I'm not religious. The issue I have is the source of the material. It comes from an activist web site and the story (op Ed) is filled with inaccuracy and plenty of spin.
Mississippi School Forces Students To Listen To Christian Lecture, Teachers Block Exi
- Thread starter Sal
- Start date
I'm not religious. The issue I have is the source of the material. It comes from an activist web site and the story (op Ed) is filled with inaccuracy and plenty of spin.
Very hard to find any information that does not have a spin to it. I would like to see the video mentioned. I wonder if a link exists or is it locked as evidence?
Last edited:
If a school choses to bastardize the law, they will pay for it in court, because the law as it stand and has been discussed for about three years prior, is not at all what people make it.....it's about freedom of religion of your choice not from.
While I have no problems, with a school being taken to court for infringing on students rights, I find that a few people are quick to use an incident like that as an excuse for religion bashing and only a small step away from equating that to bomb building.
Someone already did....
Your position doesn't make any sense to me. You take issue with the source of the information? So you do not believe that students were prevented from hearing religious lectures because of the source of the website? You do not believe that the American Humanist Association launched a lawsuit because of this? You don't believe any of this just because of the source of the information?
That is simply not rational. Let me google a better source for you:
Let me google that for you
These things occurred. You can drag the thread down into the mud by attacking the source of the information if you really insist, it is your discretion. But you could also talk about the events which actually occurred.
Drag the thread down in the mud? Go back to my original post. Here is how I rationalize it. When I read in the news that an organization like THE WESTBORO BAPTIST CHURCH is picketing funerals or screaming how GOD HATES FAGS and it is not filled with spin and sensationalism I take that as credible. When I read a report by an organization that says things like: They've practically outlawed abortion and are forcing Christianity on everyone by creating open forums I consider that suspect.
I do not take my news cues from Bill OReilly, Rush Limbaugh, Randy Rhodes or Alex Jones, even though they may be editorializing on an actual news item. I also don't find it necessary to fact check on posts or threads that use such baffle gab as their source material.
I hope that clears it up for you.
Last edited:
No, it doesn't clear it up for me at all.
Every story has a spin, I honestly doubt you feel otherwise. So you hear a story, and obviously the writer has a particular view of the matter. Now, what actually happened? Did the story inform you about the events? Are there more questions to be asked? Did they post enough information in the story so that you can follow it up?
In this case, the article accurately portrayed the events as they occurred, accurately portrayed it as an attack on religious freedom (of non-christians), and then gave enough information that a normal individual could find out more if they were interested.
Yet instead of talking about these events, you are still attacking the credibility of the original article, even after I have provided you with a ton of alternatives. Let me give you another link: drag through the mud - definition of drag through the mud by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
My question is, why do this? You don't like the source? Post an alternative and discuss that. You don't think the events occurred? Post some evidence to back that up.
There is no spin in the sentence, "Students were forced to participate in a Christian Assembly and were prevented from leaving." It is true to say that this is against the establishment clause of the US constitution.
I do not have the time or the patience to do fact checking for people who want to use op eds or activist blogs as their source material. Normally I would have just given it a pass, but the blatant bullsh!t in the opening post was ridiculous. I would say it was akin to a CNN story that reported that a soldier was shot by sniper with an AK47, I felt inclined to comment on the credibility of the source in both cases.
I am not an editor or a fact checker for Can Con. Had there been a credible source to begin with I would have been inclined, but building something on a foundation of dung is never a good thing. It muddies the waters with sensationalism, half truths and idiocy.
Your attempt to steer it back into the waters of legitimacy is your decision, not mine. I did not start the thread.
Nice try.
But I am calling you out on this. You claim to lack the time or the patience to do fact checking, but I have done it for you. The facts check out. You have wasted more times attacking the op than it took me to find many alternate sources.
Now you are wasting time and effort defending your attacks on what turns out to be a credible story. So how can I believe you lack time or patience? It took me all of ten seconds to google alternates for you, and I generated a lmgtfy link to boot!
If you cannot handle hyperbole, I suggest you turn off your computer. People don't attack Fox news, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and so on for the hyperbole. They attack them for their irrational, unchecked support for things which have been proven false and the zeal with which they mislead people.
You haven't been misled by the op. You were just subject to what you believe to be over the top language. Credibility and exaggeration are two different things. One has to do with reality, the other is all perception.
No I'm not. You're wasting your time trying to convert me. All done here. Gotta grab a coffee and make kiss kiss with my lady. Ciao.
You're 'calling him out'? Really?
Question for you, only out of curiosity, why is he required to discuss this on your terms?
Is it any different than why someone can't throw up a news story for forum discussion without using quotes which was suggested I was to do. I was curious too as to why it was supposed to be "my" line of thinking which I was to defend...I just dismissed and moved on, but no difference really.
People post fox new stuff all the time and still the story is discussed not the source... bizarre to me but... not some place I wanted to go to yesterday.
If you are for all intents & purposes locked in a room where people are preaching religion then you are being forced. I would say there is possibly a few different lawsuits here. First there is unlawful confinement, second would be violation of fire codes and, of course, there are the constitutional and civil rights violations.
I wouldn 't be complaining, that is an erroneous conclusion not based on fact. And it may well be rubbish. You might want to read further than the first sentence or you might not.
Come off it. Most of these numpties who complain that Christians are giving lectures to schoolchildren, in a CHRISTIAN country, are usually those who wouldn't complain if it was a group of atheists doing the lectures.
And they bang on about how Christians giving lectures are "killing religious freedom" even though, surely, the whole point of religious freedom is to allow Christians and other religious groups to give such talks.
There are a certain type of people who hate other religious groups - Christians especially - from "brainwashing" children, yet they see no problem in atheists forcing their views onto people.
There's not much religious freedom going on when you deny mainly Christian schoolchildren the right to be given lectures by Christians.
But sometimes people will zero in on the fact that it comes from Fox therefore it can only be....blah, blah, blah. Or from CNN, or from the Star, or from the Sun. I've seen plenty of that.
I just found this particular exchange kind of odd for some reason, hence my curiosity. Whether it's what happened to you yesterday or this exchange today, I find the suggestion that anyone has to discuss things on anyone else's terms to be kind of bristling.
Ok, the tone of it just didn't come across that way. Which is why I found it kind of odd, it seemed like that's what you were implying.