| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Neville
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Spain
1590 Posts |
 Posted - 05/14/2007 : 4:19:15 PM
|
quote:
'Brokeback Mountain' Lawsuit Issued Against School Board
A lawsuit has been launched against a school teacher who showed Brokeback Mountain to a class of young students. Twelve-year-old Jessica Turner and her grandparents, Kenneth and LaVerne Richardson, are seeking $500,000 against the Chicago Board of Education after the movie was shown at Ashburn Community Elementary School. The lawsuit, filed in Cook County Circuit Court on Friday claims Turner "suffered psychological distress" after viewing the R-rated film, which was viewed by the class without permission from the student's parents or legal guardians. Turner's grandfather Kenneth Richardson, who complained to school heads in 2005 over profanities in educational reading literature, says, "The teacher knew she was not supposed to do this. It is very important to me that my children not be exposed to this. This was the last straw. I feel the lawsuit was necessary because of the warning I had already given them on the literature they were giving out to children to read. I told them it was against our faith." R-ratings denote the film in question contains one or more adult themes - adult language, strong sexuality, nudity, violence or drug use.
My two cents:
1) I can't think of any class that may require a viewing of "Brokeback Mountain".
2) Showing a R-rated film to 12 year students, even more if the schools authorities haven't approved it, it's a very stupid thing to do.
3) This said, the family is full of sh*t. I can't imagine a movie, even a gay-themed one, producing psychological damage to a kid. Plus the line "I feel the lawsuit was necessary because of the warning I had already given them on the literature they were giving out to children to read. I told them it was against our faith." seems to show the family as a) too overprotective b) plain fundamentalist.
Now, your turn. |
|
|
Sardu
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
1126 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 4:33:46 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neville
My two cents:
1) I can't think of any class that may require a viewing of "Brokeback Mountain".
2) Showing a R-rated film to 12 year students, even more if the schools authorities haven't approved it, it's a very stupid thing to do.
3) This said, the family is full of sh*t. I can't imagine a movie, even a gay-themed one, producing psychological damage to a kid. Plus the line "I feel the lawsuit was necessary because of the warning I had already given them on the literature they were giving out to children to read. I told them it was against our faith." seems to show the family as a) too overprotective b) plain fundamentalist.
Now, your turn.
Well,
1) me either
2) yep
3) maybe, maybe not but that isn't really your call, is it. Any more than the teacher's.
"Meeting you makes me want to be a real noodle cook"
--Tampopo |
Edited by - Sardu on 05/14/2007 4:34:18 PM |
 |
|
|
Greenhornet
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
1791 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 6:03:45 PM
|
quote:
3) This said, the family is full of sh*t. I can't imagine a movie, even a gay-themed one, producing psychological damage to a kid.
Oh you'ld be surprised by what can tramatise a kid. Some things are WORSE than the word "nigger".
quote:
Plus the line "I feel the lawsuit was necessary because of the warning I had already given them on the literature they were giving out to children to read. I told them it was against our faith."
The school was given fair warning. People in America are sick to death of all the Liberal/Socialist crap being taught in our schools and in the past few years we have been spewaking out against it as is our right.
quote:
seems to show the family as a) too overprotective
Protecting each other is what families are SUPPOSED to do. It's the job of THE FAMILY to raise children, not THE STATE.
quote:
b) plain fundamentalist.
I'm pretty sick of that term. 'CHRISTIAN "fundamentalists" are EEEEVIL! MUSLIM "fundamentalists" are MISUNDERSTOOD.' is the message we have been getting in this WAR.
"The Queen is testing poisons." CLEOPATRA, 1935 |
|
|
|
Neville
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Spain
1590 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 6:30:16 PM
|
Mmm. Honestly, I believe the family was more "thraumatised" here to hear their child had seen a gay-themed movie in school than the children themselves. And what is that about "socialist stuff"? I can't remember Heath Ledger nor Jake Gyllenhaal speaking about creating a cowboy union or anything like that. Honest.
Note that I also consider the teacher was acting plain stupid here. Really, I find there was no reason to show that particular movie in school, much less to children who haven't reached the age to be allowed to see it by themselves.
As for the fundamentalism issue, we're obviously in different sides here, but I'm not going to mud the waters any further without knowing more about this particular case.
