the last couple of years.
>>
>>Last night, after the second biggest game of the season, the Texas
>>coach and three players spoke individually and each gave credit to God
>>and/or their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
>>
>>If Florida beats Oklahoma for the National Championship, listen to
>>Tebow give thanks.
>>
>>With the prominent place athletes have in our society the open
>>expression of religion will have a tremendous effect on young people -
>>thank God.
>>
>>Hugh
>
>What is pathetic is that for exhibitionist trailer trash without a
>life who must act out and make everyone watch them, a football game is
>the biggest event of which they will ever be a part. And like most
>people, they then try to turn that Great Event into Everything for
>Everyone and ram it down everybody's throats.
This is my one response to a two-bit piss ant who must post under an
alias because he is ashamed of his own name.
I'll look you up if I ever am reduced to sitting in the cheap seats,
boy.
Hugh
Brian Salter-Duke
It is not just "not very Christian". It is totally contrary to the
gospels that you guys believe in.
It seems that atheists like Chimp, Emma iand I understand the gospels
very much better than you do. That does not surprise me.
> Hugh
J. Hugh Sullivan
<b_d...@bigpond.com.au> wrote:
Even the Bible does not say what to do after you have turned both
cheeks and you still feel threatened.
Hugh
Emma Pease
> On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 21:31:51 GMT, Brian Salter-Duke
>>It seems that atheists like Chimp, Emma iand I understand the gospels
>>very much better than you do. That does not surprise me.
>>
>>> Hugh
>
> Even the Bible does not say what to do after you have turned both
> cheeks and you still feel threatened.
According to the Bible Jesus was struck on both cheeks (and a lot more)
before dying on the cross. Given that he could supposedly work miracles
(being God and even prophets could call upon some protection[1]), he
deliberately chose not to resist even physically. Should Christians not
follow his example? Or that of Stephen who said "Lord, lay not this sin
to their charge" instead of resisting even as the mob stoned him to death?
(Acts 7).
On the other hand I see no problem with an individual acting as an
individual and not as an agent of the state wearing something indicating
their belief (or lack thereof). I'm sure Hugh would be perfectly happy
with a Wiccan football player wearing a visible pentacle (though he might
prefer one who believes in sacrificing a lamb and inviting Hugh and his
family to the barbecue).
Emma
[1] In the Old Testament one prophet teased as being bald by a
group of kids called down a few bears to tear them to pieces. Should
Jesus have chosen this route instead?
do...@open.nul
Sullivan) wrote:
>On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 10:25:16 -0600, do...@open.nul wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:27:32 GMT, Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh
>>Sullivan) wrote:
>>
>>>Seems to me the atheist movement is beginning to create a backlash.
>>>
>>>I'm a big college football fan and it's nice to see how often both
>>>teams now gather in the center of the field after the game for prayer.
>>>The practice has grown exponentially in the last couple of years.
>>>
>>>Last night, after the second biggest game of the season, the Texas
>>>coach and three players spoke individually and each gave credit to God
>>>and/or their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
>>>
>>>If Florida beats Oklahoma for the National Championship, listen to
>>>Tebow give thanks.
>>>
>>>With the prominent place athletes have in our society the open
>>>expression of religion will have a tremendous effect on young people -
>>>thank God.
>>>
>>>Hugh
>>
>>What is pathetic is that for exhibitionist trailer trash without a
>>life who must act out and make everyone watch them, a football game is
>>the biggest event of which they will ever be a part. And like most
>>people, they then try to turn that Great Event into Everything for
>>Everyone and ram it down everybody's throats.
[Restoring what convicted Hugh of his own stupidity and made him mad]
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
>
>It is as stupid to pray for a game as it is to expect Jesus to bless
>your dice when you go gambling in Vegas. It isn't a life and death
>thing...it's JUST A GAME...someone wins...someone loses...nothing
>more. Just like the Cowboys were never God's Team.
>
>I guess when you play football without your helmet, you hear Jesus a
>lot.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
[Restoring what convicted Hugh of his own stupidity and made him mad]
>
>This is my one response to a two-bit piss ant who must post under an
>alias because he is ashamed of his own name.
>
>I'll look you up if I ever am reduced to sitting in the cheap seats,
>boy.
>
>Hugh
Fools like Hugh are easily angered by the truth. But like a typical
Scouter, he just talks louder and tries to drown out reason with BS.
do...@open.nul
Go ahead Hugh, put God to the test. You show him, girl.
J. Hugh Sullivan
<er_p...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 2009-01-09, J. Hugh Sullivan <Ea...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 21:31:51 GMT, Brian Salter-Duke
>...
>>>It seems that atheists like Chimp, Emma iand I understand the gospels
>>>very much better than you do. That does not surprise me.
>>>
>>>> Hugh
>>
>> Even the Bible does not say what to do after you have turned both
>> cheeks and you still feel threatened.
>
>According to the Bible Jesus was struck on both cheeks (and a lot more)
>before dying on the cross. Given that he could supposedly work miracles
>(being God and even prophets could call upon some protection[1]), he
>deliberately chose not to resist even physically. Should Christians not
>follow his example? Or that of Stephen who said "Lord, lay not this sin
>to their charge" instead of resisting even as the mob stoned him to death?
