River Valley Blogs

4000 A Month wrote on Mar 11, 2009 11:33 AM:

" It costs the state to keep someone locked up:more than half are in for drug related crimes.1.2 Billion as of January 8, 2009 has been allocated for over 8000 more beds in Wisconsin alone! Watch out you Gun Owners your probably gonna be next. "

To harsch wrote on Mar 20, 2008 9:29 PM:

" Now that was a good one. I'm really liking your humor lately!!! "

harsch wrote on Mar 18, 2008 4:24 PM:

" On a more serious note, Doctor, O'Bates makes the human phallus central to some of his doctrines, which is why it is only natural to question the problems he may be having with his own. He cares a great deal where male homosexuals put theirs' and so one must wonder why and how it relates to his own. So, yes, I am interested in his, and I do hope that when he fills out the back of his driving license he makes sure it is donated to science. "

harsch wrote on Mar 18, 2008 2:05 PM:

" I have always taken a keen interest in aberrations of nature. "

Phil O'Bates to freud wrote on Mar 18, 2008 12:32 PM:

" LOL !!!

I was thinking kind of the same thing....Why is Harsch intrested in my 'procreation machine'? "

harsch to freud wrote on Mar 18, 2008 9:47 AM:

" thanks for the careful reading. "

freud wrote on Mar 17, 2008 7:59 PM:

" My, my, my. Mr. Harsch has a strange intrest in Mr. O'Bates hips and "procreation machine." I sense some repressed homosexual aggression. "

Michael Welch: Come The Revolution "Welchy" Gets His Own Personal Library!?... wrote on Mar 17, 2008 2:44 PM:

" AH! Rick knows 'the real Welchy'! I'd love to spend ALL my days reading, thinking and writing: a paradisical utopian vision indeed!... "

harsch wrote on Mar 17, 2008 2:35 PM:

" Repeatedly! I bring up O'Bates' jab repeatedly, repeatedly, and so on, repeatedly... "

Come on, Michael wrote on Mar 17, 2008 2:07 PM:

" The person who posted stated he sees nothing wrong with using a public computer. The only reason it came up is Harsch is repeatedly accusing O'Bates of making an issue of your use of such, which clearly is not the case. So, you can thank your buddy Harsch that this ridiculousness has not been put to bed yet. "

Harsch: Welfare Welchy wrote on Mar 17, 2008 1:32 PM:

" I for one have decided to believe that Welchy is on welfare, the lazy swine. He spends taxpayer money to go to the library and read and learn stuff just to make the rest of us look stupid. We won't have it! We will refuse to respond to his most egregiously informed posts, and we will continue to harass him for not having a computer at work (Work, Welch? You know what that means?) or at home (what percentage of my tax dollar gives you a roof over your head and tamales to eat?) Please forward to Dear Abby from Fed UP. "

Michael Welch: All Right -- "Welchy" Is Forever A Topic! Okay I'm Resigned... wrote on Mar 17, 2008 12:51 PM:

" Can't we drop the library computer stuff? (No?) It was a passing remark I regret because it wastes so much time but I wasn't born yesterday; it's been twisted into this welfare fantasy stuff which is meant to annoy me. Since it does (if someone lies about one, you MAY get annoyed huh) it will continue; it has an incredible longevity that surpasses even that ever 'new' and always knee-slapping 'Sama'BamaMama joke. It's to bring 'Welchy' down a peg; that's its REAL purpose and maybe it succeeds... "

Re O'Bates "Jab" wrote on Mar 17, 2008 8:52 AM:

" I went back and read O'Bates post on the supposed jab about the public computer. Admittedly, others have taken jabs, but it really appears that was not what O'Bates was doing. It would be the same as if you asked someone "Doesn't your computer at home..." or "Doesn't your computer at work...". As an outsider looking in, Michael chose to share with everyone at one point in time that he uses a computer at the Public Library. I see nothing wrong with that, and I have seen the jabs taken by others. But, it appears O'Bates was calling Michael on the carpet for supposedly not being able to find a story, not for using a public computer. My two cents,for what its worth(maybe 2 cents) (: "

harsch: Welchy is Ignorant! wrote on Mar 17, 2008 5:04 AM:

" Welch is not a traitor, he's just stupid. Never mind that he's the only poster who has done real research on Obama and displayed it for us; ignore the fact that Obama has been shown NOT to have a Muslim sway (I don't actually know that dance, but I love Arabic music). Words speak louder than actions? Certanly, in a case like yours, where your words are dissembling chickens that return to your brain to roost. Here's a quote I found that fits you 'to a T': "Witness the moldering of the brain nestled in the security of cliches and dependence on the stale, inflexible redundancies of others." "

harsch wrote on Mar 16, 2008 5:22 PM:

" Words speak louder than actions in your case for sure, for you are a closet Nancy. You lie repeatedly, implicating but not directly accusing and then denying. You, sir, are afraid. There is no muslim sway but for your hips. All cultures are indeed equal, until economics rears its ugly head. Speaking of ugly heads, how long since your procreation machine has been active? "

To Harsch from Phil wrote on Mar 16, 2008 2:26 PM:

" I see you've failed back to false summarys. I didn't say Welch was a traitor. I said "To ignore his Muslim sway and to ignore that America is at war with Muslim terrorists is treasonous at worst, ignorant at best." I give Welch the benefit of the doubt that he is just being ignorant of the facts. BTW I ran across some liberal ideas that fit you to a 'T': "All cultures are equal. American Christian culture is less equal than others." "Words speak louder than actions." "Submission in the name of tolerance is not the same as cowardice." "An unpleasant fact can be dealt with by changing the words used to describe it." Then this one Mr. Wright epitomizes "No white person should be judged on the content of his character, rather the color of their skin." "

harsch: Welch is a Traitor! wrote on Mar 16, 2008 12:38 PM:

" O'Bates is losing it. First he denies belittling Welch by referring to his library computer, then he ignores all reasons for not using Obama's middle name and the fact that anyway the name is not Islamic, but Semitic. Then he calls Welch a traitor. This dolt is running scared, lies spittling out from between his trembly lips. This is an indication of the desperation of a minority of loons that is beginning to realize that America is indeed in for a change. I don't think 'swiftboat tactics' will work this time. "

Richard Cranium wrote on Mar 16, 2008 11:10 AM:

" To Michael: See what I mean about Obama? If he really was upset about the way Clinton was handling him, just wait until the Republicans like Phil O Bates get going. This is what our country has become. "

To Phil wrote on Mar 16, 2008 11:07 AM:

" You've got one mixed up mind if you think Obama is standing up for terrorists. And if that's you on the Kerry blog, I don't have time to go and research out the Swiftboaters that lied about Kerry. I read way too much to be searching and copying and pasting all day long. Search it out yourself if you want another viewpoint. Maybe your just afraid of another viewpoint that says the truth though... "

to Michael from Phil wrote on Mar 16, 2008 7:01 AM:

" Pretty strange logic you have to twist my stating the truth as a nasty personal attack. I've never assumed you were on Welfare, that's your own assumption. Even if you were on Welfare, I wouldn't judge you on that. My comment was about your inability to find any story about restricted speech at graduation.
Yes, Obama has a Muslim based middle name, that's a fact and Obamatrons don't want people to notice it. Could it be because Obama's views and policies are in line with Muslims in Syria, Lybia, Nation of Islam, and Hamas? I don't care if he does say he's a Christian, what he stands for is more telling. To ignore his Muslim sway and to ignore that America is at war with Muslim terrorists is treasonous at worst, ignorant at best. "

Michael Welch: Character Assassination Is Your Object... wrote on Mar 15, 2008 1:47 PM:

" I quite realize that the arguments go on; no one is 'disproved' so that nothing more can be said; debate never works out that way, especially when the disagreements are so intense. I KNOW however why this stupid 'public computer/dole' bit is put out -- it implies I'm on welfare and consequently disparages me personally. The implication is in the same category as 'PO'B's continuing accusation that Obama is a crypto-Muslim. It's a nasty personal attack, irrelevant to the subject EVEN if I were on welfare (I might be disabled say) but I'm not and never was. By the way 'public school' in Britain means a PRIVATE school so IF 'AH' is REALLY a Brit why didn't he assume I used a PRIVATE (school) computer?... "

Harsch wrote on Mar 15, 2008 12:20 PM:

" I have, of course, never been out-argued by Phil O'Bates, but I take no pride in that. i have, though, been out-argued by Welch on occasion, and Bugs has now and then convinced me he is right about certain things I doubted. And Brian G. Smith, though we rarely disagree, has often taught me a few things. But look O'Bates, why mention the public computer the way you did, like the way you mention the middle name of someone who is generally not known by it? You will never own up to your dishonesty, but it is transparent enough that it doesn't really matter. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Mar 15, 2008 8:48 AM:

" I see harsch thinks that I have disparaged Michael for using public computers vs. home (or work?) computers. I have not. I disagree with most of what Michael posts, but I hold no ill will toward anyone who constructively uses public library computers. Michael has said he uses public computers so I repeated the qualifier. What you 'hear' on these threads is of your own choosing because it is all written. When I type my sacrasm, the tone doesn't always carry over the same way in which I 'hear' it in my head. What I find funny is that Michael, harsch, and BGS all think that they have never been disproven or had their arguments deflated. That kind of ego is either intentionally false to ellicit anger or just truely delusional. I suspect the former. "

harsch wrote on Mar 14, 2008 6:54 PM:

" Sir Alfred should have stayed British. "

Alfred Hayes wrote on Mar 14, 2008 2:52 PM:

" Sorry, Michael, I was responding to Harsch who was accusing O'Bates of being concerned where you post from. I equated public computer to public dole. I was raised British,you see. "

Michael Welch: WHY Are You Continually Slandering Me?... wrote on Mar 14, 2008 12:52 PM:

" You really should stop this 'public dole' bit; it's slander. I am not on ANY public dole and your repeating it is a nasty game you play that reflects badly on you. It makes everything you say seem cheesy and cheap -- as if you have no respect for yourself. Let's treat me with honest disagreement and not with outright and really silly lying... "

Alfred Hayes to Harsch wrote on Mar 13, 2008 4:12 PM:

" My dear fellow, I am afraid you are alleging an interest on the part of our dear brother Phil O'Bates that simply doesn't exist. I have seen no posts by him that indicate that he cares one way or the other that your buddy Michael is on the public dole. "

To:12:24pm wrote on Mar 13, 2008 3:56 PM:

" We may somehat agree-I think a few sentences would be appropriate, but not a full blown sermon. Honestly, kids at that age really are NOT going to want to get up there and preach. I commend the kids who want to acknowledge their faith. Not the easiest thing to do at that age-especially when people in authority are trying to bully you. "

Michael Welch: "PO'B" Sounded A Bit Querulous Though Didn't He, Rick?... wrote on Mar 13, 2008 2:19 PM:

" I 'poped' many a bubble when I was a Catholic yeah. I was 'PARTIL' to them. Geez if I can typo in CAPS yet I'll give 'PO'B' a pass on this one!... "

Michael Welch: The Bubbles Seem A Little Flat Yeah... wrote on Mar 13, 2008 12:24 PM:

" Glad you found it! Obviously no one else could. Seems still a small deal given all the space below. If some kid wants to say 'Thank you Jesus!' or 'Praise Allah!' or 'Satan really helped me with my term paper!' well let him huh? If he wants to expand that into a more lengthy semi-proselytizing pitch -- e. g. 'You know if you prayed to Satan, He'd help you too!' -- then I say No. Do you agree?... "

harsch to o'bates wrote on Mar 13, 2008 12:10 PM:

" Poping his bubble? I mean there ate typos and there are (Freudian) typos. No that doesn't burst his bubble--it answers his question. And by the way, why are you interested in where he posts from? "

Phil O'Bates to Michael wrote on Mar 13, 2008 7:31 AM:

" Doesn't your library computer have a search engine? All I had to do was type in "prohibiting graduation speech" and the second article was this: http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=23513

Hope the poping of your bubble doesn't hurt your ears. "

Michael Welch: And Some Have Greatness Thrust Upon Them!... wrote on Mar 11, 2008 12:22 PM:

" When NO ONE can cite an actual 'case' I think some 'bubble' is indeed punctured and it ain't mine. As for 'Bugs,' Harsch an' me well ya knows what they says about 'great minds' eh?!... "

To:Harsch wrote on Mar 11, 2008 8:53 AM:

" Another funny thing is you thinking Welchys bubble has never been burst. Not "HA HA" funny, but, you know, "Weird" funny. "

Harsch on the Welchy Bubble wrote on Mar 10, 2008 4:17 PM:

" The funny thing about Welch's bubble is that a good half of his blogs invite readers to burst it, but they never do and rarely even try. Here he simply asks which case is being discussed and he is accused of believing, naively, that no high school graduate could ever have been told not to thank some holy jiz or other. "

Richard Cranium wrote on Mar 9, 2008 11:29 AM:

" To harsch: And so will I. "

harsch wrote on Mar 9, 2008 11:03 AM:

" Harsch, Bugs and Welchy generally agree when arguing with the lunatic fringe. When we speak amongst ourselves and the level of discussion is a great deal higher then there is plenty of disagreement. For example, when people start talking of homosexuals being a threat to civilization or tax dollars, obviously Harsch, Bugs, and Welchy will agree. "

ACLU to Michael Welch wrote on Mar 9, 2008 10:12 AM:

" Michael, my dear brother, your naivete is endearing. It is very cute that you believe no high school graduation speaker could have ever been told they can't mention their faith in their speech. Things must be nice in your little bubble. "

To Harsch wrote on Mar 8, 2008 9:16 PM:

" Could be because Bugs, Harsch, and Welchy always have the same opinions on everything. One always rushes to the others defense, etc. Some may even wonder whether they are all one person. So, when there is an exception, it is certainly noteworthy.... "

Michael Welch: Is THAT "All" There Is To This?... wrote on Mar 8, 2008 11:12 AM:

" Is that 'all' this verbage is about? Just that one little thing? Someone wants to say 'Thank you JE-SUS!' Okay. I still would like to know the particulars of this so-called 'case'; so far NO ONE can tell us ANYTHING but in supposed generalities; sounds like yet another literalist Christian urban legend... "

harsch wrote on Mar 7, 2008 6:31 PM:

" See Welchy, me and Bugs are cited when we disagree with you. Apparently some who revile our thoughts actually give us a great deal of credit. "

To:Michael wrote on Mar 7, 2008 2:22 PM:

" You misunderstand. I never said free speech is absolute. In fact, I said the opposite. My point is that someone selected to speak at graduation should be allowed to thank whomever they wish, without interference from the thought police. Luckily, in this case, the courts(and even Bugs and Harsch!) agree with me. "

Michael Welch: As You Like It (So Shall It Be?)!... wrote on Mar 7, 2008 11:15 AM:

" If free speech is an 'absolute' to you -- age notwithstanding -- fine; however the courts disagree and students at a high school graduation are not all '18' of course and they still have varying degrees of maturity. In three months anyway many are in college and there they are much less 'protected' -- unless (some irony here hmm) they attend say a strict 'Christian' school like Bob Jones, Liberty or Oral Roberts eh? No 'Satanism' allowed in those places! Further I presume that sex education classes at the middle and high school levels are just fine with you too -- 'free speech' plus reality training for the indeed very 'real world.'... "

Harsch: IQ wrote on Mar 7, 2008 4:59 AM:

" My IQ is in the high 70s; I think that's why I'm able to think freely. "

harsch wrote on Mar 7, 2008 4:56 AM:

" As Frank Roosevelt meant to say, you have nothing to fear but yourself. to Kenneth Krause, I hope you are right. "

Avet wrote on Mar 6, 2008 5:25 PM:

" an example of 1st amendment rights at graduation protected. http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=14100&PRID=67 "

To:Harsch wrote on Mar 6, 2008 5:02 PM:

" If I hadn't read your posts on other blogs about bombs in dogs and Bugs and hugs and other such nonsense, I would think you were....no, forget it. I still wouldn't think you were bright and free thinking. "

Kenneth Krause to Harsch wrote on Mar 6, 2008 4:55 PM:

" Obviously, since you have read other posts of mine, you know that I do not "only chime in" when it suits me. I consider myself morally honest and an independent thinker. I realize some of my views are not popular, which is part of thinking independently. Sorry you disagree, but I certainly don't begrudge you your opinion. "

harsch to o'bates wrote on Mar 6, 2008 2:37 PM:

" Okay, if that's your version then you can't read. I withdraw the accusation of you being a liar. The point is you said you don't care and demonstrate that you do. I hope this doesn't mean you are a Nancy boy like your daddy said. "

harsch on free speech wrote on Mar 6, 2008 2:34 PM:

" Of course free speech is the place to err, and if this was the only Kenneth Krause post I had ever read I would think he was potentially bright and free thinking. Yet of course we know that's not true. It's easy to chime in here because not letting a graduation speaker thank God truly is absurd, but the religious folk who let religion guide their secular thought when secular thought is inconvenient to their religious beliefs are being dishonest when they chime in only when it suits them. Probably the fringes of all our beliefs overlap at some point, but I yearn to read writers who are clearly independent thinkers and morally honest. "

To Harsch from Phil O'Bates wrote on Mar 6, 2008 2:01 PM:

" Let's be clear on whose being dishonest. Here's your quote from the other blog "Insisting in public that homosexuality is perverse is a hateful act and fits the definition of homophobic. If you really didn't care YOU would keep your mouth shut about it." That definately reads to me as you telling me I should "keep my mouth shut" but I don't because, in your thought process, I'm 'homophobic'. So let me get this right, If I say that homosexuality is deviant from natural sex, I should only do so in private or else it is hateful and homophobic. Why would I say anything about the deviancy of homosexuality if I didn't care? But you are saying if I didn't care I should shut up? Huh? "

Kenneth Krause to Michael wrote on Mar 6, 2008 1:13 PM:

" Sorry, Michael, part of living in a pluralistic, diverse society is sometimes being exposed to views you disagree with. Even minor children in public high schools run this risk. But, I wouldn't trade that for anything. In this hypothetical, someone is going to be offended. Either the person who is told he can't thank God, or the person who may not wish to hear someone thank God. Both are minor children, and as another poster pointed out, when there is a question, we must err on the side of free speech. "

To:Michael Welch wrote on Mar 6, 2008 12:58 PM:

" We were talking about high school graduation, when most graduating are not minors and who are entering the real world. To not allow someone to thank God for fear it might offend someone strikes me as extremely perverse,unreasonable, and contrary to what the whole educational experience is supposed to represent. "

Harsch on O'Bates wrote on Mar 6, 2008 12:20 PM:

" Either O'Bates can't read properly or he is dishonest. I did not tell him to shut up. I told him that if he really didn't care about homosexuality he would shut up about it. There is such an obvious difference that I believe it is fair to say that the relatively intelligent O'Bates is a liar. "

Michael Welch: Free Expression For Minors Is NOT "Absolute"?... wrote on Mar 6, 2008 11:23 AM:

" Nobody offered any 'specific' case -- okay; so I assume (boy we're testing THAT word today!) that my now absent critic was speaking in the hypothetical. If a valedictorian wanted to 'thank God (Allah, Krishna, Judas Iscariot)' that in and of itself MAY seem innocuous but -- note the parenthetical possibilities. I emphasize that MOST of us (even my critic acknowledged) believe there are justifiable limitations to 'freedom,' in particular when minors are involved hmm? Minor children mature intellectually at different rates so a public school ATTEMPTS to 'filter' certain aspects of adult life for the more vulnerable. And if one REALLY wants church in school that's what sectarian schools are for by the way -- and Sunday school for those who can't afford... "

Harsch on cocaine wrote on Mar 6, 2008 10:35 AM:

" Phil, please don't shut up cause I get a kick out of you. and since we are dumbing down to playground talk, yes, my mother wears army boots, but when I point my index finger the other three bend and point to my right--which, of course, is where you are. "

Bugs to Phil wrote on Mar 6, 2008 9:47 AM:

" OK! You're consistent. I'll go along with you, as long as the speaker doesn't start a religious monologue. "

Phil O'Bates to Bugs wrote on Mar 6, 2008 9:07 AM:

" Sure, if that person believed that Satan helped them. Just because I disagree with their belief, that shouldn't stop them from giving thanks to those they think helped them. Now this gets messy if a person wants to lead the audience in a prayer to God or Satan, or tries to preach on how to become a good Satanist or a good Christian. Those examples I would be against at a public sponcered event. "

Phil O'Bates to Harsch wrote on Mar 6, 2008 9:02 AM:

" What's ironic is you and people like you label me as hateful and ungenerous. Then you wish me to shut up for speaking the truth as I know it to be. Those are examples of how you are prejudicial (judging me without knowing me) and intolerant (of opposition). When you wag your finger at me, realize that three of your own fingers are pointing back at yourself. "

Bugs to Phil wrote on Mar 6, 2008 8:37 AM:

" Would it be OK if an avowed Satanist thanked Lucifer for helping him get straight A's? "

Harsch: I would thank Allah wrote on Mar 6, 2008 3:33 AM:

" if he could teach O'Bates to be a generous open human being. "

Phil O'Bates to Bugs wrote on Mar 5, 2008 3:12 PM:

" You would be offended if someone graduating from High School or College said in their speech something like "I thank Allah for teaching me patience so I could get through these last years of education."? As Ray Barones Dad would say "Don't be such a Nancy." Now I would disagree that anything named Allah taught them anything, but if that's what they think then they should have the right to express their feelings about their school years. Their graduation speeches are a previlege they earned by excelling and they should be able to give credit to whomever they think helped them. "

