"Silent Night" removed from school concert

"Silent Night" removed from Lebanon school concert following complaint
Oregon Live ^ | December 19, 2009 | AP

LEBANON — When a parent complained in the fall that putting “Silent Night” on a school’s holiday program was focusing too much on a single religion, Principal Mark Finch scratched the carol. But after the Pioneer School pupils finished their concert Tuesday, members of the audience sang it anyway.

What if they had included Atheisolsticystic Songs and decorations in the program?

And this is the sort of thing that people need to make a point to do. Last night I was ringing bells for the Salvation Army (met a FASCINATING cross-section of LaSalle County, where I live, which is somewhere sociologically between Braxton County, WV, and C(r)ook County, Illinois.) I was told to "stop ringing that f-ing bell," given a dollar by a lady who apologized it was not more, given money by one teenage girl who was "shamed" into giving by her friend who put money in the kettle, visited by a teenage "ex-con" who just had a baby, and hugged by a drunk woman.



I wish everyone a Merry Christmas. That does not mean that I wish the Muslims a rotten Ramadan or the Jews a horrible Hanukah, just that Christmas means something to me so I bless others with the holiday that means something to me. If a Muslim were to wish me a happy Ramadan (I'm not sure this is something that people do, anyway) I would not feel the need to correct them, or insist on them wishing me a happy holiday instead.

So a particular gentleman, a church organist, noted that I wished people Merry Christmas and not Happy Holidays, thanked me for this, and wondered for how long people will be allowed to say merry Christmas. He noted that as a child the schools had Christmas pageants and even back then those who did not want to participate did not have to. He then noted that there was not a trace of Christmas at the megastore he was just at, and that he was thinking of taking his business elsewhere.

That is exactly what Christians need to do. There is no sense trying to win the culture wars by appealing to judges. Rather, we need to celebrate Jesus whenever and wherever we'd like, wherever we happen to be, in celebration of our free exercise rights. We do not lose the right to free speech because we happen to walk into a school building, and we all need to practice those free speech rights. There are too many of us to litigate en masse.

Where I work each of the holidays is celebrated.(Within the day school portion of the program) They have programs dedicated to Kwaanza, Ramadan, Hannukah and Christmas. Each for a few days. The student population is eclectic and there are students from all of those belief systems. I think the way the administration handles it is admirable and fair.

And Merry Christmas to everyone here (Or happy whichever holiday you may celebrate) in case I work through the holiday.

That can only happen in the moderate states Andrea.

Merry Christmas Aaron. Is fairness a liberal belief? I am waiting for a police cruiser to take me to work. We have almost two feet of snow on the ground. I have a little vehicle.

Merry Christmas. And it must be a moderate belief. Have a safe trip.

I hope so. I just know I have chicken feathers when it comes to driving in this stuff when its this bad. Safe holiday to you as well. Cruiser just arrived.

SheikBen wrote:That is exactly what Christians need to do. There is no sense trying to win the culture wars by appealing to judges. Rather, we need to celebrate Jesus whenever and wherever we'd like, wherever we happen to be, in celebration of our free exercise rights. We do not lose the right to free speech because we happen to walk into a school building, and we all need to practice those free speech rights. There are too many of us to litigate en masse.

Mike, it never has made sense to me why the Christians GAVE the blacks and the lefty liberal socialists "the sole naming rights" to determine what is Political Correct and what is not Politically Correct.

Me thinks that when you all done that ..... then you de facto "bowed to their authority" ......... and they have used that "authority" for years now, against any individual, group, corporation, etc. that disagrees with or attempts to restrain their implementing of the social changes consistant with their agenda.

Sam,

You are correct. I think part of the problem is that Christians have spent too much time picketing Marilyn Manson and Larry Flynt, and not enough time celebrating the birth and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

SheikBen wrote:Sam,

You are correct. I think part of the problem is that Christians have spent too much time picketing Marilyn Manson and Larry Flynt, and not enough time celebrating the birth and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

I agree 100%. There are numerous better things Christians could be doing.

Hi AC,

Merry Christmas.

We have an unfortunate penchant for trying to litigate where we do better to contain and tolerate. I have no use for strip clubs, and I think it evil to attend them. But just as I do not want to make coveting or lying necessarily illegal, if 50 year old accountants feel the need to go watch women they cannot have take off their clothes, I worry more about their souls than I do their lusts. Christians win nothing by having sexually repressed accountants who do not believe, anyway.

