Thomas wrote:It's nice to have an ally about the overhyping though.
Hey, I was always there already
Christians Gather in D.C. to Protest War
SARAH KARUSH | AP | March 17, 2007 09:53 AM EST
WASHINGTON - Thousands of Christians prayed for peace at an anti-war service Friday night at the Washington National Cathedral, kicking off a weekend of protests around the country to mark the fourth anniversary of the war in Iraq.
Afterward, participants marched with battery-operated faux candles through snow and wind toward the White House, where police began arresting protesters shortly before midnight. Protest guidelines require demonstrators to continue moving while on the White House sidewalk.
"We gave them three warnings, and they broke the guidelines," said Lt. Scott Fear. "There's an area on the White House sidewalk where you have to keep moving."
About 100 people crossed the street from Lafayette Park _ where thousands of protesters were gathered _ to demonstrate on the White House sidewalk late Friday. Police began cuffing them and putting them on buses to be taken for processing.
Fear said 222 people had been arrested by Saturday morning. The first 100 were charged with disobeying a lawful order, and the others with crossing a police line. All of them were fined $100.
The windows of the executive mansion were dark, as the president was away for the weekend at Camp David in Maryland.
John Pattison, 29, said he and his wife flew in from Portland, Ore., to attend his first anti-war rally. He said his opposition to the war had developed over time.
"Quite literally on the night that shock and awe commenced, my friend and I toasted the military might of the United States," Pattison said. "We were quite proud and thought we were doing the right thing."
He said the way the war had progressed and U.S. foreign policy since then had forced him to question his beliefs.
"A lot of the rhetoric that we hear coming from Christians has been dominated by the religious right and has been strong advocacy for the war," Pattison said. "That's just not the way I read my Gospel."
The ecumenical coalition that organized the event, Christian Peace Witness for Iraq, distributed 3,200 tickets for the service in the cathedral, with two smaller churches hosting overflow crowds. The cathedral appeared to be packed, although sleet and snow prevented some from attending.
"This war, from a Christian point of view, is morally wrong _ and was from the beginning," the Rev. Jim Wallis, founder of Sojourners/Call to Renewal, one of the event's sponsors, said toward the end of the service to cheers and applause. "This war is ... an offense against God."
In his speech, the Rev. Raphael G. Warnock, senior pastor at Atlanta's Ebenezer Baptist Church, lashed out at Congress for being "too morally inept to intervene" to stop the war, but even more harshly against President Bush.
"Mr. Bush, my Christian brother, we do need a surge in troops. We need a surge in the nonviolent army of the Lord," he said. "We need a surge in conscience and a surge in activism and a surge in truth-telling."
Celeste Zappala of Philadelphia recounted how she learned of the death of her son, Sgt. Sherwood Baker, who served in the National Guard. When a uniformed man came to her door asking if she was Baker's mother, she said yes.
"'Yes,' and then I fell to the ground and somewhere outside of myself I heard someone screaming and screaming," she said.
The Friday night events mark the beginning of what is planned as a weekend of protests ahead of Tuesday's anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion, which began on March 20, 2003.
On Saturday morning, a coalition of protest groups has a permit for up to 30,000 people to march from the Vietnam Veterans Memorial across the Potomac River to the Pentagon. Smaller demonstrations are planned in cities across the country.
PDiddie wrote:I'm well, Bern. I dropped by to post a remembrance of timberlandko and am hanging out for a few minutes before I go.
I had 867,710 new posts since my last visit, and since the pages here still load as if I'm on a dialup connection, I don't think I'll be seeing what everyone has been up to. A quick update from here:
Sue's father passed away one week ago today (not unexpected; he'd been suffering from bladder cancer for seven years). She's holding up as well as can be expected. Her mother went to the hospital the very next day -- as Sue was preparing to leave for Miami and her father's funeral -- with congestive heart failure and pneumonia and remains there. Her dementia is end-stage, so her passing wouldn't be a terrible shock, either. Sue's sister, undergoing her own chemotherapy for lymphoma (in remission, just a booster) collapsed in the ICU, was transported a few steps over to ER and diagnosed with dehydration and a fever. She went home the same day.
Been kind of a rough week, and it looks like it's improving already, thank the
Flying Spaghetti Monster.
How's your health these days?
(Sorry for hijacking the thread. Reply in PM if you prefer.)
P
Health fine. Physical health, I ought to specify. Very sorry to hear of the entropic stuff, please pass on my and Lola's regards to your wife.
Many of us would love to see you more often.
nimh
As further to thomas' (excellent) point re the modern Supreme Court, which has arrived as a consequence of RR support and demands (equalling influence), there is this...
http://www.slate.com/id/2162161?nav=tap3
Lithwick (Canadian as it happens) is Slate's legal writer. She's always well worth reading.
