Political Crossfire Forums

[Carlin]

In the "Free Speech" segmeant of the nightly news with Katie Couric, they had a Columbine father give his two cents on the amish school shooting. http://mediamatters.org/items/200610030004

Unfortunately, he used the forum to spout his discord with abortion and evolution. Why does he think making kids pray will prevent school shootings, when in fact, one school shooting occured while kids were praying? I don't think the amish school was deprived of God either and it certainly wasn't a public school, which was the focus of his rant. Why does he think it's the responsibility of the education system to not teach scientific facts or theories but to teach magic gobbledegook, when that should be reserved for the home or church? How is suicide an acceptable, cool thing? His abortion connotation is absolutely absurd. Poor guy.

[Rankor and Pissing]

His point was in a world of no absolutes, the loss of life in a school shooting either by adults or by the children who attend those schools is becoming all too common.

When morals of the Christian church are not provided, his point is, life is cheap. If you're familiar with Christian teachings, it provides that all life is sacred and most Baptist / Protestant and Catholic morals are such that going into a school and killing children would not be thought of as a good thing. He's blaming the lack of those teachings as a root cause of why these shootings are occuring.

A common complaint is that kids are too into violent games and violent images and are immune to it, such that they feel like it would be "cool" to die in a rain of bullets while inflicting revenge on the kids and teachers they hate. In a traditional "God fearing" family, the kids wouldn't be allowed to have those kinds of games, they wouldn't be allowed to view such inages and they'd most likely be taught from an early age to be socially helpful and not destructive.

As well, a traditional "God fearing" home wouldn't be very open to abortion either - which is viewed by most Protestant and Catholic families as murder of an unborn child. To a christian family, murder is murder, and frankly, this interview was a good excuse to provide his displeasure with abortion, which is just another type of murder.

You can see this in the transcript (which isn't very long):



ROHRBOUGH: I'm saddened and shaken by the shooting at an Amish school today and last week's school murders [in Bailey, Colorado]. When my son Dan was murdered on the sidewalk at Columbine High School on April 20, 1999, I hoped that would be the last school shooting. Since that day, I tried to answer the question, "Why did this happen?"

This country is in a moral freefall. For over two generations, the public school system has taught in a moral vacuum, expelling God from the school and from the government, replacing him with evolution, where the strong kill the weak without moral consequences. And life has no inherent value. We teach there are no absolutes, no right or wrong, and I assure you the murder of innocent children is always wrong, including by abortion. Abortion has diminished the value of children. Suicide has become an acceptable action and has further emboldened these criminals. We're seeing an epidemic increase in murder/suicide attacks on our children.

Sadly, our schools are not safe. In fact, we now witness that within our schools, our children have become a target of terrorists from within the United States.

COURIC: The reflections tonight of Brian Rohrbough, whose son Dan was killed at Columbine. And coming up next, a look inside a world most of us never see, the private world of the Amish.

[Carlin]

Yes, but what does this have to do with public schools? I don't care what people teach their kids at home or what church youth groups tell kids (no matter how off the mark they are), as long as it isn't expected of everyone. Public outlets are not the place where Christian teachings should be provided. It's simply innapropriate.

[Rankor and Pissing]

Carlin wrote: Yes, but what does this have to do with public schools? I don't care what people teach their kids at home or what church youth groups tell kids (no matter how off the mark they are), as long as it isn't expected of everyone. Public outlets are not the place where Christian teachings should be provided. It's simply innapropriate.

Well, those same children who have no moral background go to the same schools and are the ones shooting it up apparently. And, why again are Christian teachings inappropriate in a public forum?

I'd point out that there are many schools, both public and private which still have God in them, still allow prayer and even have the pledge of alliegence! As well, it's not inappropriate, it's actually covered by the 1st Amendment.

Certainly it's a controversial subject, mostly brought to light by a minority of those who object to the word "God" being uttered in public-schools - however, it's simply a word and words as well as speech are constitutionally protected under the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is not "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment from religion" but "OF religion".

You would be suprised at the amount of public schools that still allow open and frank discussion and prayer in them. By definition, Public schools reflect the lives of the public and God is part of the public conciousness. If anything were "inappropriate" I would suggest the anti-God groups get a little more focused and perhaps go after the pornogaphers or violence instead of something so innocuous as God.