I think where Christians have lost the culture wars is not in the courtroom but rather in the churchhouse. The divorce rate in the church is as high as it is outside of it. The abortion rate may well be similar as well. Until our own homes are put in order, we have no business trying to dictate others.

Having said that, I have no affinity for those liberals who have turned reasonable moral expectations of Christians into condemned "judgementalism." When Jesus said "judge not, lest ye be judged," He said soon after not to throw your pearls before swine. It was not that swine were not to be noticed or identified, but rather that we are no better without Jesus than they are.

SheikBen wrote:Hi AC,

Merry Christmas.

We have an unfortunate penchant for trying to litigate where we do better to contain and tolerate. I have no use for strip clubs, and I think it evil to attend them. But just as I do not want to make coveting or lying necessarily illegal, if 50 year old accountants feel the need to go watch women they cannot have take off their clothes, I worry more about their souls than I do their lusts. Christians win nothing by having sexually repressed accountants who do not believe, anyway.

I think where Christians have lost the culture wars is not in the courtroom but rather in the churchhouse. The divorce rate in the church is as high as it is outside of it. The abortion rate may well be similar as well. Until our own homes are put in order, we have no business trying to dictate others.

Having said that, I have no affinity for those liberals who have turned reasonable moral expectations of Christians into condemned "judgementalism." When Jesus said "judge not, lest ye be judged," He said soon after not to throw your pearls before swine. It was not that swine were not to be noticed or identified, but rather that we are no better without Jesus than they are.

Hi Michael,
Merry Christmas to you as well. Don't you believe though that there are times when the judgmentalism goes the other way as well. When every action of liberals is called socialism, etc. when really they are looking for a way to help their fellow Americans? Is the Christian right attitude towards them, not just as judgmental and unmoving? Swine are actually known for being fairly intelligent creatures. I always wonder if Jesus were alive today what HE would agree or not agree with.

Do you think "socialism" is a dirty word? Why or why not?

Additionally, AC, I don't see the issue in branding ideas socialist, provided that the people proferring those ideas are treated with respect.

What I think is that 'socialism' is being used to brand everything that the political right doesn't agree with. I don't agree that the idea of universal health care is necessarily socialist. I wouldn't chose to live in a nation where there was no free market economy where all businesses were owned by the government and there was no freedom. That is what I consider to be socialism. It is not in any way shape or form what we have here in America, or what people want in America. Certainly I do not.

Andrea Cristobal wrote:What I think is that 'socialism' is being used to brand everything that the political right doesn't agree with. I don't agree that the idea of universal health care is necessarily socialist. I wouldn't chose to live in a nation where there was no free market economy where all businesses were owned by the government and there was no freedom. That is what I consider to be socialism. It is not in any way shape or form what we have here in America, or what people want in America. Certainly I do not.

What something "actually is" and what one "considers it to be" is most always determined by the biases and prejudices of the one doing the considering.

Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating public ....... administration of the ...... allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals .........[1][2][3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

.[b]

Andrea Cristobal wrote:What I think is that 'socialism' is being used to brand everything that the political right doesn't agree with. I don't agree that the idea of universal health care is necessarily socialist. I wouldn't chose to live in a nation where there was no free market economy where all businesses were owned by the government and there was no freedom. That is what I consider to be socialism. It is not in any way shape or form what we have here in America, or what people want in America. Certainly I do not.

Hi again AC,

That being the case, why do you think that health care should be nationalized when other industries are not? Remember that ERs have to treat people who come into them, so there already is universal health care in this country. Where does this end? Will housing construction (housing being a necessity) by next? The newspapers? (that one sends chills down my spine)

Health care is a different kind of issue than housing or any other industry. Do people that use the ER as their 'primary care' receive the same treatment as a physician's office. There is no preventitive care in an ER. It is also very expensive to treat people that way and they are often extremely ill by the time they get there. Do you really believe that is universal health care?

You say health care should be free and that doctors and nurese who have spent years of their lives and thousands of dollars of their own money must give their service away.

So let me ask you this. If you are a type II diabetic who weighs 200 pounds and your doctor tells you to lose 60 pounds and your diabetes will correct itself. But instead of heeding his advice, you continue your diet that has you at 100 pounds and you choose to rely on medication to control your sugar levels, should he be required to continue to treat you?

Why or why not?

You say health care shouldn't be paid for. why not?

A diabetic of that nature #1 wouldn't survive very long more than likely. A patient who willingly refuses to follow his doctor's advice repeatedly is a question that only each individual doctor can decide what to do with. I have heard a lot here about 'people deciding for themselves'. I also haven't seen anything in any legislation requiring a doctor to treat a patient who refuses to follow treatment advice.