To sum up my position: it's obviously the teacher who screwed up here, but the family is overeacting.
|
Edited by - Neville on 05/14/2007 6:33:05 PM |
|
|
|
Terrahawk
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
644 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 7:21:00 PM
|
Neville, I agree with you on points 1 and 2. However, I think you are wrong, to some extent, on point 3. Here in the US parents typically have a lot of rights with regards to what their kids are exposed to in schools. Some states (California comes to mind) are hard cases about it. But most are sensitive to parents' concerns. If the parents have talked with the school before about the material being pushed at their children, then the school violating those concerns without any notification or opt out clause are clearly at fault. It looks like the school thumbed their noses at the parents and just continued on. The only real recourse is a lawsuit. With "educators" that is sometimes about the only way to get their attention. How many times do the parents have to put up with the school violating their wishes? The "emotional distress" bit is just typical lawyer speak. Everyone knows this is about who gets to raise the kids.
The thing you need to take into account is that the "fundamentalist" parents have a certain set of beliefs. Do you think we should just ignore them? Muslims have halal eating restrictions, should we force Muslims to eat pork because we consider their eating restrictions too fundamentalist? How about Jewish kosher rules? Would you call homosexuals with a student in school fundamentalist for suing if a film was shown that said homosexuals had an unacceptable lifestyle? Based on your criteria you would have to.
- While science has societal benefits, science is not a social virtue. - |
|
|
|
Citizen Carrier
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
322 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 8:30:15 PM
|
quote:
3) This said, the family is full of sh*t. I can't imagine a movie, even a gay-themed one, producing psychological damage to a kid.
Actually, no, the family isn't full of sh*t. Parents are the final word on what their children are exposed to. Perhaps things are different in Europe, but many of us here do not consider raising our children to be a legitimate role of government.
And movies do influence behavior. Otherwise, corporations wouldn't spend millions of dollars every year for product placement in movies. Remember what E.T. did for sales of Reese's Pieces?
The reason thousands of American school children are being force-fed Gore's accuracy-challenged An Inconvenient Truth is so they'll be INDOCTRINATED to think humans are the biggest reason the earth has gotten 0.7 degrees hotter in the last 100 years.
Children are very susceptible to the messages of television and motion pictures. This isn't even debatable.
quote:
Plus the line "I feel the lawsuit was necessary because of the warning I had already given them on the literature they were giving out to children to read. I told them it was against our faith." seems to show the family as a) too overprotective b) plain fundamentalist.
Too overprotective? The values that they, as individuals, want to instill in their children were being attacked by the STATE. And a lawsuit is how free individuals seek REDRESS against the wrongs committed by the STATE.
Apparently, letters and words won't do it so what else besides legal action is left for the parents to pursue? What avenue of redress is there?
Too fundamentalist? By who's criteria? Compared to the soon-to-be new owners of large parts of Europe by default, those parents' "fundamentalism" looks like a Unitarian's weekend hobby.
All they're saying to the school is, "Teach them how to read, science, math, all that stuff. We, the parents, will do the rest."
quote:
And what is that about "socialist stuff"? I can't remember Heath Ledger nor Jake Gyllenhaal speaking about creating a cowboy union or anything like that. Honest.
When an American makes a derogatory statement about "Socialism", he is not referring to it in the narrow economic sense. He is talking about the increasing and unnecessary encroachment of government power and influence into the day to day lives of people.
So no, the characters in the movie didn't go into a cost/benefit analysis of taxpayer-funded universal healthcare or why the State should at least partially own some key industries.
The "socialism" of this story comes from the teacher knowingly overstepping her boundary as a civil servent and attempting to instill her values onto children who are not hers.
Here we believe in giving the Government permission to do certain things. Our Constitution is basically a list of things we forbid the government to do. We do not like it when Government thinks it should be the other way around.
One of the things Government CANNOT do is establish or endorse a particular religion. This is just me talking, but I think showing a movie like that is kind of like endorsing an "anti-religion"...which is just the same as endorsing a type of "religion".
|
Edited by - Citizen Carrier on 05/14/2007 8:50:47 PM |
|
|
|
Neville
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Spain
1590 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 02:15:23 AM
|
Understood, Terrahawk and Citizen Carrier.
Not being american sometimes I tend to ignore how diverse American society is. It is something your film and media don't explain too well, you look far more monolitic from the outside, if you know what I mean, and this often leads to false assumptions.