Glad to see that you do believe in free speech. Does that apply to Rush Limbach as well?
blatham wrote:Lithwick (Canadian as it happens) is Slate's legal writer. She's always well worth reading.
This may well be so, but I encourage you to read the oral argument she links to. This is not a clear-cut case of free speech v. Orwellian oppressors.
Thomas wrote:blatham wrote:Lithwick (Canadian as it happens) is Slate's legal writer. She's always well worth reading.
This may well be so, but I encourage you to read the oral argument she links to. This is not a clear-cut case of free speech v. Orwellian oppressors.
No, it isn't. An educational setting presents some unique problems in respect to speech and other rights. Most acutely an educational setting prior to university. We probably ought not to allow freedom of choice in curricula, for example. And probably it would be imprudent to establish school hours through a democratic student vote.
On the other hand, where we don't make the distinction between education and indoctrination, we are at risk of setting up our schools to forward and enforce univestigated and arbitrary cultural assumptions/values, goals often (if not always) quite at odds with the goals related to encouraging students to question authority.
The SC got this case because of these dilemmas. But Lithwick's take on the relative dangers of either choice is mine as well. If we are to err, we ought to err in the direction of individual liberty.
georgeob1 wrote:Glad to see that you do believe in free speech. Does that apply to Rush Limbach as well?
george
It's really time for you to drop this strawman. You will find no mention by me anywhere of some desire or plan designed to shut any individual or viewpoint out of the community conversation.
Blatham,
You are being too sensitive. Even the signature line below your comment reveals your contradictions.
It is a fault, but hardly an unusual one. It is conceivable that I have a few myself.
To the degree that you do not admit or discern important distinctions, to that degree you not only miss what is being said, but also it will follow that any response from you will have as much value as a vagina made of broken glass.
A fairly sharp metaphor. However, it seems to me that the only distinctions I have missed are of the type -- black is white when you want it to be so.
blatham wrote: The SC got this case because of these dilemmas. But Lithwick's take on the relative dangers of either choice is mine as well. If we are to err, we ought to err in the direction of individual liberty.
I see you haven't read the transcript . Your loss; it's fun! If you should change your mind, as I hope you will,
you can find it here.
What do you think of the following line-drawing? Under the First Amendment, students have a right to free speech at school events. But schools can bar from their events demonstrations that promote law-breaking. I think this would be a Salomonic solution that solves the problem in a straightforward, content-neutral way. It denies schools a limitless power to define their educational mission and suppress student speech contradicting it. At the same time, the compromise would still protect against excesses. For example, students could, at school events, unfold banners saying: "Legalize Marijuana", but not "Smoke pot, it's fun!".
When students express themselves in slang or otherwise obscurely, someone may need to interpret which category their messages belong into. That's what the teacher did in this case with "Bong hits 4 Jesus". And I think she was the right person to do this. The federal courts don't exist to micromanage school discipline. So in cases of ambiguity, they should defer to the teachers' interpretation as long as it's reasonable. (As I understand it, that was Kenneth Starr's whole point about "the frontline message interpreter".)
Together, this package makes for a clear legal rule that students and teachers can easily understand and follow. I find it very attractive. Conspicuously however, Ms. Litwick doesn't mention the possibility of this compromise with even one word. Why? I can't help but speculate it's because Scalia suggested the rule, and Starr seemed happy with it, contradicting Litwick's storyline.
In the original, oral arguments are wittier, more differentiated, much more entertaining, and not too much longer than the editorials about them. Read more oral arguments in the original! Or in the spirit of the case: Oral arguments hit 4 Jesus!
georgeob1 wrote:A fairly sharp metaphor. However, it seems to me that the only distinctions I have missed are of the type -- black is white when you want it to be so.
Well, it
is tough to apprehend that which has been passed by unapprehended.
thomas
No, sorry, my time is limited presently but I ought to remember to take your advices on what's worthwhile to read. I'll read it and reply in a bit.
This is a great example of a procedure with which I'm more than familiar. It's been around for a long time. As a child, I was encouraged to witness to my friends. This procedure began with a "gift" of a little "wordless book." It came complete with a little string attached, ending with a small safety pin so the new convert could pin it to their clothing. The first page, black, represented the subject's sinful life. The second was red.........Christ died for your sins. Third, white, your soul after asking Jesus into your heart and the last, Gold for the famous streets of........ I think there was a green one too, but I forget what it meant.
I know Walter, you'll point out the bias of my source. But don't take Chris Hedges' word for it..........and don't take mine. But don't miss the opportunity to visit one of these churches while you're visitin down South. Let me know in which city you'd like to see for yourself and I'll provide the church name.