>(Acts 7).
>
>On the other hand I see no problem with an individual acting as an
>individual and not as an agent of the state wearing something indicating
>their belief (or lack thereof). I'm sure Hugh would be perfectly happy
>with a Wiccan football player wearing a visible pentacle (though he might
>prefer one who believes in sacrificing a lamb and inviting Hugh and his
>family to the barbecue).
>
>Emma
I am usually a creature of habit; under normal circumstances I am very
predictable. But, in unusual circumstances I can act very much out of
character.
I know me so I am not threatened by atheism. But a number of
Christians are. I hope I never feel threatened because I could act
very irresponsibly - I have before in my younger days.
I think weaker people feel threatened. I'm, right or wrong, more
inclined to think anyone who doesn't agree with me is a few French
fries short of a Happy Meal.
Hugh
Stan
> Fools like Hugh are easily angered by the truth. But like a typical
> Scouter, he just talks louder and tries to drown out reason with BS
The fact remains that God is an integral part of our American culture
and heritage. If anybody saw the swearing-in of the new Senate on
Tuesday, the oath to which the Senators had to simply reply "I do" or
"I will" ended with "So help you God"; just another example that goes
along with "In God We Trust", "One Nation under God", and "Known but
to God".
Because of this, there is nothing wrong, improper, or discriminatory
in expecting an American boy to include his Duty to God in his own
personal code of conduct, because nothing more is being asked of him
than what is already established in U.S. Law.
As has previously been established, where Hugh and I disagree is
whether there should be active verification of how a boy does his Duty
to God. I feel that passive verification (i.e., he properly recites
the Scout Oath, Scout Law, and Pledge of Allegiance, and does nothing
openly in violation of them) is sufficient to establish compliance
within BSA, and in fact feel that active verification could result in
a violation of one of our most precious freedoms, the Freedom of
Religion.
Furthermore, I feel that only passive verification gives those opposed
to the BSA Code of Conduct everything that they could reasonably ever
hope for because as long as the boy isn't asked when's the last time
he prayed to God or attended a religious service, his Freedom of
Religion is being respected and protected; therefore, there is no
problem.
Chimp
>
> The fact remains that God is an integral part of our American culture
> and heritage. If anybody saw the swearing-in of the new Senate on
> Tuesday, the oath to which the Senators had to simply reply "I do" or
Sheesh Stan, you're not still spouting this garbage
are you? The SHMG is entirely optional, as it is for
witnesses in court or for any public office under the
constitution. (See Article 6, see Torcaso v Watkins.)
This is a basic principle called religious freedom, that
belief in God is *optional* and that the state cannot
require anyone to swear fealty to gods they don't believe in.
> Because of this, there is nothing wrong, improper,
> or discriminatory in expecting an American boy to
> include his Duty to God in his own personal code of conduct.
Of course it is discriminatory! It discriminates against
those who lack belief in God. That's why SHMG oaths,
etc, are *optional*. If things like that are not optional
they are religious discrimination. I mean duh!
Stan, can the state penalize boys for refusing to swear
fealty to gods they don't believe in, such as by exclusion
from taxpayer-funded programs?
Chimp
Chimp
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 Chimp
>
>> who objects to "Merry Christmas" or who doesn't celebrate
>> Christmas in the usual way like everyone else (with the
>> possible exception of church attendance, though some
>
> That is most surprising. They have objected so much that
> almost all commecial enterprises say Happy Holidays now.
It's not surprising, it's the truth! Atheists do NOT object
to "Merry Christmas"! I have been an atheist activist
for two decades now; I know what atheists object to, and
I've never heard complaints about "Merry Christmas" or
about people celebrating Christmas!
You are falling victim to propoganda Hugh! The "war on
Christmas" is a myth invented by the religious right, so that
they can feel all those warm, fuzzy "I'm being oppressed"
feelings the religious right like so much! And you are
credulously buying into it.
Businesses started using "Happy Holidays" (which is
actually decades old) because they were trying to extend
the commerical season over more holidays (Jewish, etc)
in order to sell more by extending the holiday season.
It certainly was not at the request of atheists! Or, maybe,
wait, is there an ironic backfiring of propogranda here?
Maybe, after the religious right invented their War on
Christmas myth, they were so successful that
businesses believed it was real, and so thought "well
we'd better be inclusive ...". That possibility is so
delicious don't you think Hugh? Hope it's true!
It's still a fact that atheists don't object to Christmas
or Merry Christmas and celebrate (the long-established
pagan/secular festival of) Christmas just like everyone
else (but omitting the midnight mass).
Chimp
Brian Salter-Duke
Stan has switched his record player on again. Please ignore him. It is
off topic as usual.
Chimp
> On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 Stan <stanle...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Stan has switched his record player on again. Please ignore him. It is
> off topic as usual.
It's OK, I'll be disrespectful to his mother again, so he'll go off
in
a huff again. It worked last time!
Chimp
Stan
If the way you need to prove your point is to go after the dead, it
shows what kind of person you are.
Stan
> On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 11:45:15 -0800 (PST), Stan
> > Furthermore, I feel that only passive verification gives those opposed
> > to the BSA Code of Conduct everything that they could reasonably ever
> > hope for because as long as the boy isn't asked when's the last time
> > he prayed to God or attended a religious service, his Freedom of
> > Religion is being respected and protected; therefore, there is no
> > problem.