This said, and while I understand your fears about children being politically manipulated, I can tell you children are not as manipulable as you may think. I know what I'm saying, because not only I'm the product of a far more interventionist education policy, but also of 15 years of studying in centres created by Catholic organisations.
And believe me, your family environment and your personal attitude is far more decisive in what you become than education. I'm an agnostic, being closer to an atheist sometimes. I'm a liberal too. I can tell you they didn't taught me to be that. I had teachers who were liberals, yes, but also teachers who couldn't -and wouldn't- look behind what religious dogma said. I even had teachers who were ardent defendants of our previous state, the result of a 40 year dictatorship.
I like the picture Citizen Carrier makes of a educational system that protects people from government intervention and the influence of religion. But honestly, it doesn't look like it's working that well from here. Not with issues like sexual education, teaching evolution or creationism still causing controversies.
Citizen Carrier also mentions inmigration in Europe. Yes, our societies are becoming multicultural very rapidly, and no doubt this will led to similar controversies appearing here in the following years. We're having some of them already, such as muslims asking for their daughters to wear according to their rules of etiquette. There are no easy answers to that questions, but so far they are being dealt with without considering the extreme solutions proposed by fundamentalists from both sides. I'd like it to keep it that way.
Because yes, we do have christian fundamentalists here too, and I happen to think they are as dangerous for our society -if not more- than muslim fundamentalists. My country is a recent democracy -we are close to our 30th anniversary a while ago- and it scares me to see how many people are willing to jettison all our achivements -which took decades- in exchange for an illusion of safety.
And Catholic church is not neutral. It is a very powerful organisation that will do almost anything to maintain or increase their influence. Like calling our government "Stalinist" for teaching in schools that there people who happen to be sexually attracted to their own gender. Or that abortion exists and it's legal. Or that while abstinence is certainly safer than the condom, the later happens to be a more realistic approach to birth control. We've had ministers having to resign because of enforcing these policies, media controled by the church spread conspiracy theories regarding the Al-Qaeda terrorists attacks, and as recently as last week the Catholic church mentioned a list of political parties "that were coherent with Catholic dogma". The list consisted entirely of extreme right wing parties, the kind that only neo nazis and nostalgics of the dictatorship vote and support.
I'm rambling, I know. But when it comes to fundamentalisms, it is the one in my own community that scares me the most. Ironically, the state of PC in my country seems to be the opposite than in yours: it is PC to criticise muslim fundamentalism, but we are supposed to keep a blind eye towards ours. |
Edited by - Neville on 05/15/2007 02:17:43 AM |
|
|
|
Bobby-G
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
904 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 04:50:30 AM
|
A local news story (I'm in Chicago)said that the actual incident happened a year ago. Supposedly the substitute teacher did this on her own without permission from the school (nice to know the school administration doesn't know what's going on in their classrooms), and had been fired. Not hearing anything from the teacher about this, I'd imagine she possibly saw herself as some sort of Crusader Of Tolerance, shaping young minds (or warping, if you disagree).
My complaint with what the parents (and their lawyer)are doing is this "$500,000" -- the schools have enough money problems as it is; why divert more money AWAY from education? Otherwise I think the parents are justifiably upset.
On a similiar note, several weeks ago when the idea of "censoring" or "cleaning-up" Hip-Hop and Rap was the big story of the moment (a result of the Imus debacle), one prominent Hop-Hop guy (can't recall his name) was quoted as saying: "The cardinal sin of parents is to try and protect their children from things they think are adult" -- Well, isn't that an important part of a being a good parent: deciding what and when your child is ready for something?
Rob |
|
|
|
Terrahawk
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
644 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 06:35:03 AM
|
Neville, first let me state that I am what you would call a fundamentalist. I just want to make that clear so you know where I am coming from.
Yes, you are correct in that Hollywood and other media types here in the states present a very monolithic view of America and one that is not very accurate. It is nearly impossible to get a view of religion without a certain slant being applied to it. Actually, virtually every topic gets distorted by a certain slant. For instance, when you were talking about gun control a couple of weeks ago it pretty much echoed the slant the press and Hollywood puts on things. I grew up in a rural school district where most of the guys hunted, would take a week off in the fall for deer season, and would bring their hunting guns to school. No one ever went waving a gun around threatening people, much less shot someone. However, if the press is doing the story, they'll pick one incident out of thousands to make that the norm. Okay, back on topic now.