[ikari]

It's fine to have religion in public schools. In that, I mean if kids which to pray they may, if they wish to discuss religion that's fine. The school can't force one to pray or whatever, but that's not the point. There are, on occasion, some school shootings. They always seem to appear in small batches. However, I do not think that is the lack of preaching religion in public school which has brought this about. Making sure that public schools are not endorsing any religion has not decreased the amount of religious people in this country, it didn't kill Christianity or anything. So it can have nothing to do with it. Children are still growing up with these religious morals and values as they were before, so I see this as a non-point.

Also video games have nothing to do with it either.

[Gilbert1908]

Carlin wrote: Yes, but what does this have to do with public schools? I don't care what people teach their kids at home or what church youth groups tell kids (no matter how off the mark they are), as long as it isn't expected of everyone. Public outlets are not the place where Christian teachings should be provided. It's simply innapropriate.

His comments did not include the solution that prayer be returned to school or that abortions be ended.

He stated his opinion, which I share, that society has now made the mention of God anethema in public forums, abortion a RIGHT and more common than tooth extraction and with similar societal stigma, assisted suicide a new "civil" right to be fought for and the idea that there are any MORAL absolutes an arkane dogmatic position of the small minded.

All of this he says has lead, this is not what is coming but is what we now have as a society, to a devaluation of human life so prevalent that we accept the representation of women as beyoches and hos is art and that the mention of Christ is a crime, that we will stand in front of bulldozers to save the mating grounds of caribou but march in favor of the right to terminate a healthy human life.

The boys who acted at Columbine are far more representative of his opinion piece than the two mentally disturbed men who took the lives of innocent children in CO and PA, but that should not be surprsing considering his loss.

Still, I fail to see where he was mistaken.

[toddytodd]

Carlin wrote: In the "Free Speech" segmeant of the nightly news with Katie Couric, they had a Columbine father give his two cents on the amish school shooting. http://mediamatters.org/items/200610030004

Unfortunately, he used the forum to spout his discord with abortion and evolution. Why does he think making kids pray will prevent school shootings, when in fact, one school shooting occured while kids were praying? I don't think the amish school was deprived of God either and it certainly wasn't a public school, which was the focus of his rant. Why does he think it's the responsibility of the education system to not teach scientific facts or theories but to teach magic gobbledegook, when that should be reserved for the home or church? How is suicide an acceptable, cool thing? His abortion connotation is absolutely absurd. Poor guy.

Probably nothing more than a emotionally unstable man (due to the circumstances) spouting off his beliefs in a very public forum. People say (and do) all kinds of things when they are extremely upset.
If schools are funded by the state, then the only place religion has in the school is an "all or nothing" policy that allows tolerance of all religions, but teaching none (if they can't teach them all). Private schools are totally different.
In regards to morals, I can see where religious background can support a morally strong set of values, but in no way does it guarantee that.

[Carlin]

Quote:
Well, those same children who have no moral background go to the same schools and are the ones shooting it up apparently. And, why again are Christian teachings inappropriate in a public forum?

How do you know those kids had no moral background? How do you know they never went to church or prayed? Christian teachings are not appropriate in a public forum because, believe it or not, not everybody is a Christian.


Quote: I'd point out that there are many schools, both public and private which still have God in them, still allow prayer and even have the pledge of alliegence!

I think most public elementary schools recite the pledge of allegiance. I remember reciting it everyday when I was a kid, each time the words meant less and less. I can't say I thought much about the routine, just what I was having for lunch.


Quote: Certainly it's a controversial subject, mostly brought to light by a minority of those who object to the word "God" being uttered in public-schools - however, it's simply a word and words as well as speech are constitutionally protected under the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is not "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment from religion" but "OF religion".

I believe it was only one guy who wanted to remove "God" from the pledge of allegiance. I would have recommended to him that we need to pick our battles.


Quote: You would be suprised at the amount of public schools that still allow open and frank discussion and prayer in them. By definition, Public schools reflect the lives of the public and God is part of the public conciousness. If anything were "inappropriate" I would suggest the anti-God groups get a little more focused and perhaps go after the pornogaphers or violence instead of something so innocuous as God.