Because the government has PROVEN beyond a shadow of a doubt that they will fubar healthcare with their history of current healthcare programs and once the cost of mandated health care is added to our national debt, to sustain the spending required to fund these programs will doubt the average Americans tax burden from 41% to 82% and that is not a realistic sustainable burden. In short, it will lead to the eventual bankruptcy of our government.

And when I read the rest of your answer, I wonder if you even understand the issue and all the ramifications of what it is you're arguing for.

First, not only can diabetics survive for extended periods of time on medication alone, the simple fact that they as well as other individuals with chronic illnesses can is one driving factors behind our increasing health care cost. That is why preventative medicine is such a big issue for those who understand the issues.

And even if one doctor can refuse to treat a patient who will not follow his advice, that individual can easily find another physician who can and will treat him on the public dime. And if for some reason he couldn’t, then that person would just seek out healthcare at emergency rooms, once again on the public dime.

So why should I have to pay for someone’s care who will not listen to their doctor and continues to run up cost?

Frankly Aaron I am weary of the 'you don't understand' commentary because I don't agree with you. My position would be that you don't understand. Is one diabetic who won't listen to advice a reason to torpedo a whole health care proposal? I say no they are not. Will there be some people who are burdens on the system? Of course. Does that mean no change should ever come in how we do things? To me that is absurd.

You believe that the system will be bankrupted. That is what is being bandied about by the opponents of health care reform. But I don't know that it won't help rather than harm. I will wait and see. I just know that health care costs could also bankrupt the system if left unchecked. That is the other side of the argument.

I ask you a question and you danced around and ignored it by asking me a question and then throwing out ludicrous what if's.

I answered your question with sound reason and logic backed by a solid argument and put the question back on you.

Anyone who chooses to can go back and see that I don't keep repeating my questions because I don't understand you, I keep repeating them because you have yet to answer one with sound logic and reason.

So I'll try again and this time I'll use baby steps so maybe you understand so that all you have to do is answer with simple yes and no's.

First, do you understand that our government has totally fubar'ed Mediciare becasue it has ~50 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities with a trust fund that will be bankrupt in less then 10 years?

Aaron wrote:I ask you a question and you danced around and ignored it by asking me a question and then throwing out ludicrous what if's.

I answered your question with sound reason and logic backed by a solid argument and put the question back on you.

Anyone who chooses to can go back and see that I don't keep repeating my questions because I don't understand you, I keep repeating them because you have yet to answer one with sound logic and reason.

So I'll try again and this time I'll use baby steps so maybe you understand so that all you have to do is answer with simple yes and no's.

First, do you understand that our government has totally fubar'ed Mediciare becasue it has ~50 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities with a trust fund that will be bankrupt in less then 10 years?

Aaron that is absolute garbage. What logical argument did you make? What is ludicrous? That I don't condemn a whole idea for a few who won't follow advice? That is actually pragmatic. It is your 'condemn for one diabetic' that is ridiculous. If a majority see a benefit then that to me is worth a few slackers. I also don't need your baby steps. It has long been known that Medicare has problems. It is another problem that a solution needs to be found for. If our elected leaders put aside their differences maybe they can come up with a solution. Medicare has been for years like a sacred cow, with both parties refusing to touch it as it is such a hot political issue. Elections are won and lost over loss of the elderly vote. All of them have been too cowardly to pick up the hot potato. But the potato will be a lot hotter if they let it go bankrupt. Are there not however a certain amount of ultra conservatives who would like to see it bankrupt? That would rather see a social program fail than fix it?

Andrea Cristobal wrote:Health care is a different kind of issue than housing or any other industry. Do people that use the ER as their 'primary care' receive the same treatment as a physician's office. There is no preventitive care in an ER. It is also very expensive to treat people that way and they are often extremely ill by the time they get there. Do you really believe that is universal health care?

Yes.

It is certainly true that some people's health care will necessarily be better than others. For the Soviets it was the party leaders who got the best care; in our system it is the wealthy. That is presently the case in France and Canada, by the way. Wealth buys better medical care across the board.

Now one needn't have universal health insurance to offer preventive medicine. Many localities have had boards of health at which one could receive low cost medical visits and immunizations, and I see no reason why local governments should not provide such services, should they choose. I also believe that charitable clinics should be funded well by both local governments and private donations. We have one here in town.