>
> Stan has switched his record player on again. Please ignore him. It is
> off topic as usual.
I didn't realize that discussions of the BSA policy toward God was off
topic for rec.scouting.issues. When did what happen?
Stan
> On 10 Jan, 19:45, Stan <stanle...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The fact remains that God is an integral part of our American culture
> > and heritage. If anybody saw the swearing-in of the new Senate on
> > Tuesday, the oath to which the Senators had to simply reply "I do" or
> > "I will" ended with "So help you God" [...]
>
> Sheesh Stan, you're not still spouting this garbage
> are you? The SHMG is entirely optional, as it is for
> witnesses in court or for any public office under the
> constitution. (See Article 6, see Torcaso v Watkins.)
>
> This is a basic principle called religious freedom, that
> belief in God is *optional* and that the state cannot
> require anyone to swear fealty to gods they don't believe in.
So don't believe; I don't care. In fact, I am such a strong supporter
of religious freedom that I don't want to know what a person's
religion is or isn't, and this is to ensure the protection of
religious freedom.
> > Because of this, there is nothing wrong, improper,
> > or discriminatory in expecting an American boy to
> > include his Duty to God in his own personal code of conduct.
>
> Of course it is discriminatory! It discriminates against
> those who lack belief in God. That's why SHMG oaths,
> etc, are *optional*. If things like that are not optional
> they are religious discrimination. I mean duh!
There is nothing that BSA expects that's inconsistent with our
nation's values and heritage. Duty to God is no different from the
principles In God We Trust and One Nation under God that's part of US
law.
> Stan, can the state penalize boys for refusing to swear
> fealty to gods they don't believe in, such as by exclusion
> from taxpayer-funded programs?
I don't see where BSA is a taxpayer-funded program, so as with a lot
of things you post, this point too is irrelevent.
Emma Pease
> It's still a fact that atheists don't object to Christmas
> or Merry Christmas and celebrate (the long-established
> pagan/secular festival of) Christmas just like everyone
> else (but omitting the midnight mass).
Actually many atheists of Jewish or other non-Christian background
probably don't celebrate Christmas though they might use it as an excuse
for a family get-together.
Emma
ps. I nearly attended a midnight mass on Christmas Eve this year; I was
invited by a Jewish member of the choir.
Chimp
> On Jan 10, Chimp <pan_paniscus1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> > This is a basic principle called religious freedom, that
> > belief in God is *optional* and that the state cannot
> > require anyone to swear fealty to gods they don't believe in.
>
> So don't believe; I don't care. In fact, I am such a strong supporter
You don't even know what religious freedom means. Does
it include the right to refuse to swear featly to gods one
doesn't believe in, without being penalised for it, such
as by exclusion from taxpayer funded programs?
>> Of course it is discriminatory! It discriminates against
>> those who lack belief in God. That's why SHMG oaths,
>> etc, are *optional*. If things like that are not optional
>> they are religious discrimination. I mean duh!
>
> There is nothing that BSA expects that's inconsistent with our
> nation's values and heritage. Duty to God is no different from the
> principles In God We Trust and One Nation under God that's part of US
> law.
They are *optional*, idiot! That's also in the law, indeed
in the constitution. Those who wish to acknowledge gods
may do so, but no American is obliged to believe in gods
or to acknowledge them, nor are they obliged to acknowledge
gods that others believe in (thankfully for you Jews!). Isn't
religious freedom great!
>> Stan, can the state penalize boys for refusing to swear
>> fealty to gods they don't believe in, such as by exclusion
>> from taxpayer-funded programs?
>
> I don't see where BSA is a taxpayer-funded program, so
> as with a lot of things you post, this point too is irrelevent.
It is becoming less taxpayer funded precisely because of
BSA's religious discrimination, which has led to the ending
of public-school charters and similar taxpayer funding
(e.g. large chunks of a public park for popcorn rent;
buildings in Philadelphia for popcorn rent, etc).
But if you agree that BSA isn't and shouldn't be taxpayer
funded, please will you stop whining when this rule is
enforced?
Chimp
Brian Salter-Duke
The topic under the current subject was about prayer after football
games. Your post was not relevent to that, as well as being a repeat of
something you post at least every three months.
J. Hugh Sullivan
Most interesting. I'll think on it.
Hugh
J. Hugh Sullivan
<er_p...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 2009-01-10, Chimp <pan_pani...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> It's still a fact that atheists don't object to Christmas
>> or Merry Christmas and celebrate (the long-established
>> pagan/secular festival of) Christmas just like everyone
>> else (but omitting the midnight mass).
>
>Actually many atheists of Jewish or other non-Christian background
>probably don't celebrate Christmas though they might use it as an excuse
>for a family get-together.
>
>Emma
>
>ps. I nearly attended a midnight mass on Christmas Eve this year; I was
>invited by a Jewish member of the choir.
Why didn't you? I've attended services at most religions - several at
a Jewish Temple. In fact a Jewish friend died Friday (lives just
around the corner next door to my son) and we will probably visit
after the other son leaves for the airport.