Yes, a majority of people might believe in God, that doesn't mean public schools should then lie to kids, telling them science proves nothing. I'll finish this statement quoting what I said in the the thread "prayer in public schools":

Quote: I remember watching on C-Span Ronald Reagan's speech at the Republican convention in 1980. He proclaimed that he would bring school prayer back. We had eight years of him in office, then another four of his V.P after that. As Bush would say, "you did a heck of a job there, Reagan." The fact of the matter is, collective school prayer will not come back to this country because it isn't practical. Not everyone believes in a God and some believe in different types of Gods. A collective prayer does not work in the public arena when we have a diverse populace. Now if some kids want to start a private prayer club to be held in a classroom before or after school, then that's fine. Only kids who want to pray and believe in what the prayer group believes will show up. But please do not be fooled by any politician who says he will bring back school prayer and end abortion, because they can't do that. That is beyond their scope. They only say that for your vote and will realize that it doesn't work in actuality in regards to the Liberal society we live in.

[Gilbert1908]

toddytodd wrote: Carlin wrote: In the "Free Speech" segmeant of the nightly news with Katie Couric, they had a Columbine father give his two cents on the amish school shooting. http://mediamatters.org/items/200610030004

Unfortunately, he used the forum to spout his discord with abortion and evolution. Why does he think making kids pray will prevent school shootings, when in fact, one school shooting occured while kids were praying? I don't think the amish school was deprived of God either and it certainly wasn't a public school, which was the focus of his rant. Why does he think it's the responsibility of the education system to not teach scientific facts or theories but to teach magic gobbledegook, when that should be reserved for the home or church? How is suicide an acceptable, cool thing? His abortion connotation is absolutely absurd. Poor guy.

Probably nothing more than a emotionally unstable man (due to the circumstances) spouting off his beliefs in a very public forum. People say (and do) all kinds of things when they are extremely upset.
If schools are funded by the state, then the only place religion has in the school is an "all or nothing" policy that allows tolerance of all religions, but teaching none (if they can't teach them all). Private schools are totally different.
In regards to morals, I can see where religious background can support a morally strong set of values, but in no way does it guarantee that.

You obviously did not view the clip since he never advocated a return of prayer in school. He certainly did not come across as "upset" or "emotionally unstable" and to characterize him as being either is not accurate in the least.

He delievered his opinions directly and purposefully. If you disagree with something he said than make a point, but don't attempt to dismiss his points by falsely assuming a state of mind that is simply not apparent to any viewer of the clip.

[toddytodd]

Carlin wrote: Quote:
Well, those same children who have no moral background go to the same schools and are the ones shooting it up apparently. And, why again are Christian teachings inappropriate in a public forum?

How do you know those kids had no moral background? How do you know they never went to church or prayed? Christian teachings are not appropriate in a public forum because, believe it or not, not everybody is a Christian.



It is an assumption that they have no moral background because it is assumed they aren't Christian.

[Carlin]

toddytodd wrote: Carlin wrote: Quote:
Well, those same children who have no moral background go to the same schools and are the ones shooting it up apparently. And, why again are Christian teachings inappropriate in a public forum?

How do you know those kids had no moral background? How do you know they never went to church or prayed? Christian teachings are not appropriate in a public forum because, believe it or not, not everybody is a Christian.



It is an assumption that they have no moral background because it is assumed they aren't Christian.

How would he know that?

[toddytodd]

Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote: Carlin wrote: In the "Free Speech" segmeant of the nightly news with Katie Couric, they had a Columbine father give his two cents on the amish school shooting. http://mediamatters.org/items/200610030004

Unfortunately, he used the forum to spout his discord with abortion and evolution. Why does he think making kids pray will prevent school shootings, when in fact, one school shooting occured while kids were praying? I don't think the amish school was deprived of God either and it certainly wasn't a public school, which was the focus of his rant. Why does he think it's the responsibility of the education system to not teach scientific facts or theories but to teach magic gobbledegook, when that should be reserved for the home or church? How is suicide an acceptable, cool thing? His abortion connotation is absolutely absurd. Poor guy.

Probably nothing more than a emotionally unstable man (due to the circumstances) spouting off his beliefs in a very public forum. People say (and do) all kinds of things when they are extremely upset.
If schools are funded by the state, then the only place religion has in the school is an "all or nothing" policy that allows tolerance of all religions, but teaching none (if they can't teach them all). Private schools are totally different.
In regards to morals, I can see where religious background can support a morally strong set of values, but in no way does it guarantee that.

