View Full Version : 24 Minute interview on PBS
http://video.pbs.org/video/2213078176
duke knooby
21 Mar 2012, 23:24
very interesting.. ta for posting
It's a honest interview filled with the truth and i really enjoyed watching it.
evil nickname
22 Mar 2012, 10:16
Re: that prayer on the wall thing. It appears Meat got his facts wrong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahlquist_v._Cranston). So unless objecting to a violation of the US constitution and standing up for what you believe is right is a sign of the world going to hell in a handbasket, I think it's a pretty bad example.
Given that this is one of my hobby horses, it irks me.
evil nickname
22 Mar 2012, 10:40
Also, there's a video which goes into Chuck D's contribution on the album a bit more: http://video.pbs.org/video/2210992925
It's a honest interview filled with the truth and i really enjoyed watching it.
I agree. I thought it a great interview, with an interviewer who didn't constantly work to a pre-planned agenda, and an intelligent and thoughtful man, who cares about the world, and the way he sees it going. I enjoyed it tremendously too.
And using Wiki to confidently point out Meat "got his facts wrong" irks me.
Caryl
evil nickname
22 Mar 2012, 12:56
And using Wiki to confidently point out Meat "got his facts wrong" irks me.
That's too bad, because that article is a succinct and accurate summary of the gazillion different articles I've read about the whole issue. But feel free to peruse the cited references (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahlquist_v._Cranston#References) at your leisure.
allrevvedup
22 Mar 2012, 16:12
Re: that prayer on the wall thing. It appears Meat got his facts wrong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahlquist_v._Cranston). So unless objecting to a violation of the US constitution and standing up for what you believe is right is a sign of the world going to hell in a handbasket, I think it's a pretty bad example.
Given that this is one of my hobby horses, it irks me.
if you were just told that someone objected to the prayer banner you would think that it was someone just trying to be a little too PC (which is what is what I would've taken from that example by Mr Loaf)
However if you're going to bring it up as an example of how the world is going to hell then the example is taken out of context.
Good interview though, still doesn't change my view of not liking the album.
Evil Ernie
27 Mar 2012, 20:45
I agree. I thought it a great interview, with an interviewer who didn't constantly work to a pre-planned agenda, and an intelligent and thoughtful man, who cares about the world, and the way he sees it going. I enjoyed it tremendously too.
And using Wiki to confidently point out Meat "got his facts wrong" irks me.
Caryl
What is wrong with the information included in the Wiki? You basically will use ANY excuse to defend ANYTHING that ML does or says.
Fact is that he was extremely out of line here. THIS was the best example he could find of the world going to hell in a handbasket? Not starving children or needless wars or Kony. No. Some kid in middle America who wants the constitution upheld is the best example that he could find.
Interviews like this just tell me how out of touch ML really is with the rest of the world. I actually try to avoid interviews with him from the past and the present because IMO he doesn't comes across well in almost EVERY interview I've seen with him. I know it will never happen and everyone has the right to their opinion, but I wish that he would just shut up and sing.
What is wrong with the information included in the Wiki? You basically will use ANY excuse to defend ANYTHING that ML does or says.
I have not requoted your more offensive comments.
I do not consider Wiki to be some tablet of stone-set truth.
I support Meat, I am ENTITLED to do this and to express my views. I can manage to do this with courtesy. Some might not find it surprising that fans on a fansite support or defend the man whose name heads every page.
Please don't even try to harass me into changing or diminishing my support of Meat, who is someone I respect.
Evil Ernie
27 Mar 2012, 21:24
I have not requoted your more offensive comments.
I do not consider Wiki to be some tablet of stone-set truth.
I support Meat, I am ENTITLED to do this and to express my views. I can manage to do this with courtesy. Some might not find it surprising that fans on a fansite support or defend the man whose name heads every page.
Please don't even try to harass me into changing or diminishing my support of Meat, who is someone I respect.
You basically just proved my point.