The Secrets of the Christian Right's Recruiting Tactics
By Chris Hedges, Truthdig
Posted on April 24, 2007, Printed on April 24, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/50934/
Quote:
I attended a five-day seminar in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., where I was taught the techniques of conversion, often by D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Ministries. The callousness of these tecWe are told to pepper our testimonies with words like love, peace, faithfulness, forgiveness, hope, purpose and obedience and remember to talk about how we have found, in our own conversion, "courage in the face of death."
Kennedy warns us not to carry a large Bible, but to keep a small one hidden in a pocket, saying "don't show your gun until you're ready to shoot it."
The conversion, at first blush, is simply euphoric. It is about new friends, loving and accepting friends, about the final conquering of human anxieties, fears and addictions, about attainment through God of wealth, power, success and happiness. For those who have known personal and economic despair it feels like a new life, a new beginning.
The new church friends call the converts, invite them to dinner and have time to listen to their troubles and answer their questions. Kennedy tells us that we must keep in touch in the days after conversion. He encourages us to keep detailed files on those we proselytize. We must be sure new converts are never left standing alone at church. We must care when no one else seems to care. The new converts are assigned a "discipler" or prayer partner, a new friend, who is wiser than they are in the ways of the Lord and able to instruct them in their new life.hniques -- targeting the vulnerable, building false friendships with the lonely or troubled, promising to relieve people of the most fundamental dreads of human existence, from the fear of mortality to the numbing pain of grief -- gave to the process an awful cruelty and dishonesty. . .
Their bodies are stiff and upright and their eyes are shining with feigned joy. It's scary.
Lola wrote:This is a great example of a procedure with which I'm more than familiar. It's been around for a long time. As a child, I was encouraged to witness to my friends. This procedure began with a "gift" of a little "wordless book." It came complete with a little string attached, ending with a small safety pin so the new convert could pin it to their clothing. The first page, black, represented the subject's sinful life. The second was red.........Christ died for your sins. Third, white, your soul after asking Jesus into your heart and the last, Gold for the famous streets of........ I think there was a green one too, but I forget what it meant.
I know Walter, you'll point out the bias of my source. But don't take Chris Hedges' word for it..........and don't take mine. But don't miss the opportunity to visit one of these churches while you're visitin down South. Let me know in which city you'd like to see for yourself and I'll provide the church name.
The Secrets of the Christian Right's Recruiting Tactics
By Chris Hedges, Truthdig
Posted on April 24, 2007, Printed on April 24, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/50934/
Quote:
I attended a five-day seminar in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., where I was taught the techniques of conversion, often by D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Ministries. The callousness of these tecWe are told to pepper our testimonies with words like love, peace, faithfulness, forgiveness, hope, purpose and obedience and remember to talk about how we have found, in our own conversion, "courage in the face of death."
Kennedy warns us not to carry a large Bible, but to keep a small one hidden in a pocket, saying "don't show your gun until you're ready to shoot it."
The conversion, at first blush, is simply euphoric. It is about new friends, loving and accepting friends, about the final conquering of human anxieties, fears and addictions, about attainment through God of wealth, power, success and happiness. For those who have known personal and economic despair it feels like a new life, a new beginning.
The new church friends call the converts, invite them to dinner and have time to listen to their troubles and answer their questions. Kennedy tells us that we must keep in touch in the days after conversion. He encourages us to keep detailed files on those we proselytize. We must be sure new converts are never left standing alone at church. We must care when no one else seems to care. The new converts are assigned a "discipler" or prayer partner, a new friend, who is wiser than they are in the ways of the Lord and able to instruct them in their new life.hniques -- targeting the vulnerable, building false friendships with the lonely or troubled, promising to relieve people of the most fundamental dreads of human existence, from the fear of mortality to the numbing pain of grief -- gave to the process an awful cruelty and dishonesty. . .
Their bodies are stiff and upright and their eyes are shining with feigned joy. It's scary.
OK, What I meant to say was "I know, Thomas" Not Walter. Sorry guys. I don't know how I got you confused................or ARE you confused? If you are, I'm not.
Giuliani comes out against civil unions Michael Roston
Published: Thursday April 26, 2007
The political website of the New York Sun will report tomorrow that in a major reversal from an earlier position, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani now opposes civil unions between same sex partners.
An advance copy of an article sent to RAW STORY shows that the New York Republican has backed off his earlier support for civil unions, prompted by the passage of a law in New Hampshire's State Senate.
"In this specific case the law states same sex civil unions are the equivalent of marriage and recognizes same sex unions from outside states. This goes too far and Mayor Giuliani does not support it," the Giuliani campaign said in a written response sent to the Sun's Ryan Sager.
The Sun notes that Giuliani had said in 2004 on Fox News, "I'm in favor of...civil unions."
link