You obviously did not view the clip since he never advocated a return of prayer in school. He certainly did not come across as "upset" or "emotionally unstable" and to characterize him as being either is not accurate in the least.

He delievered his opinions directly and purposefully. If you disagree with something he said than make a point, but don't attempt to dismiss his points by falsely assuming a state of mind that is simply not apparent to any viewer of the clip.

I didn't say he was a 'blabbering idiot' or the like. Nor am I inferring that he is a 'uber-religious' zealot. I am saying that he was upset at the situation, mad and probably even feeling a loss (unless he is not human). When this type of thing happens, people say things they normally wouldn't say, or things of a certain agenda, easier than normally. He used an upsetting event to spout off his opinion(s) to anyone who would listen. If you can't see this, that is very sad indeed - I would question your feeling of empathy. :(

[toddytodd]

Carlin wrote: toddytodd wrote: Carlin wrote: Quote:
Well, those same children who have no moral background go to the same schools and are the ones shooting it up apparently. And, why again are Christian teachings inappropriate in a public forum?

How do you know those kids had no moral background? How do you know they never went to church or prayed? Christian teachings are not appropriate in a public forum because, believe it or not, not everybody is a Christian.



It is an assumption that they have no moral background because it is assumed they aren't Christian.

How would he know that?

We don't, thus the 'assumption' parts of the statement (assumed they have no morals because it is assumed they are not Christian, which also means it is assumed Christians are the only one to have {the correct} morals).

[Rankor and Pissing]

Carlin wrote: Quote:
Well, those same children who have no moral background go to the same schools and are the ones shooting it up apparently. And, why again are Christian teachings inappropriate in a public forum?

How do you know those kids had no moral background? How do you know they never went to church or prayed? Christian teachings are not appropriate in a public forum because, believe it or not, not everybody is a Christian. You're right I don't know for sure. However, I'll go out on a limb and say they didn't. I'll eat crow if you can find that these kids came from a family that were Christians and went to church regularly.

Carlin wrote:

I believe it was only one guy who wanted to remove "God" from the pledge of allegiance. I would have recommended to him that we need to pick our battles. To be fair, it's much more than one if we look at the entire country. Here near where I live, a self-proclaimed athiest objected to a stained-glass window design (not depicting any religious symbols or pictures... just a pattern of stained-glass) was "religious" in the Municipal Building and demanded it removed - which was done. That window has been there for 120 years and was part of the community and was created by one of the towns founders. Appeasement in this case was to the detriment of the entire community and that it was removed is not only shameful but just wrong.


Quote: You would be suprised at the amount of public schools that still allow open and frank discussion and prayer in them. By definition, Public schools reflect the lives of the public and God is part of the public conciousness. If anything were "inappropriate" I would suggest the anti-God groups get a little more focused and perhaps go after the pornogaphers or violence instead of something so innocuous as God.

Yes, a majority of people might believe in God, that doesn't mean public schools should then lie to kids, telling them science proves nothing. I'll finish this statement quoting what I said in the the thread "prayer in public schools":

Quote: The fact of the matter is, collective school prayer will not come back to this country because it isn't practical. Not everyone believes in a God and some believe in different types of Gods. A collective prayer does not work in the public arena when we have a diverse populace. Collective prayer was never I think a possibility. As you'd know, Christianity stresses a "personal relationship with God" - a collective membership to a church provides reinforcement of those beliefs as well as more in-depth teaching. And while I'd agree "Not everyone believes in a God", I would point out in the U.S., a majority of people believe in God.

Quote: Now if some kids want to start a private prayer club to be held in a classroom before or after school, then that's fine. Only kids who want to pray and believe in what the prayer group believes will show up. But please do not be fooled by any politician who says he will bring back school prayer and end abortion, because they can't do that. That is beyond their scope. They only say that for your vote and will realize that it doesn't work in actuality in regards to the Liberal society we live in.

Well is it beyond their scope? As a member of congress, a member may put forth any legislation which has the support of other members, to bring a vote and pass it into law. In fact, a member MAY attempt to pass a "Non-Abortion amendment" into law.... the question is, is that bill and the law "Constitutional" according to the Supreme Court. The same as a State Legislature could pass a law within their State that makes the reading of a prayer prior to the start of the 1st class mandetory - and have it pass into law. The State or populace could then challenge the constitutionality of that law...