While it is true that family and personality often play a strong part in who you are, education can indoctrinate you as well. There's no magic formula, but I wouldn't just dismiss schools as a significant source of molding a child. There will always be ones who go against the grain. However, we need to discuss the rule not the exceptions. People have survived falling from 20,000 feet without a parachute. Its the exception to the rule that you will die if you fall from that altitude. But, we don't tell people to jump out of planes without parachutes. As such, I believe that schools in general play a significant role in shaping young people and that role shouldn't be dismissed even though there are exceptions, such as yourself.
First, let's lay a ground rule for our discussion. As a liberal, you have certain Liberal beliefs. Based on your statements, I would say you subscribe to today's basic Liberal beliefs of Multiculturalism, Unfettered Individuality, Diversity, Tolerance, and Nondiscrimination. Whether those values are good, bad, or possibly both depending on the situation are up for debate. The ground rule though is that we recognize that those beliefs are not neutral. They make certain claims and from a liberal viewpoint they are good. As such they explicitly or implicitly claim beliefs that challenge those values are bad. Basically, let's admit that liberal belief is not some neutral arbiter between those sometimes "fundamentalist" belief systems. Instead, liberal belief is in the same league.
Sex education and evolution are controversial for the simple reason that they drive at fundamental beliefs. If someone wants their kid to know everything about sex at age 10 while another wants to wait until age 12, should the state get to decide? How about what types of sex promoted in the class or birth control methods? For instance, as a liberal you are going to say "Teaching that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality is a good thing." I would beg to differ and would not want my child taught that. The same goes for evolution. I accept the parts of evolution that are observable (mutation, natural selection). I don't accept that that is proven to be sufficient to explain life on this planet and do believe macro-evolutionary theory is driven by a materialist world view. For example, a recent biology paper showed that beneficial mutations tend to cause a cascade of mutations that kill the organism (at least in asexual bacteria). A lot of people in the states recognize this and want some balance. They don't necessarily want creationism taught in schools. They just don't want macro-evolution taught as scientific fact when in reality it is more of a philosophy than science. Anyways, I thought Liberalism was all about Diversity. *g* If there is diversity, there is controversy.
Sorry, I ramble on here.
Bobby-G, that is exactly right on deciding what a child is or is not ready for. We don't send soldier out without training, yet some people think we just put children into any situation and they'll be fine.
- While science has societal benefits, science is not a social virtue. - |
Edited by - Terrahawk on 05/15/2007 06:43:20 AM |
|
|
|
Citizen Carrier
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
322 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 07:52:34 AM
|
quote:
Not being american sometimes I tend to ignore how diverse American society is. It is something your film and media don't explain too well, you look far more monolitic from the outside, if you know what I mean, and this often leads to false assumptions.
Part of the problem is that Europeans will often be exposed to elements of our media that tend to validate European pre-conceived notions about America. A few months ago I read about a college course being offerred in Paris called "American Studies" or something similiar. The course syllabus consisted largely of watching Michael Moore movies.
I would venture that far less than a third of Americans hold the same political beliefs to the degree and stridency Moore claims to, yet that class undoubtedly made Moore look as if he represented mainstream American opinion. Moore's opinions would fit in quite well with left-of-center political parties in Europe, such as Germany's "Green Party". We don't even have a Green Party worth talking about here.
quote:
This said, and while I understand your fears about children being politically manipulated, I can tell you children are not as manipulable as you may think. I know what I'm saying, because not only I'm the product of a far more interventionist education policy, but also of 15 years of studying in centres created by Catholic organisations.
This makes you the exception to the rule and your case is anecdotal. Every totalitarian youth organization past and present validates the political manipulativeness of children. Hitler Youth. The Che Guevarra Pioneers (or some such name). The most notorious killers in Kymer Rouge Cambodia were children and teenagers. Child members of such groups often turned in their own parents for "incorrect thinking". Young minds are malleable.
quote:
I like the picture Citizen Carrier makes of a educational system that protects people from government intervention and the influence of religion. But honestly, it doesn't look like it's working that well from here. Not with issues like sexual education, teaching evolution or creationism still causing controversies.