I had 3 friends die Thursday and Friday.
Hugh
Stan
> around the corner next door to my son) and we will probably visit
> after the other son leaves for the airport.
>
> I had 3 friends die Thursday and Friday.
My condolences on your loss.
Incidentally, when paying a shiva call to the Jewish family, before
leaving it's customary to say to the mourners, Ha'makom yinahchem
etchem bitoch shi'ar avalee, tziyon virushalayim (the ch is a gutteral
like a German sound, and not choo-choo, the "a" is ah), "May God
comfort you together with all the other mourners of Zion and
Jerusalem."
Emma Pease
I was already attending a 9pm non-denominational Christian service where I
knew several other people. I was tempted to attend both, but, I was a
bit worried doing it on my own (my friend would have been busy singing or
preparing to sing).
I've certainly attended many services over time including Jewish.
> I had 3 friends die Thursday and Friday.
I am sorry to hear this. There is little I can do except to say I will be
thinking of you and hope that you, their other friends, and their families
will be able to find some comfort.
Emma
Stan
> > I didn't realize that discussions of the BSA policy toward God was off
> > topic for rec.scouting.issues. When did what happen?
>
> The topic under the current subject was about prayer after football
> games. Your post was not relevent to that, as well as being a repeat of
> something you post at least every three months.
So now you're the moderator? I notice that in the past when I made it
clear that WE were finished, as everything had been said and that I
was merely getting in the last word in response to an anti-BSA post
that started the thread, you didn't feel that you were one of the we.
> Scouting: Tolerant, Pluralistic and Open to all young people.
And I feel that BSA meets the above criteria. I don't see anything
that BSA expects that's discriminatory or that doesn't conform to
established American values, culture, and heritage.
Emma Pease
Be also aware that the Puritans, staunch Christians all, who founded
Massachusetts were, as far as I know, the only entity to legally ban
Christmas in what is now the US. In England when the Puritans ruled in
the 1650s they also banned it and suggested if people felt they must honor
it, it should be with a fast and not a feast.
Stan
> On 11 Jan, Stan <stanle...@hotmail.com> wrote:
.
>
> > So don't believe; I don't care. In fact, I am such a strong supporter
> > of religious freedom that [...]
>
> You don't even know what religious freedom means. Does
> it include the right to refuse to swear featly to gods one
> doesn't believe in, without being penalised for it, such
> as by exclusion from taxpayer funded programs?
I don't ask anything of any boy that isn't already an established part
of our American culture, value, and heritage, nor do I inquire into
his religious beliefs or his definition of God. That is FULL RESPECT
of religious freedom.
> > There is nothing that BSA expects that's inconsistent with our
> > nation's values and heritage. Duty to God is no different from the
> > principles In God We Trust and One Nation under God that's part of US
> > law.
>
> They are *optional*, idiot!
As is BSA membership, bigot.
> That's also in the law, indeed
> in the constitution. Those who wish to acknowledge gods
> may do so, but no American is obliged to believe in gods
> or to acknowledge them, nor are they obliged to acknowledge
> gods that others believe in (thankfully for you Jews!). Isn't
> religious freedom great!
Fine. Have I ever said anything negative about atheism? Have I ever
even implied penalties in the next world for you because of your lack
of belief? Do I even care what your religion is or isn't?
> > I don't see where BSA is a taxpayer-funded program, so
> > as with a lot of things you post, this point too is irrelevent.
>
> It is becoming less taxpayer funded precisely because of
> BSA's religious discrimination, which has led to the ending
> of public-school charters and similar taxpayer funding
> (e.g. large chunks of a public park for popcorn rent;
> buildings in Philadelphia for popcorn rent, etc).
>
> But if you agree that BSA isn't and shouldn't be taxpayer
> funded, please will you stop whining when this rule is
> enforced?
Will you stop whining since it's perfectly clear that BSA expects
nothing more than what's already an integral part of established
American culture, values, and heritage?
Chimp
>
> > You don't even know what religious freedom means. Does
> > it include the right to refuse to swear featly to gods one
> > doesn't believe in, without being penalised for it, such
> > as by exclusion from taxpayer funded programs?
>
> I don't ask anything of any boy that isn't already an established part
> of our American culture, value, and heritage, nor do I inquire into
> his religious beliefs or his definition of God. That is FULL RESPECT
> of religious freedom.
Wrong Stan, because what is established in American
values is that these religious ideas are present but
*optional*. And you do not respect that.
>>> There is nothing that BSA expects that's inconsistent with our
>>> nation's values and heritage. Duty to God is no different from the
>>> principles In God We Trust and One Nation under God that's part of US
>>> law.
>
>> They are *optional*, idiot!
>
> As is BSA membership, bigot.
But, idiot, we are not arguing about BSA itself, we're
arguing about whether it can be taxpayer subsidized
while *requiring* religious acknowlegments that
American culture says are *optional*.
And the reason I'm being called a bigot by you, Stan,
is that I uphold the principle that access to taxpayer
funded programs cannot be dependent on religious
tests. Do you really want to call someone a bigot
for that?
>> That's also in the law, indeed
>> in the constitution. Those who wish to acknowledge gods
>> may do so, but no American is obliged to believe in gods
>> or to acknowledge them, nor are they obliged to acknowledge
>> gods that others believe in (thankfully for you Jews!). Isn't
>> religious freedom great!