It IS within the scope of a politician (at least a State Representative, either locally to the House/Senate or Federal House/Senate) to push forward laws that do just that. So I'd not only disagree... I'd say the quote above is out and out wrong.

What I WILL say is, that the contitutionality of a bill that was passed into law MAY not hold up to scrutiny, and may be found unconstitutional, as has been found many times in the SCOTUS, some laws are out of bounds and overstep the authority of Congress. Therefore, it cannot be guaranteed that said law will stay in place, but it certainly IS within the scope of State and Federal legislatures to initiate bills and even pass them into law. A subtle distinction but one that must be identified.

[Carlin]

Gilbert1908 wrote:
You obviously did not view the clip since he never advocated a return of prayer in school. He certainly did not come across as "upset" or "emotionally unstable" and to characterize him as being either is not accurate in the least.

He delievered his opinions directly and purposefully. If you disagree with something he said than make a point, but don't attempt to dismiss his points by falsely assuming a state of mind that is simply not apparent to any viewer of the clip.

I would actually agree more with you, Gilbert (although I would say he implied bringing back school prayer, because I'm not sure what else he could mean by "taking God out of school"). As sorry as I feel for the loss of his son (who I think was tragically shot by mistaken cops and not the shooters, but they never officially came forth with that information), he simply used the opportunity to spoute his conservative religious beliefs. Most of what he said was irrelevant to the amish shooting. I wouldn't say he thinks these things because he's raught with grief, but because this is what he's always believed.

[Gilbert1908]

toddytodd wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote: Carlin wrote: In the "Free Speech" segmeant of the nightly news with Katie Couric, they had a Columbine father give his two cents on the amish school shooting. http://mediamatters.org/items/200610030004

Unfortunately, he used the forum to spout his discord with abortion and evolution. Why does he think making kids pray will prevent school shootings, when in fact, one school shooting occured while kids were praying? I don't think the amish school was deprived of God either and it certainly wasn't a public school, which was the focus of his rant. Why does he think it's the responsibility of the education system to not teach scientific facts or theories but to teach magic gobbledegook, when that should be reserved for the home or church? How is suicide an acceptable, cool thing? His abortion connotation is absolutely absurd. Poor guy.

Probably nothing more than a emotionally unstable man (due to the circumstances) spouting off his beliefs in a very public forum. People say (and do) all kinds of things when they are extremely upset.
If schools are funded by the state, then the only place religion has in the school is an "all or nothing" policy that allows tolerance of all religions, but teaching none (if they can't teach them all). Private schools are totally different.
In regards to morals, I can see where religious background can support a morally strong set of values, but in no way does it guarantee that.

You obviously did not view the clip since he never advocated a return of prayer in school. He certainly did not come across as "upset" or "emotionally unstable" and to characterize him as being either is not accurate in the least.

He delievered his opinions directly and purposefully. If you disagree with something he said than make a point, but don't attempt to dismiss his points by falsely assuming a state of mind that is simply not apparent to any viewer of the clip.

I didn't say he was a 'blabbering idiot' or the like. Nor am I inferring that he is a 'uber-religious' zealot. I am saying that he was upset at the situation, mad and probably even feeling a loss (unless he is not human). When this type of thing happens, people say things they normally wouldn't say, or things of a certain agenda. He used an upsetting event to spout off his opinion(s) to anyone who would listen. If you can't see this, that is very sad indeed - I would question your feeling of empathy. :(

How would you know what he "normally wouldn't say" and what is it you think he said that he "normally wouldn't say".

Katie Couric asked him (a father who lost a son at Columbine) to speak in the Free Speech portion of her broadcast it was his purpose to state (spout) his opinion.

I did not suggest you said he was "uber" religious zealot and if all you said was that he was upset or had an agenda that is indesputably true. But that is NOT what you represented you specifically prefaced all of your content by characterizing him as "nothing more than an emotionally unstable man".

If you are now saying that you meant he had a point of view (agenda) which was formed by the tragic loss of his son at columbine I have no doubt that that is obviously true, but it does NOT speak to the validity of his points or mine (see above).

One can only assume that you would call someone "nothing more than emotionally unstable" to negate everything they say, rather than deal with what they actually said.

[Carlin]

Rankor and Pissing wrote:

You're right I don't know for sure. However, I'll go out on a limb and say they didn't. I'll eat crow if you can find that these kids came from a family that were Christians and went to church regularly.