The point I was trying to make was really an opinion of mine. If the government is forbidden to endorse any religion over another, then it should also be forbidden to denegrate or defame religion as well. That teacher did not show that movie because she wanted to educate the kids about sheep herding. She was concerned (having already received notes complaining about school content) that kids would not get the "tolerance" of homosexuality at their homes that she thought they should have. Not her call.
Tolerance I have in abundance. Most Americans are tolertant. We don't run around beating up gays and real "hate crimes" motivated by race make up about one hundredth of one percent of crime in America. Where many of us balk is when people like that teacher tell us that tolerance is not enough. That we must go further into acceptance.
quote:
Because yes, we do have christian fundamentalists here too, and I happen to think they are as dangerous for our society -if not more- than muslim fundamentalists.
One thing I have no tolerance for are "moral equivalency" arguments. Rosie O'Donnell (perhaps you've heard of her?) made a similiar statement a month or so ago on television. That America's Christian Fundamentalists are as big a threat to America as muslim extremists.
A ridiculous exercise in being "non-judgemental" concerning different cultures. If anybody can show me the last time Christian Fundamentalists hijacked planes and used them to murder 3000 people, then I will certainly say Christians are as dangerous as Muslims. The train bombings in Spain and the subway bombing in London. Embassy bombings in Africa. The day to day suicide bombings in Israel and Iraq.
No. Sorry. But Christian evangelicals carrying protest signs calling for more observance of the 10 Commandments or suing somebody in court over an inappropriate movie shown to children simply isn't the same as having Theo Van Gough shot 7 times and having a Islamic note pinned to his chest with a knife or daughters being murdered in "honor killings".
The two ideologies don't even come close and bringing up stuff Christians did during the Crusades or the Inquisition is just crap. It makes it seem as if Christians are just a breath away from behaving like that again. They aren't, but amongst you in Spain right now are thousands of immigrants who think Crusader and Inquisition-like tactics, but from a muslim perspective, are just fine and dandy. Right here in the 21st Century.
|
|
|
|
Neville
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Spain
1590 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 08:42:39 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Citizen Carrier
One thing I have no tolerance for are "moral equivalency" arguments. Rosie O'Donnell (perhaps you've heard of her?) made a similiar statement a month or so ago on television. That America's Christian Fundamentalists are as big a threat to America as muslim extremists.
A ridiculous exercise in being "non-judgemental" concerning different cultures. If anybody can show me the last time Christian Fundamentalists hijacked planes and used them to murder 3000 people, then I will certainly say Christians are as dangerous as Muslims. The train bombings in Spain and the subway bombing in London. Embassy bombings in Africa. The day to day suicide bombings in Israel and Iraq.
No. Sorry. But Christian evangelicals carrying protest signs calling for more observance of the 10 Commandments or suing somebody in court over an inappropriate movie shown to children simply isn't the same as having Theo Van Gough shot 7 times and having a Islamic note pinned to his chest with a knife or daughters being murdered in "honor killings".
When I'm saying that I find Christian fundamentalism more dangerous is not because I agree with a certain philosophy, but because I see it everyday in my country. It may be a particular situation of my country, and I'm not assuming it is the same in other countries or with other brands of Christianism.
Simply put, we have a fraction of society (Catholic church and its more firm supporters) that still can't believe we are in a democracy and pretend to maintain their privileges at any cost. They didn't hijack planes nor took part on the Al-Qaeda bombings in Madrid, but they took active part in the repression after our Civil War (which caused at least 100,000 documented victims), became a pillar of the subsequent Fascist regime and, until 1978, pushed laws so restrictive as the ones in Islamic Republics when concerning freedom of cult, censorship and women and gay rights.
We all are rambling here by now, I know, but I think it is doing some good. We may still be entrenched in our position, but at least when this is over we'll know better about each others' hows and whys.
To Terrahawk: My views may not be that different to the ones seen in liberal (or Liberal?) media, but I try very hard to draw a line between theory and reality. When I spoke in favour of gun control a few weeks ago, I was not merely reciting my beliefs, but defending it because I see it working in my own country.