>
> Fine. Have I ever said anything negative about atheism?
Yep, often. By the way, if you're *not* being negative
about atheism, for example saying we cannot be good
citizens, then you're not eligible to be a BSA leader
(see the DRP!).
> Have I ever even implied penalties in the next world for you
> because of your lack of belief?
Not that I'm aware, I'll give you that. But you do want
to punish us in this world, don't you?, by exclusion
from taxpayer subsidized programs.
> Do I even care what your religion is or isn't?
Yes, you care a lot; otherwise you would not make
such a big issue over whether we acknowledge
your god.
>> But if you agree that BSA isn't and shouldn't be taxpayer
>> funded, please will you stop whining when this rule is
>> enforced?
>
> Will you stop whining since it's perfectly clear that BSA expects
> nothing more than what's already an integral part of established
> American culture, values, and heritage?
The BSA has turned an *optional* part of culture
into a compulsory one, and in so doing have
instituted religious discrimination.
Chimp
Stan
> On 11 Jan, Stan <stanle...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't ask anything of any boy that isn't already an established part
> > of our American culture, value, and heritage, nor do I inquire into
> > his religious beliefs or his definition of God. That is FULL RESPECT
> > of religious freedom.
>
> Wrong Stan, because what is established in American
> values is that these religious ideas are present but
> *optional*. And you do not respect that.
And AGAIN, so is BSA membership.
> >> They are *optional*, idiot!
>
> > As is BSA membership, bigot.
>
> But, idiot, we are not arguing about BSA itself, we're
> arguing about whether it can be taxpayer subsidized
> while *requiring* religious acknowlegments that
> American culture says are *optional*.
I'm not arguing about taxpayer subsidies, so you must be arguing with
yourself.
> And the reason I'm being called a bigot by you, Stan,
> is that I uphold the principle that access to taxpayer
> funded programs cannot be dependent on religious
> tests. Do you really want to call someone a bigot
> for that?
You're a bigot for supporting those who take children into court over
this issue, because you're more concerned about your own agenda than
what is in the best interests of the children.
> > Fine. Have I ever said anything negative about atheism?
>
> Yep, often. By the way, if you're *not* being negative
> about atheism, for example saying we cannot be good
> citizens, then you're not eligible to be a BSA leader
> (see the DRP!).
My support of a membership policy which requires American boys to
include themselves in an existing national value says absolutely
nothing about those who choose not to.
We are One Nation under God that In God We Trust, whose Unknown
Soldiers are Known but to God, and whose elected official invoke God's
help in doing their jobs. There is nothing wrong with a patriotic
organization's expecting its members to include themselves in these
values, which is the issue here.
Furthermore, as long as there is no explicit check of compliance,
religious freedom is maintained and respected.
> > Have I ever even implied penalties in the next world for you
> > because of your lack of belief?
>
> Not that I'm aware, I'll give you that. But you do want
> to punish us in this world, don't you?, by exclusion
> from taxpayer subsidized programs.
Let's not go through this again, or I'll again bring up the klutz who
is defined participation in the school's football team.
> > Do I even care what your religion is or isn't?
>
> Yes, you care a lot; otherwise you would not make
> such a big issue over whether we acknowledge
> your god.
The existence of God is an established national value, and is an
integral part of our culture, so as far as I'm concerned, you're
creating a problem that doesn't exist.
> > Will you stop whining since it's perfectly clear that BSA expects
> > nothing more than what's already an integral part of established
> > American culture, values, and heritage?
>
> The BSA has turned an *optional* part of culture
> into a compulsory one, and in so doing have
> instituted religious discrimination.
As long as nothing more is asked of the boy than to recite a patriotic
pledge that's U.S. law and agree to do his best to personally adhere
to a code of conduct consistent with that patriotic pledge, there is
no discrimination.
Chimp
>
>>> As is BSA membership, bigot.
>
>> But, idiot, we are not arguing about BSA itself, we're
>> arguing about whether it can be taxpayer subsidized
>> while *requiring* religious acknowlegments that
>> American culture says are *optional*.
>
> I'm not arguing about taxpayer subsidies, so you must be
> arguing with yourself.
So you're not arguing about taxpayer subsidies
(despite your incessant whining whenever they're
withdrawn)?, well let's see ...
>> And the reason I'm being called a bigot by you, Stan,
>> is that I uphold the principle that access to taxpayer
>> funded programs cannot be dependent on religious
>> tests. Do you really want to call someone a bigot
>> for that?
>
> You're a bigot for supporting those who take children into
> court over this issue, [...]
Oh, so you *are* arguing about taxpayer subsidies!
You've just contradicted yourself. You think BSA
should get subsidies, and that court action to prevent
them is wrong.
> because you're more concerned about your own agenda
> than what is in the best interests of the children.
<Yawn> It takes two sides to have an agenda clash;
just make god-acknowleging optional and you can
have all the taxpayer subsidy you want -- or does
that not fit with you agenda, which you place above
the best interests of children?
>>> Fine. Have I ever said anything negative about atheism?