9:17am to Bugs wrote on Mar 5, 2008 1:39 PM:

" And I maintain that no one has the right to not be offended. It is part of living in a pluralistic society that allows free speech. "

Michael Welch: Okay! Then I Have Questions For You!... wrote on Mar 5, 2008 12:40 PM:

" All right: what was the context of the 'mention'? If you are discussing an individual case we should know the specifics in order to make a judgment. Can you tell me the name of the young person forbidden, the school and location, the reasons presented by the school authorities? When we have the details then we can talk about this PARTICULAR case with some a**urance. (Jim: check this filter PLEASE! This is ridiculous!)... "

To:Michael Welch wrote on Mar 5, 2008 11:49 AM:

" You are attempting to make it seem like I am advocating something that I am not. I was referring to the idea that I think it was wrong that a student was specifically told he could not mention his faith during his high school graduation speech. I never addressed proselytizing or anything else. Sorry, but this limit put on his free speech was not reasonable given the circ-mstances.(regarding this last word-you guys really need to come up with a better filter system). "

Bugs to 9:17 am wrote on Mar 5, 2008 11:46 AM:

" But if I were attending my son's high school graduation, and a speaker started talking about his Christian faith, I would be offended. "

Michael Welch: Is "Free Speech" Absolute? Courts Say No... wrote on Mar 5, 2008 10:57 AM:

" Societies recognize that there are differences between children and adults. If a child is prohibited from attending an X-rated movie is that a violation of his/her 'free speech' and association rights? After all sexuality is an extremely important part of daily life and children should know something about it. Parents however often decide whether their child is to learn about sex under other circumstances (they hope!) and they usually feel the same about religious matters. 'Real life' of course exposes children to 'everything' eventually -- they watch tv, surf the net etc. -- but open proselytizing in the classroom can 'safely' wait for college I'd say... "

To:Bugs wrote on Mar 5, 2008 9:17 AM:

" No, we don't agree. I acknowledge they would be consistent if they said "no" to everyone. They would be consistently wrong. No one has the right to not be offended, and if there is a question between offending someone or free speech, we must always err on the side of free speech. After all, what good is free speech if we in effect say "you have the right to free speech, as long as you don't offend anyone."? Sorry, that just doesn't work for me. "

Bugs to 3:21 pm wrote on Mar 5, 2008 7:52 AM:

" Thanks. I agree. Let's keep religion out of high school graduations. "

To:Bugs wrote on Mar 4, 2008 3:21 PM:

" Since the answer to the Christian student was "no", the answer to these students of other faiths must also be "no", in order to be consistent. Hope that clarifies. "

Curry Man to Michael wrote on Mar 4, 2008 2:51 PM:

" I must vehemently disagree that an admirable goal is to remove any possible contoversy and strive to make sure absolutely no one ever gets offended. That would be an absolutely horrible thing for ANY school to do. School is supposed to prepare you for real life-and in real life you are bound to be exposed to ideas you disagree with. Whenever there is a question, we should err on the side of free speech and free expression. Does that mean I believe students should be force-fed someones religious views? Absolutely not. But, to say a teacher can't make references, or kids can't sing carols at Christmas time? Or a high school student can't reference his or her faith or lack thereof at graduation? Students don't shed their Constitutional rights when they enter the schoolhouse. Again, don't take this to mean I don't believe there should be reasonable, practical limits. "

Bugs to 10:50 am wrote on Mar 4, 2008 2:34 PM:

" I'm not understanding the "consistent" thing. Could you please expand on that. Bugs is winding down for the day. "

Michael Welch: An Example From Experience... wrote on Mar 4, 2008 11:14 AM:

" When I was a kid in the 1950s at Granada school in west Phoenix at Christmas time there was permitted carol singing activities in the PUBLIC school classrooms. A child named Spencer Weiss who was Jewish objected to participating; the teacher did not force him of course but she was obviously miffed and expressed some disdain. This was in fourth grade; now I don't believe nine year olds ought to be subjected to these pressures though surely Spencer achieved a level of personal assertion that was admirable. We did not by the way observe Hannukkah or Ramadan (we had also a Muslim student from the Philippines); the teacher was a Christian who was basically a kind person but often made specific Christian references. That was however NOT her 'job'; she was not teaching 'Sunday school'... "

Michael Welch: All Freedoms Have Practical Limits... wrote on Mar 4, 2008 11:05 AM:

" I am not against people speaking of their 'faiths' but as per all things there is an appropriate time and place. School administrators (one was a very good friend of mine) I know are inordinately 'nervous' about offending ANYONE; best to remove ANY controversy, if possible, at the elementary and secondary levels. Colleges of course are often (unless ironically rigidly sectarian like say Bob Jones) far more free to engage ALL ideas. With minor children however any 'formal' proselytizing is bound to upset a number of families; it's simply not 'appropriate.' And a valedictorian 'speech' as a religious presentation would create more uproar and require 'equal time' for others that would just be impossible... "

To:Bugs wrote on Mar 4, 2008 10:50 AM:

" If they were consistent, no. And I would have a problem with them being specifically told they could not mention their faith, just as I had a problem with the school telling the Christian student he couldn't. "

Bugs to 3:41 pm wrote on Mar 4, 2008 9:32 AM:

" Well, let's say the class valedictorian is a Muslim, a Jew, a Buddhist or an avowed Satanist.Do you think the school district would allow that person to speak about his faith at a graduation ceremony? "

Harsch: Shoot your children well... wrote on Mar 4, 2008 9:32 AM:

" Yes Slider, I too was appalled by that song in the sixties. "

To:Bugs wrote on Mar 3, 2008 3:41 PM:

" There is no religious test or criteria for selecting graduation speakers. Generally ,speakers are selected on the basis of whatever criteria schools use(academic, extra-curricular, etc). If a speaker is selected, and turn in their speech ahead of time, I absolutely have a problem with someone of any faith or no faith being told they can't mention their faith or lack thereof. I have a huge problem with that-and so should you. "

Curry Man to Bugs wrote on Mar 3, 2008 3:33 PM:

" Of course. "

Slider wrote on Mar 3, 2008 2:59 PM:

" Because the Government and Shelter Activists took the parents right to punish their children like in the 50's and 60's!!!!! Yeah there were times when it was hard to sit down after words, but at least we learned what we can and cannot do for the most part. This is wrong today not allowing the parents to have their children learn to respect others, themselves, and their parents law. Allow caneing again they did in Oklahoma and it seems to work. The teachers used to have the law in their class rooms too. "

Bugs to Curry Man wrote on Mar 3, 2008 2:00 PM:

" Well, if we allow Christians to talk about their faith at public graduations, then we must allow Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Satanists to do the same. Right? "

Curry Man wrote on Mar 3, 2008 11:55 AM:

" Well, Michael, I don't think you understand what I or others really want. You see, there is a difference between "wanting 10 Commandment Markers in public parks" and "Not wanting them forcibly removed". There is a difference between "wanting Public,Christian prayer out loud in any public place" and "Not wanting students to be told they can't speak about their faith at graduation". I do see some naivete on your part if you truly see no difference in these various scenarios. Sorry, Michael, but I don't think you understand what most people want. "

Michael Welch: Oh I DO Understand!... wrote on Mar 3, 2008 10:47 AM:

" Of course the nommes de plume 'ACLU' and 'Anne Gaylor' commenters are REALLY the opposites of what they purport to be; notice: neither has said that they as the WRITERS of these commentaries BELIEVE this exaggerated swift boating themselves; they only insist that these are some (fanciful) one's ideas. My critic below rightly asserts that those who want 'public (Christian) prayer' (do they want Muslim prayer in public schools by the way?) want it out loud on ANY public property, especially in schools. They want ten commandment markers in public parks and on courthouse grounds etc. They want, essentially, Christianity reasserted as the 'official' religion of the United States. See? Not 'born yesterday'! I understand perfectly what you want... "

Curry Man wrote on Mar 3, 2008 9:18 AM:

" Michael, you may not have been born yesterday, but I don't think there has EVER been any controversies regarding people wanting to pray out loud in a theater during a movie. But, if you really are putting forth the idea that being allowed to "think" or "pray silently" is being allowed to take full advantage of your Constitutional rights, I think you completely miss the point of free speech and free expression. "

To Brian 12:25pm wrote on Mar 3, 2008 8:59 AM:

" Well, that is hard to say. Since there are no moral absolutes, any sort of a punishment would be, as ACLU says, imposing our morality on others. Whether you want to call it common sense or anything else, it is legislating personal morality. If you think these things should be illegal, you are saying that your moral code is more valid than those who don't think it should be illegal. That is all fine and well. But then what happens when someone claims their moral code is superior to yours? Whose morality SHOULD we base our laws on? the majority? "

To:Dear ACLU wrote on Mar 3, 2008 8:39 AM:

" Unfortunately, you are wrong. Folks with such bizarre beliefs as ACLU DO run society. Oh, don't get me wrong, they won't come out and say "murder is ok" in so many words. See the post by Starfish. It is merely "dilation and extraction". Make no mistake, people, the "parody" here is actually reality. "

Starfish wrote on Mar 2, 2008 4:46 PM:

" . . .Huh? I've been asleep for a couple of days and don't understand what's going on. Poster "ACLU" doesn't SOUND like an ACLU person. He sounds like a pinhead trying to pretend he's intelligent. And then this Planet Guy acts indignant when people react to the pinhead's ruse. Am I still asleep? Why is it that enlightened, well-reasoned liberal opinions have to be perverted for the pinheads to respond? When a liberal says prevention is more effective than punishment, it morphs into "soft on crime." Dilation and extraction becomes "baby-killing." Reasonable foreign policy becomes "surrender." A guy can't be a Christian because of his middle name. . . Thank you, Michael, BGS, and even you, Harsch for covering. I'm going back to sleep. "

rick harsch wrote on Mar 2, 2008 2:03 PM:

" I am grateful that atheist potheads are exempted from factual burdens. "

Michael Welch: Best "Church," Again, Is "The Church Of Hollywood"... wrote on Mar 2, 2008 1:25 PM:

" What's interesting here is how quickly the self-trumpeted 'pious' turn to vitriol. Again I've had folks tell me here that believing in religion makes them happier but whenever they confront any opposition to their beliefs they indeed are the ones to 'call names' -- 'atheistic pothead' -- and make threats: God's gonna get ya; look out boy 'cuz God's gonna get ya! I've written about the positive aspects of Christianity -- the humane warmth of the Jesus of American film, his generosity, bravery and pacifistic resolve. I find that Jesus very moving AND relevant but not this angry petulant vengeful image rife on this blog... "

Michael Welch: But Jesus Spoke For Compassion Even For The Criminal... wrote on Mar 2, 2008 1:15 PM:

" I wasn't saying serious crimes aren't committed; however American prisons are really 'schools for criminals,' the emphasis having for some decades now been on punishment which makes the general public FEEL better but doesn't particularly decrease crime. I realize of course that dangerous violent people must be removed from the society but remember there was a parable of Jesus in which it is said to him 'But, lord, when were YOU in prison; when did I visit you?' He answered 'Verily I say to you if you did it TO THE LEAST OF THESE you did it TO ME.' And he welcomes them to bliss and send the throw-away-the-key guys to hell. Don't uh 'breathe your last,' so-called Christians, until you read that part over huh?... "

To brin smith, welch, etc. wrote on Mar 1, 2008 10:57 PM:

" Try getting your facts straight unless you are an atheist pothead. Selling weed is NOT what most people are locked up for. Google check it or look up any number of documentary studies, and you will find most were USING/ ON DRUGS when they committed the violent crimes that lead them to jail. There is one thing for sure for atheists, when you take your last breath on earth, you WILL find out about the TRUTH. "

BrianGSmith wrote on Mar 1, 2008 12:25 PM:

" Dear ACLU and Planet S....what should a civilized Society do with murderers, rapists and paedophiles? "

BrianGSmith wrote on Mar 1, 2008 12:19 PM:

" ACLU said: "Yes, the Bible says Thou Shalt Not Kill, Thou Shalt Not Steal, etc. But, isn't enforcing these commandments as part of our penal code a violation of separation of church and state? Why should we have the right to impose our morality on others? We must stop legislating personal morality, or we will be in serious danger of becoming a Christian theocracy." - Read it over and over Planet Sleestak and Mr. Big Queen. ACLU put our laws against murder in with the Bible's abolition of murder. T'wasn't I who brought up the Bible. Keep trying....you guys might make sense one day. (the million monkeys on a million typewriters theory). "

Dear "ACLU" wrote on Mar 1, 2008 12:14 PM:

" You don't accept that murder is wrong. Hmmm. This is new. Luckily folks with such bizarree beliefs as you don't run Society. Let's all wait until someone murders a member of your family and then watch your absurd argument crumble. "

BrianGSmith wrote on Mar 1, 2008 12:09 PM:

" Maybe I am confused here. It appeared to me that "ACLU" was trying to postulate the idea that putting folks in jail for murder is a means of "legislating morality". Personally, the idea of locking up murderers doesn't seem to be a morality issue but a common sense issue. The original ACLU post alludes to the Bible and attempted (i thought) to argue that because murder was punishable in the Bible our punishing of murderers is therefore a violation of the Founders dream of a seperation of church and state. I simply noted that civilizations have long outlawed murder before the biblical god told the wandering tribe murder was a no-no. Perhaps if ACLU or Planet Stesiak would expand upon their arguments in more detail I/we could respond in greater detail. "

Michael Welch: Naw I'm Not Born Yesterday; I Know Your Scam... wrote on Mar 1, 2008 10:17 AM:

" Of course this purported 'anti-religious' viewpoint is a put up job; it exaggerates to a sinister extreme and the actual commenters are REALLY Christian believers but they won't admit that in their propaganda pieces. This is an ancient ploy; frankly I dislike it even when 'Angry Ernie' who I believe is a right wingy ding parody pops off with absurdist conservatism. 'Praying in public' of course depends on the circumstances; quiet non-vocal prayer is hardly 'illegal' but praying aloud in a public theater, like yelling 'Fire!' when there is none, should be curtailed in respect for others' right to watch the movie. What the critics below want is to PRAY (aloud) IN A PUBLIC PLACE, i. e. on public property, namely in schools. Nope... "

harsch to to michael wrote on Mar 1, 2008 7:10 AM:

" So Welchy is naive because he's surprised that Christians lie? So you are saying that of course Christians lie. "

harsch to Chuck P wrote on Mar 1, 2008 7:08 AM:

" Given the propensity of oath takers for lying I would think the better argument is that they believe it IS a book of myths, etc. "

To ACLU wrote on Feb 29, 2008 7:30 PM:

" Your statement "there are no absolutes" is an absolute statement, meaning that you are absolutely sure there is nothing to be absolutely sure about. That statement destroys your whole "no absolutes" theory to shreads. There are absolutes. Without absolutes science doesn't yeild us anything. If you doubt me, then why doesn't water freeze at 40 or 50 or 60 degrees? "

leo wrote on Feb 29, 2008 4:09 PM:

" They broke the law! "

To:Chuck P wrote on Feb 29, 2008 3:06 PM:

" Your point may seem obvious at first, but you are correct. When is the last time you saw a witness in court or a politician take an oath on "Cinderella" or "The Three Pigs", or even "The DaVinci Code"? Obviously, there is more to the Bible than "myths and tales". "

To:Michael Welch wrote on Feb 29, 2008 1:50 PM:

" Well, Michael, all I can say is that you would be really surprised what some people actually do think. But, your childlike innocence and naivete is somewhat endearing. No, they may not think praying in public is the VERY worst crime. Indeed. Well said. "

ACLU wrote on Feb 29, 2008 1:20 PM:

" Brian, "I" am saying we let murderers and rapists go. I don't accept your moral judgement that murder is wrong. There are no absolutes. It is very politically incorrect and small minded to make value judgements concerning immoral behavior. "

Mr. The King wrote on Feb 29, 2008 1:13 PM:

" I don't believe ACLU made any assertions one way or the other regarding how long murder has existed or his personal beliefs regarding the Bible. Brian must be a mind reader. Or, maybe he just saw this as an opportunity to bash the Bible. Or, wait, maybe this is the part where he uses the Bible to support his own positions on social issues. More than likely, he is just having difficulty comprehending the subject matter and the posts AGAIN. "

Chuck P wrote on Feb 29, 2008 12:13 PM:

" If the Bible was merely myths and tales, I highly doubt all of our elected leaders would take their oaths on it, and that courts of law would swear people in on it. "

Planet Stasiak wrote on Feb 29, 2008 12:10 PM:

" Once again, I see Brian is responding with much fury, anger, and name-calling when presented with views he doesn't agree with. Not only that, he appears to jump to bizarre conclusions regarding "ACLU's" views that the poster never addressed one way or the other. Go figure. "

ACLU to Brian wrote on Feb 29, 2008 12:00 PM:

" Try reading what I posted again, slowly if necessary. Then, try responding appropriately. Here is one little nugget that may help: my post opposed legislating morality-I never made any assertions as to how long these acts have been in existence. Try to keep up. "

Michael Welch: You Are NOT Who You Imply You Are... wrote on Feb 29, 2008 11:17 AM:

" A friend of mine sent me a copy of Greg Mitchell's fine study of the controversial Upton Sinclair's campaign for governor of California in 1934, 'The Campaign of the Century.' Sinclair was a socialist who won the Democratic primary by a large margin with his cooperative 'barter' and 'production for use' monitored by the state plan called 'EPIC.' He was defeated by gross distortions of his views as per those below who purport to be stating 'sincere' opinions but are really presenting over the top distortions. It's interesting to me that so many 'Christians' don't flinch from lying for their cause. It's obvious neither the ACLU nor the Freedom From Religion foundation believes 'praying in public' is the VERY WORST 'crime'... "

Dear ACLU clown wrote on Feb 29, 2008 11:11 AM:

" Laws against murder and robbery existed long before the Bible was written and in Societies that never depended on that book of myths and tales....your point is moot and idiotic. Humankind wasn't so stupid that we needed a diety to tell us murder was wrong dufus.....pathetic attempt at murkying up the issue. - BrianGSmith "

Dear ACLU wrote on Feb 29, 2008 11:08 AM:

" Most folks locked up are in for selling weed or other drugs. No one is saying we let murderers and rapists go. But what does it say about our Society that we have over 20,000 homicides a year? - BrianGSmith "

Annie Gaylor wrote on Feb 29, 2008 10:40 AM:

" No parody Michael. Some of us actually feel this way. "

Michael Welch: Legal Crime And Illegal Crime: A Matter Of Class... wrote on Feb 29, 2008 10:31 AM:

" Re: Victor Hugo's 'Les Miserables' or even Francis Ford Coppola's morality tales known as 'The Godfather' series, surely poverty and social status has much to do with causing crime and who gets caught. If folks can't climb the ladder legally they sometimes do so illegally and certainly immorally. The huge fortunes of the post civil war American 19th century (of Carnegie, Rockefeller, Harriman et. al.) were built in most part on the blatant exploitation of the workers who had no protections against 12+ hour days seven days a week, injuries without compensation and of course no pensions. Most rich folks attended churches but they became generous though ONLY AFTER they took what they wanted. Poor criminals saw that example as the real 'lesson'... "

Michael Welch: Historically It Ain't Necessarily So Either!... wrote on Feb 29, 2008 10:19 AM:

" Well below we have a clever parody but it only expounds an unfounded assertion that Christianity (or any other religion for that matter) leads to moral practices when two millennia of history hardly indicate that. I don't think the theocratic enterprises of medieval times were especially 'moral'; prayer in school coincided with both slavery and legal segregation; Christians didn't end the great depression of the 1930s with the richer splitting their bounties with the poor. I'm not saying that religions don't provide instruction in moral living -- clearly they ALL do -- but in wider societal practice the overall impact seems quite marginal... "

rick harsch wrote on Feb 29, 2008 9:59 AM:

" Recently the Germans estimated that they lose around 30 billion euros a year in illegal tax evasion, but when they declared the intention to prosecute--investigating dealings in Liechtenstein--there was an uproar amongst the wealthiest around the world. The US famously displays sociological ignorance, has a terrible disparity of income problem, and refuses to prosecute war criminals, white collar criminals that are well enough connected, tax evaders that are wealthy enough, and political criminals. If the US would legalize drugs and re-criminalize financial crimes the exchange would be about 1000 out of jail to one in. "

Barry Lynn to ACLU wrote on Feb 29, 2008 9:48 AM:

" I agree. We must be United for the Separation of Church and State. The Constitution clearly gives me the right to not be offended by and/or exposed to other peoples views. Making value judgments regarding immoral behavior simply has no place in a civilized society. "

ACLU wrote on Feb 29, 2008 9:20 AM:

" The obvious answer is intolerance. Many of these people in prison are there merely for practicing an alternative lifestyle that we must try to be more tolerant of. Yes, the Bible says Thou Shalt Not Kill, Thou Shalt Not Steal, etc. But, isn't enforcing these commandments as part of our penal code a violation of separation of church and state? Why should we have the right to impose our morality on others? We must stop legislating personal morality, or we will be in serious danger of becoming a Christian theocracy. The bigoty against these people needs to stop. Most of these people should be set free, and we should jail the real criminals:those that would dare to pray in public. "

Comments »

Post a comment (150 word limit) »