Right. Because it's impossible for religious people to do anything bad.

Quote: To be fair, it's much more than one if we look at the entire country. Here near where I live, a self-proclaimed athiest objected to a stained-glass window design (not depicting any religious symbols or pictures... just a pattern of stained-glass) was "religious" in the Municipal Building and demanded it removed - which was done. That window has been there for 120 years and was part of the community and was created by one of the towns founders. Appeasement in this case was to the detriment of the entire community and that it was removed is not only shameful but just wrong.

It will probably fair better in a museum anyway. I know you disagree with that.



Quote: Collective prayer was never I think a possibility. As you'd know, Christianity stresses a "personal relationship with God" - a collective membership to a church provides reinforcement of those beliefs as well as more in-depth teaching.

ok, whatever. Feel free to go to church for the spiritual teachings.

Quote: And while I'd agree "Not everyone believes in a God", I would point out in the U.S., a majority of people believe in God.

What's that supposed to mean? Most people believe in a lot of things that don't need to be inforced by public law.


Quote:
Well is it beyond their scope? As a member of congress, a member may put forth any legislation which has the support of other members, to bring a vote and pass it into law. In fact, a member MAY attempt to pass a "Non-Abortion amendment" into law.... the question is, is that bill and the law "Constitutional" according to the Supreme Court. The same as a State Legislature could pass a law within their State that makes the reading of a prayer prior to the start of the 1st class mandetory - and have it pass into law. The State or populace could then challenge the constitutionality of that law...

I suppose it's in the realm of possibility, but those proposals will find little support. It's just not approrpriate.

[Rankor and Pissing]

Carlin wrote: Rankor and Pissing wrote:

You're right I don't know for sure. However, I'll go out on a limb and say they didn't. I'll eat crow if you can find that these kids came from a family that were Christians and went to church regularly.

Right. Because it's impossible for religious people to do anything bad. Less likely ... not impossible. However, you're free to prove me wrong in the case of the kids family's who shot up schools.

Carlin wrote: Rankor and Pissing wrote: And while I'd agree "Not everyone believes in a God", I would point out in the U.S., a majority of people believe in God.

What's that supposed to mean? Most people believe in a lot of things that don't need to be inforced by public law. It means the same thing as "Most people who have a drivers license also have a car". Most people who have cars also drive and are held to laws that they must abide by. As I've stated before it's not "freedom FROM religion" it's "freedom OF religion". If you cannot grasp that distinction... I cannot help you understand it.


Carlin wrote: I suppose it's in the realm of possibility, but those proposals will find little support. It's just not approrpriate. Appropriate and Lawful are two different things. Tell me how it's not appropriate? Why wouldn't it be?

[toddytodd]

Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote: Carlin wrote: In the "Free Speech" segmeant of the nightly news with Katie Couric, they had a Columbine father give his two cents on the amish school shooting. http://mediamatters.org/items/200610030004

Unfortunately, he used the forum to spout his discord with abortion and evolution. Why does he think making kids pray will prevent school shootings, when in fact, one school shooting occured while kids were praying? I don't think the amish school was deprived of God either and it certainly wasn't a public school, which was the focus of his rant. Why does he think it's the responsibility of the education system to not teach scientific facts or theories but to teach magic gobbledegook, when that should be reserved for the home or church? How is suicide an acceptable, cool thing? His abortion connotation is absolutely absurd. Poor guy.

Probably nothing more than a emotionally unstable man (due to the circumstances) spouting off his beliefs in a very public forum. People say (and do) all kinds of things when they are extremely upset.
If schools are funded by the state, then the only place religion has in the school is an "all or nothing" policy that allows tolerance of all religions, but teaching none (if they can't teach them all). Private schools are totally different.
In regards to morals, I can see where religious background can support a morally strong set of values, but in no way does it guarantee that.

You obviously did not view the clip since he never advocated a return of prayer in school. He certainly did not come across as "upset" or "emotionally unstable" and to characterize him as being either is not accurate in the least.

He delievered his opinions directly and purposefully. If you disagree with something he said than make a point, but don't attempt to dismiss his points by falsely assuming a state of mind that is simply not apparent to any viewer of the clip.