>
>> Yep, often. By the way, if you're *not* being negative
>> about atheism, for example saying we cannot be good
>> citizens, then you're not eligible to be a BSA leader
>> (see the DRP!).
>
> My support of a membership policy which requires American boys to
> include themselves in an existing national value says absolutely
> nothing about those who choose not to.
Wrong. By assenting to the idea that god-belief is
necessary for good citizenship (see the DRP!) you
say that non-believers are not good citizens.
>> But you do want to punish us in this world,
>> don't you?, by exclusion from taxpayer
>> subsidized programs.
>
> Let's not go through this again, or I'll again bring up the
> klutz who is defined participation in the school's football
> team.
Bring it up again if you wish, and I'll patiently explain
*once AGAIN* that the constitution *forbids*
discrimination over religion but *allows* discrimination
over sporting ability or academic ability or all sorts
of other things.
Are you really so retarted that you *still* have
not grasped that point, after *repeated* explanations?
Stan, I've met jellyfish that are more intelligent than
you. I really can't be bothered with your retarded
drivel. You are simply too stupid and incorrigible
to argue with. So please feel free to join your dead
mother in whatever Jewish hell you choose to believe in.
She is rotting in hell I take it?, afterall she has a lot
to atone for, having inflicted you on the world.
Chimp
Stan
> Stan, I've met jellyfish that are more intelligent than
> you. I really can't be bothered with your retarded
> drivel. You are simply too stupid and incorrigible
> to argue with. So please feel free to join your dead
> mother in whatever Jewish hell you choose to believe in.
> She is rotting in hell I take it?, afterall she has a lot
> to atone for, having inflicted you on the world.
There is a tongue-in-cheek saying that no good deed goes unpunished,
and Chimp's reply is a perfect example. I go out of my way to make
sure that a boy's religion or lack thereof never becomes an issue, and
I will take on anybody who tries to make it an issue, and nonetheless,
I'm chastised from the very kind of person whom I go out of my way to
help.
I guess there are those who simply can't appreciate being given
everything they ask for.
Chimp
> boy's religion or lack thereof never becomes
> an issue,
Lying bigot -- you insist that they have to
acknowledge and swear fealty to your god.
You really have not the slightest clue about
religious freedom if you think that having to
swear fealty to gods you don't believe in is
religious freedom.
> I guess there are those who simply can't
> appreciate being given everything they ask for.
You retarded, dishonest lying bigot. You have
been told DOZENS of times that we do not
want to swear fealty to gods we don't believe
in -- just like Jews do not want to swear fealty
to gods they don't believe in. But you don't
offer us that, do you??, you morally defective
bigot -- you do not offer us what you would
insist on for yourself, and that makes you
a hypocrite and bigot by the standards of
your *own* *religion*.
What did your mother think on the day
you were born Stan? Was it "that's funny,
I usually produce shits from my arsehole,
not from my cunt"?
Chimp
J. Hugh Sullivan
wrote:
>> In fact a Jewish friend died Friday (lives just
I'll try to remember that. I said "Schma Israel, Adonai Elohanu,
Adonai Echod". And I pronounced "echod" correctly.
A close friend has his PhD in Theology and taught Biblical Hebrew and
Greek in College. I'll get the pronunciation of you phrase from him.
Thanks.
We spoke of religion several times and I learned a lot about Judaism
from him.
Hugh
J. Hugh Sullivan
<er_p...@yahoo.com> wrote:
At the expense of readers I'll say a few words.
The first was a friend for about 75 years - an Episcopal Priest who
lived in LA. He was a high school classmate, we joined the Navy and
went to boot camp together. Every time I left town I called him and
his wife on the cell phone - his wife is also a classmate.
The Jewish friend was elderly and lived next door to my son. My son
and his family helped the family often. When Ike blew a couple of
trees down in their yard my son and grandson cut them up and took the
pieces to the curb. They took food over occasioanlly.
The third was a very close friend. He was born in MS also and we
worked for the same company - he for 40 years, me for 35. We were
Bridge opponents for years - once a month. The other two players are
deceased also. We each had two boys in the same Scout troop. His
second son and my two boys went with me to Philmont in 1976. That son
and my second son are UK grads and were in the same college
fraternity. Since graduation they meet each year in SC, FL, TX, NY,
Mexico - whereever they want to play golf. My son flew in for the
funeral and we were both pallbearers. There were at least 6 Eagle
Scouts at the funeral.
About 2 weeks before he died he called. He said his wife had fallen
and hurt her back several days before but was recovering. They really
wanted som chili from a place across town and wondered if I would
bring them some. About 25 years ago, during an ice and snow storm, he
called and said his son was driving back from WV - he was leery about
driving the last 35 miles on the roads. He wondered if I would go down
and get him. So, with one of my sons, I picked him up in my Blazer and
we made the trip - no problem.
I don't know how others feel but the above reminds me of my mortality
- something I have never really thought about. It has just seemed like
this would go on forever.
If anyone read this far - thanks.
Hugh
J. Hugh Sullivan
I'm not much of a history buff. What others did (or do) is not much of
a clue for me. I understand the commercial and the religious parts of
Christmas. It's a good reason to pause our busy lives and get as much
of the family together as possible.
