School Removes God From First-Grader's Poem

[NJCardFan]

So where did elephant dung and vaganas come into this? I never saw it mentioned pertaining to this thread.

Again, you're dancing around the point. The point is, those things I mentioned were heralded by the left and the so called secular progressives as pieces of art and were free to be shown in a public forum(in the case of the Virgin Mary surrounded by elephant dung a vaginas cut from flick books was on display at a tax payer funded museum). When Christians spoke out against these works of art, they were told essentially to shut up and that displaying those pieces of garbage were protected by the first amendment. Again, these blasphemous works of "art" were put on display in a publicaly owned museum which in my book is no different than a Nativity scene in a city park so again I ask, why is it OK to display images mocking or blaspheming religious icons and yet it isn't OK to put up a Nativity scene or the 10 commandments in a public area? If you don't see the difference between the 2 then you are being intellectually dishonest in this discussion.

[NJCardFan]

How so, where have I indicated any concern about religion?

You're speaking out against the showing of religious icons so you must have some interest in it or you would have simply blown off the conversation. You're like those people who say they have no interest in or care politics and yet will argue fervently for their choice of candidate.

[Novaheart]

Again, you're dancing around the point. The point is, those things I mentioned were heralded by the left and the so called secular progressives as pieces of art and were free to be shown in a public forum(in the case of the Virgin Mary surrounded by elephant dung a vaginas cut from flick books was on display at a tax payer funded museum). When Christians spoke out against these works of art, they were told essentially to shut up and that displaying those pieces of garbage were protected by the first amendment. Again, these blasphemous works of "art" were put on display in a publicaly owned museum which in my book is no different than a Nativity scene in a city park so again I ask, why is it OK to display images mocking or blaspheming religious icons and yet it isn't OK to put up a Nativity scene or the 10 commandments in a public area? If you don't see the difference between the 2 then you are being intellectually dishonest in this discussion.

Art is by its nature political and is historically paid for and displayed by both private and government patrons, not the least of which has been the Catholic Church both as government and cultural feif. A museum and a school are not the same thing at all. A museum serves alcohol, a primary school does not. Colleges are publicly supported, even the private ones, and there is speech allowed there which would be prohibited in a public K-12.

Religion is also political, and as I am certain you would disapprove of a an elementary school assembly which promotes that the Pilgrims were murdering conquerors (as would I) then you would also object to promoting religion in the school.

The only issue here is whether the girl reading her poem amounts to promotion. I naturally would suspect that like so many of these hobgoblin events the child was coached. But my suspicion isn't based in anything other than propensity which isn't fair to the individual. So I would say that this child and this poem were not objectionable. However, that 8 year old shouting evangelist who seems to think he was the Ernest Angely of the fourth grade is another matter. Kids imitating Elvis is cute. Kids exhibiting zealotry is disturbing because it's affected and inflicted.

[PeterS]

You're speaking out against the showing of religious icons so you must have some interest in it or you would have simply blown off the conversation. You're like those people who say they have no interest in or care politics and yet will argue fervently for their choice of candidate.

I spoke out against a replica of the ten commandments being placed in a courthouse. If you view this as some frothing intrest in religion you are mistaken. My intrest is in the principles upon which this country was founded and nothing more...

[PeterS]

Again, you're dancing around the point. The point is, those things I mentioned were heralded by the left and the so called secular progressives as pieces of art and were free to be shown in a public forum(in the case of the Virgin Mary surrounded by elephant dung a vaginas cut from flick books was on display at a tax payer funded museum). When Christians spoke out against these works of art, they were told essentially to shut up and that displaying those pieces of garbage were protected by the first amendment. Again, these blasphemous works of "art" were put on display in a publicaly owned museum which in my book is no different than a Nativity scene in a city park so again I ask, why is it OK to display images mocking or blaspheming religious icons and yet it isn't OK to put up a Nativity scene or the 10 commandments in a public area? If you don't see the difference between the 2 then you are being intellectually dishonest in this discussion.

Give me a link to the offence so I can view it absent your editoral and I will give you my opnion.

[NJCardFan]

Give me a link to the offence so I can view it absent your editoral and I will give you my opnion.

So in other words you're too much of a coward to answer the question I asked and are asking for distractions and sidesteps. Sorry, I don't like to play the game. Either you're a secular progressive who sees a problem with a simple Nativity scene placed in a public park but doesn't see a problem is said Nativity scene was pissed on in the name of art or you simply like to stir the shitstorm. It would be much easier if you admitted this and we moved on.

[NJCardFan]

Art is by its nature political and is historically paid for and displayed by both private and government patrons, not the least of which has been the Catholic Church both as government and cultural feif. A museum and a school are not the same thing at all. A museum serves alcohol, a primary school does not. Colleges are publicly supported, even the private ones, and there is speech allowed there which would be prohibited in a public K-12.

Religion is also political, and as I am certain you would disapprove of a an elementary school assembly which promotes that the Pilgrims were murdering conquerors (as would I) then you would also object to promoting religion in the school.

The only issue here is whether the girl reading her poem amounts to promotion. I naturally would suspect that like so many of these hobgoblin events the child was coached. But my suspicion isn't based in anything other than propensity which isn't fair to the individual. So I would say that this child and this poem were not objectionable. However, that 8 year old shouting evangelist who seems to think he was the Ernest Angely of the fourth grade is another matter. Kids imitating Elvis is cute. Kids exhibiting zealotry is disturbing because it's affected and inflicted.

[PeterS]

So in other words you're too much of a coward to answer the question I asked and are asking for distractions and sidesteps. Sorry, I don't like to play the game. Either you're a secular progressive who sees a problem with a simple Nativity scene placed in a public park but doesn't see a problem is said Nativity scene was pissed on in the name of art or you simply like to stir the shitstorm. It would be much easier if you admitted this and we moved on.

What's the problem with giving me a link so I can read what you are talking about? You do have a link don't you. This is something coming out of your mouth and not your ass isn't it???

I also notice you ignored most of my replys to you. Why?

[Starbuck]

Give me a link to the offence so I can view it absent your editoral and I will give you my opnion.

Someone ask for his "opnion"? Where did you last see it?

...........Still looking up definition of "editoral".....nothing so far.......

OK. Moving on to "offence".........nothing...."picket fence, maybe....no "of fence"...............OH! Here it is!....found it under "stonewalling"....

[southernlady]

Give me a link to the offence so I can view it absent your editoral and I will give you my opnion.

Google it like I did...you can see it in a UK link. Good thing the artist did not do that to Allah, he probably would have been beheaded.