In a similar fashion, when I speak against Christian fundamentalists in my country it's not because I adhere to the "moral equivalence" principle stated by Terrahawk, but because I firmly believe they can cause a major damage to my country that Islamic fundamentalists. Muslim terrorists can kill a few of us before they are stopped, but pacific Christians can, wether it is their intention or not, permanently restrict our freedoms. |
|
|
|
Citizen Carrier
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
322 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 12:03:14 PM
|
Now here is something interesting. America, through it's movies, appears to much of the world as a bulwark of Christian fundamentalism. I've noticed over the years that the only time you see the Church doing something good in a movie is when some "Father Marin" is exorcising a demon. Other than that, organized religion is routinely mocked. Yet it is interesting to note that in many ways we have better seperation between Church and State than do parts of Europe.
For example, so few people go to churches in Germany they actually subsidize churches with taxpayer money. Yes, a "church tax". I believe if such a tax were proposed in America, it would throw pretty much all of us into fits of rage. It would be condemned as unconstitutional.
I just finished reading "Infidel", by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, in which she talks about how the Dutch government funded with taxpayer money Islamic religious schools for immigrants and refugees to attend. Wahhabi extremism was often taught at these places. Americans would find this absolutely incorrect, but the Danes considered it open-minded and "progressive".
A recent story out of England (I do despise referring to it as "The U.K.") showed that many teachers simply have stopped teaching The Holocaust because the actual, confirmable historic truth of what happened conflicts with what some of their students learn in their mosques.
But America has a fundamentalist problem? The title you used for this thread was inaccurate. "Movie causes lawsuit against school". No, a teacher overstepping her authority and showing an inappopriate R-rated movie to underage kids caused a lawsuit against a school. As it should.
Why Brokeback Mountain and not Zeferelli's Romeo and Juliet? That movie showing is defensible. It makes sense. It is Shakespeare...something appropriate for kids to learn about.
Curious. Do you really suppose that Christian fundamentalism is going to stage some kind of comeback in Spain? Based on a regime that ended almost 30 years ago?
Fundamentalism looks like it will return to Spain and within our lifetimes. It will be in the form of a religion that never had it's own Age of Enlightenment or ever undergone a Reformation.
|
|
|
|
zombiewhacker
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
1475 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 12:08:54 PM
|
| Respectfully, I find it amusing that Neville fears Christian Fundamentalists more than Islamic Fundamentalists. It isn't the Christian Fundamentalists who want to take Andalusia back. |
|
|
|
Neville
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Spain
1590 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 12:27:07 PM
|
That's because they already have it. As for Bin Laden's comments about Al-Andalus (which is not Andalucia, but whole Spain), they seem to me just empty rethoric. Many Muslims regard their dominion over Al-Andalus as their Golden Age, and therefore it has become a staple on their rants.
And believe me, if your democracy was only 30 years old you wouldn't like the idea of losing it too.
BTW, in Spain the Catholic church is funded -and heavily- by our government. No other religion receives any money from the state, although the state declares itself non-confesional. Moreover, Catholic religion is taught at school, by teachers selected by the local bishops... but payed by the state. And since they are chosen by the bishop he can fire them at will, often for "felonies" such as getting divorced, being related to unions or partying too much. |
|
|
|
Citizen Carrier
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
322 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 5:58:29 PM
|
I had no idea it was such in Spain.
One of the books I read about the seige of the Alcazar had an interesting line in it about the world's perception of Spain at that time.
"In Spain, even the atheists are Catholics..."
But the perception of America, thanks to Hollywood, is that we are a hotbed of religious extremism.
For example, the episode of "The X-Files" where Christians are being killed by snakes and the entire show points to a bunch of Pentecostal "snake handling, speaking in tongues" zealots as the culprits. Only it turns out that the priest of the "normal" church is actually responsible for the supernatural killings. See? Neither the cult type church or the normal church can be trusted!
I get the feeling that if I were from another country and most of what I knew about America came from movies and TV shows, I'd think the southern states were hotbeds of racism, corporations run the White House, and if you drive 50 miles in from either coast you'll be in Jesus Land. |
Edited by - Citizen Carrier on 05/15/2007 6:00:49 PM |
|
|
|
zombiewhacker
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
1475 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 7:21:42 PM
|
Pardon, I meant Al-Andalus. (I wrongly assumed that Andalusia and Al-Aldalus were synonymous. D'oh!)
Since Bin Laden killed 3,000 people back in 2001, I wouldn't consider any threat he makes "empty rhetoric".
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Forum Locked
Topic Locked