For some reason I rarely bless a meal. Both sons bless every meal
regardless of where they are. My wife and their wives do, too. I'm
pleased they remind me. Even so, I am often asked to say the prayer at
meetings.
The d-i-l who lives here insisted that I buy a new suit for the
funeral - in a town 40 miles away. She would go with me and didn't get
off work until 1830. That was a great trip - the two of us seldom have
time together. Everybody but me realized she was the only personality
strong enough to tell me what I needed to do and get away with it. I
think I'm a pushover.
Hopefully by now I have gotten all the non-scout issues out of my
system.
Hugh
Stan
> You retarded, dishonest lying bigot. You have
> been told DOZENS of times that we do not
> want to swear fealty to gods we don't believe
> in -- just like Jews do not want to swear fealty
> to gods they don't believe in. But you don't
> offer us that, do you??, you morally defective
> bigot -- you do not offer us what you would
> insist on for yourself, and that makes you
> a hypocrite and bigot by the standards of
> your *own* *religion*.
I stand by my assertion that I ask nothing more of the boys than what
already exists as part of our national values, culture, and heritage,
so I'm not forcing anybody to acknowledge anything than doesn't
already legally exist. Furthermore, I stand by my assertion that by
not inquiring into how a boy does his Duty to God, I fully protect
religious freedom.
> What did your mother think on the day
> you were born Stan? Was it "that's funny,
> I usually produce shits from my arsehole,
> not from my cunt"?
The above, and your prior comments about my recently deceased mother
(for whom I'm currently reciting the Mourners' Kaddish in my
synagogue) clearly shows what kind of person you are.
WE (and that means both of us) are done with this discussion, Chimp,
and YOU are the one who closed it with remarks like these.
Chimp
> On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 Emma Pease
I've deliberately left all of the above unsnipped. Perhaps the
consolation is that, from what you've said, they all lived long and
full lives. Best wishes Hugh.
Chimp
Chimp
> On Jan 12, Chimp wrote:
>
> I stand by my assertion that I ask nothing
> more of the boys than what already exists
> as part of our national values, culture, and heritage,
Look you retarded bigot, you violate religious
freedom by changing what is *optional*
into something *compulsory*. In American
values and law, religious attitudes and
observance are *optional*.
You cannot make access to taxpayer
funded programs condtional on fealty
to your god. And it is perfectly proper
-- indeed laudable -- to ask the courts
to uphold that important principle of
religious liberty.
> The above, and your prior comments about
> my recently deceased mother (for whom
> I'm currently reciting the Mourners' Kaddish
> in my synagogue)
Aww didums.
> WE (and that means both of us) are done
> with this discussion, Chimp, and YOU are
> the one who closed it with remarks like these.
That was indeed the intent of my remarks.
Chimp
J. Hugh Sullivan
<pan_pani...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I've deliberately left all of the above unsnipped. Perhaps the
>consolation is that, from what you've said, they all lived long and
>full lives. Best wishes Hugh.
>
> Chimp
Thanks, Chimp. We live, we die.
When you live to my age and older you begin to wonder where all your
friends went. I think every person I hired has retired from the
company except two and one is now the top dog.
Once you are the youngest in almost any group; suddenly you're in the
company coffee bar talking about something you did in WWII and noone
else was even born then. You don't notice transiting from the youngest
chair to the dinosaur - you're just suddenly there.
You quit talking about where to go on vacation and start talking about
living wills and burial plots. My wife wants me to write my obit and
the boys wonder how to have visitation here and 400 miles away the
next day. That talk used to be taboo around me but I'm beginning to
find it interesting since I am usually thoroughly prepared for most
things.
All three of my friends were ready to go - all in poor health. When I
told my wife I didn't want to live plugged into a machine being fed
liquids, she unplugged the computer and took away the wine. I hope I
never lose the humor.
Hugh
Emma Pease
> On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 07:54:24 -0800 (PST), Chimp
><pan_pani...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>I've deliberately left all of the above unsnipped. Perhaps the
>>consolation is that, from what you've said, they all lived long and
>>full lives. Best wishes Hugh.
>>
>> Chimp
>
> Thanks, Chimp. We live, we die.
>
> When you live to my age and older you begin to wonder where all your
> friends went. I think every person I hired has retired from the
> company except two and one is now the top dog.
> Once you are the youngest in almost any group; suddenly you're in the
> company coffee bar talking about something you did in WWII and noone
> else was even born then. You don't notice transiting from the youngest
> chair to the dinosaur - you're just suddenly there.
There are still a handful of WWI vets around.
> You quit talking about where to go on vacation and start talking about
> living wills and burial plots. My wife wants me to write my obit and
> the boys wonder how to have visitation here and 400 miles away the
> next day. That talk used to be taboo around me but I'm beginning to
> find it interesting since I am usually thoroughly prepared for most
> things.
Myself cremation and my ashes scattered. For my brother who died a bit
over a year ago we had a coastal redwood tree dedicated to his memory (the
money goes to preserving the coastal redwoods and he loved the outdoors).
It is in a grove away from the beaten track but which one can visit. My
grandmother, who died at home in her sleep with her daughters there, is
buried with my grandfather in the churchyard of the parish where she had
lived for 70 years. Her last duty done just before she died was to write
the thank-you notes to all the people who had helped out in the annual
village old folks Christmas dinner (she had organized and worked at the
dinner for decades even after she became one of the oldest folk present).