I didn't say he was a 'blabbering idiot' or the like. Nor am I inferring that he is a 'uber-religious' zealot. I am saying that he was upset at the situation, mad and probably even feeling a loss (unless he is not human). When this type of thing happens, people say things they normally wouldn't say, or things of a certain agenda. He used an upsetting event to spout off his opinion(s) to anyone who would listen. If you can't see this, that is very sad indeed - I would question your feeling of empathy. :(

How would you know what he "normally wouldn't say" and what is it you think he said that he "normally wouldn't say".

Katie Couric asked him (a father who lost a son at Columbine) to speak in the Free Speech portion of her broadcast it was his purpose to state (spout) his opinion.

I did not suggest you said he was "uber" religious zealot and if all you said was that he was upset or had an agenda that is indesputably true. But that is NOT what you represented you specifically prefaced all of your content by characterizing him as "nothing more than an emotionally unstable man".

If you are now saying that you meant he had a point of view (agenda) which was formed by the tragic loss of his son at columbine I have no doubt that that is obviously true, but it does NOT speak to the validity of his points or mine (see above).

One can only assume that you would call someone "nothing more than emotionally unstable" to negate everything they say, rather than deal with what they actually said.

Quote: How would you know what he "normally wouldn't say" and what is it you think he said that he "normally wouldn't say".
I never said I knew what he would specifically say, only that in general, people say things they normally wound't when they are upset. It is human nature and people need to consciously act to eliminate that when a situation get 'hairy'.
Quote: Katie Couric asked him (a father who lost a son at Columbine) to speak in the Free Speech portion of her broadcast it was his purpose to state (spout) his opinion. That was his (and is everyone's) right - nothing wrong with it. It is what it is, nothing more. Trying to argue over it is a waste of time.
Quote: ..."nothing more than an emotionally unstable man". He was hurt and upset I would presume (again, unless he is a robot). That is not to say that he is a 'crazy mental case', only that he was upset, and I would think, angry and hurt. This can cause temporary (emotionally) unstable thinking.
Quote: ...but it does NOT speak to the validity of his points or mine. I did not speak to that effect originally, so there is no reason to speak about it now.
Quote: One can only assume that you would call someone "nothing more than emotionally unstable" to negate everything they say... There is always a reason why people say and do what they do. Your comment can not change this fact. However, you can assume anything you want (incorrectly I might add), I don't much care.
I will say thought, you have a knack for doing that.... must be a gift.

[Gilbert1908]

Gilbert1908 wrote:
One can only assume that you would call someone "nothing more than emotionally unstable" to negate everything they say, rather than deal with what they actually said.

How would you know what he "normally wouldn't say" and what is it you think he said that he "normally wouldn't say".

toddytodd wrote: I never said I knew what he would specifically say, only that in general, people say things they normally wound't when they are upset. It is human nature and people need to consciously act to eliminate that when a situation get 'hairy'.

What then would be the relevance of saying people say things they normally DO NOT say if you were not applying it to the specific things this man said, by questioning his mental state? What would be the point if not to imply this specific man was in such a state and therefore may not have meant what he said?


toddytodd wrote: Quote: ..."nothing more than an emotionally unstable man". He was hurt and upset I would presume (again, unless he is a robot). That is not to say that he is a 'crazy mental case', only that he was upset, and I would think, angry and hurt. This can cause temporary (emotionally) unstable thinking.
Quote: ...but it does NOT speak to the validity of his points or mine. I did not speak to that effect originally, so there is no reason to speak about it now.

You have recognized my point, your response was to talk to the mans mental state which you clearly do not know and NOT the substance he addressed.

What again is the relevance to this specific man and his comments by prefacing your content with the "nothing more than an emotionally unstable man" statement if NOT to negate what he said.

toddytodd wrote: Quote: One can only assume that you would call someone "nothing more than emotionally unstable" to negate everything they say... There is always a reason why people say and do what they do. Your comment can not change this fact. However, you can assume anything you want (incorrectly I might add), I don't much care.
I will say thought, you have a knack for doing that.... must be a gift.

There is always a reason and I did NOT assume to know yours, I ASKED you to EXPLAIN WHY you would characterize a man who calmly outlines his opinions as to the elements of the contributing factors to the decay of morality in society was "nothing but a mentally unstable man" when nothing in his words or his demeanor would lead one to draw that conclusion, unless you wanted to discredit his comments without addressing them specifically?