> All three of my friends were ready to go - all in poor health. When I
> told my wife I didn't want to live plugged into a machine being fed
> liquids, she unplugged the computer and took away the wine. I hope I
> never lose the humor.
You losing your sense of humor or your wife losing hers?
J. Hugh Sullivan
<er_p...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 2009-01-13, J. Hugh Sullivan <Ea...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 07:54:24 -0800 (PST), Chimp
>><pan_pani...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I've deliberately left all of the above unsnipped. Perhaps the
>>>consolation is that, from what you've said, they all lived long and
>>>full lives. Best wishes Hugh.
>>>
>>> Chimp
>>
>> Thanks, Chimp. We live, we die.
>>
>> When you live to my age and older you begin to wonder where all your
>> friends went. I think every person I hired has retired from the
>> company except two and one is now the top dog.
>
>> Once you are the youngest in almost any group; suddenly you're in the
>> company coffee bar talking about something you did in WWII and noone
>> else was even born then. You don't notice transiting from the youngest
>> chair to the dinosaur - you're just suddenly there.
>
>There are still a handful of WWI vets around.
The last number I saw was 10 worldwide - 2 in the US. There were 16+
mill in WWII - about 3.6 mil are still alive and about 1,000 are dying
per day. I joined when I was 17 during the last year of WWII so I am
one of the younger ones - one of the best moves I ever made.
>Myself cremation and my ashes scattered.
Don't you fear people not even knowing/remembering you were here and
that you made a difference?
I want them to say, "He really looks natural." and I want the largest
and nicest stone in our section of the cemetery. My paternal
grandparents have gleaming white stones, not large at all but, because
of the color, they are the first ones you really notice in their
small, rural cemetery.
>For my brother who died a bit
>over a year ago we had a coastal redwood tree dedicated to his memory (the
>money goes to preserving the coastal redwoods and he loved the outdoors).
>It is in a grove away from the beaten track but which one can visit. My
>grandmother, who died at home in her sleep with her daughters there, is
>buried with my grandfather in the churchyard of the parish where she had
>lived for 70 years. Her last duty done just before she died was to write
>the thank-you notes to all the people who had helped out in the annual
>village old folks Christmas dinner (she had organized and worked at the
>dinner for decades even after she became one of the oldest folk present).
>
>> All three of my friends were ready to go - all in poor health. When I
>> told my wife I didn't want to live plugged into a machine being fed
>> liquids, she unplugged the computer and took away the wine. I hope I
>> never lose the humor.
>
>You losing your sense of humor or your wife losing hers?
>
>Emma
That didn't really happen - I just made it up. I've meant to start
having wine with supper for years but I keep forgetting. The Crown
Royal bottle gets rusty between drinks.
As to laughs, my wife is the toughest audience I ever faced. If she
laughs the world is my stage.
Hugh
Emma Pease
If I'm to be remembered it should be deeds and not for where my body is.
I do show up in a few book and PhD thesis dedications.
Admittedly my family does have some strange ways of being remembered. An
aunt has a street named after her in her village in England (she was a
local councillor). A great grandfather has a street named after him in
Jerusalem. My grandfather help develope a chicken breed (though not named
after him) that still exists, Cream Legbars. It's rare but still
findable.
> I want them to say, "He really looks natural." and I want the largest
> and nicest stone in our section of the cemetery. My paternal
> grandparents have gleaming white stones, not large at all but, because
> of the color, they are the first ones you really notice in their
> small, rural cemetery.
When I was a girl scout I participated in an Eagle Scout project mapping
all the old graveyards in the town (about 20). Many of the inscriptions,
alas, had eroded into unreadability (admittedly some were 200 years old).
J. Hugh Sullivan
We average about 1 Eagle Project per year restoring cemeteries. It's
not the type project I like but everybody can't do one that earns a
key to the city.
One I did like was a white candidate restoring a cemetery at a poor
black church with mostly older blacks. It would not have been done
otherwise.
I have walked more than 50 cemeteries doing genealogy research and I
have never seen a stone with a death date before 1800 - probably not
before 1840 or so. There are lots of unmarked burials, small flat
rocks and many unreadable.
Hugh
Emma Pease
> Emma:
>>
>>When I was a girl scout I participated in an Eagle Scout project mapping
>>all the old graveyards in the town (about 20). Many of the inscriptions,
>>alas, had eroded into unreadability (admittedly some were 200 years old).
>>
>>Emma
>
> We average about 1 Eagle Project per year restoring cemeteries. It's
> not the type project I like but everybody can't do one that earns a
> key to the city.
>
> One I did like was a white candidate restoring a cemetery at a poor
> black church with mostly older blacks. It would not have been done
> otherwise.
>
> I have walked more than 50 cemeteries doing genealogy research and I
> have never seen a stone with a death date before 1800 - probably not
> before 1840 or so. There are lots of unmarked burials, small flat
> rocks and many unreadable.
Well this was in New Jersey so some of the graves may have dated back to
the late 1600's. This was more writing down all the names, dates,
inscriptions we could and where to create a reference. Most had been
family plots I suspect.