Thank You.
You basically just proved my point.
Thank You.
As have you proved yourself, for which I cannot thank you with any sincerity
evil nickname
27 Mar 2012, 23:38
I do not consider Wiki to be some tablet of stone-set truth.
Well, neither do I, but in this case, it's a pretty darn good summary of the situation as I understand it from the numerous articles I've read about it.
So I still stand by my original assertion that Meat got his facts wrong on this one.
robgomm
27 Mar 2012, 23:46
THIS was the best example he could find of the world going to hell in a handbasket?
I wish that he would just shut up and sing.
No it's not the best example but it's what he thought of in the moment, the thing that sprang to mind there and then.
You wish that he would shut up and sing? Believe it or not he's actually a very interesting person and I suspect that if he wasn't asked various questions in interviews he wouldn't answer. Fact is the people that interview him find him very interesting and want to know his views on a whole range of things.
Caryl is right in that Wikipedia is well known for gathering it's info from here there and everywhere and so ends up not quite factually correct in a lot of what it says.
You wish he would just shut up and sing? I would say what the hell are you even doing on this site when you insult the artist you are meant to be supporting? How can you even be allowed to come here and blatantly insult the artist?
robgomm
27 Mar 2012, 23:47
I have not requoted your more offensive comments.
I do not consider Wiki to be some tablet of stone-set truth.
I support Meat, I am ENTITLED to do this and to express my views. I can manage to do this with courtesy. Some might not find it surprising that fans on a fansite support or defend the man whose name heads every page.
Please don't even try to harass me into changing or diminishing my support of Meat, who is someone I respect.
:up:
duke knooby
27 Mar 2012, 23:54
very interesting
Evil Ernie
28 Mar 2012, 02:49
No it's not the best example but it's what he thought of in the moment, the thing that sprang to mind there and then.
You wish that he would shut up and sing? Believe it or not he's actually a very interesting person and I suspect that if he wasn't asked various questions in interviews he wouldn't answer. Fact is the people that interview him find him very interesting and want to know his views on a whole range of things.
Caryl is right in that Wikipedia is well known for gathering it's info from here there and everywhere and so ends up not quite factually correct in a lot of what it says.
You wish he would just shut up and sing? I would say what the hell are you even doing on this site when you insult the artist you are meant to be supporting? How can you even be allowed to come here and blatantly insult the artist?
Well He said it was the best example. His words, not mine:
"The best example is in America: In this one high school, for 50 years a prayer was hung on a wall. And all of a sudden, a daughter and a woman who are atheists (complained)."
Wikipedia articles must have sources cited. It's true that anyone can edit a Wiki, but any entries without citations are erased. It's sort of ignorant to reject something just because it's on Wikipedia.
And supporting an artist means that I buy his records and see him in concert. If he does or says something that I object to I am going to make it known. Even though I'm aware that democracies don't exist on internet forums, we all live in Free countries where we're allowed to express our opinions. I know that may seem foreign for a message board where it seems like 50% of the posts are just people agreeing with each other.
I love ML as a singer and sometimes as an actor, but that doesn't mean that he's omnipotent. Lately especially it seems that every time that he opens his mouth and does a keystroke I do a facepalm.
evil nickname
28 Mar 2012, 09:19
I really don't want to give a damn about Meat Loaf's political and worldviews. I don't care, I'm in it for the music. But when he's making a big deal out of how his latest album in grounded in reality and how he thinks about stuff, no characters in the songs, etc., it gets kinda hard to stay out, right?
So when he comes up with probably the worst best example of the world going to hell in a handbasket, I want to headdesk and facepalm at once. If Meat sings that he can barely fit his big dog in there, I know it's stupid, but that's not Meat, it's his character. On the other hand, saying stuff like (http://www.lfpress.com/entertainment/music/2012/03/20/19527466.html)
The best example is in America: In this one high school, for 50 years a prayer was hung on a wall. And all of a sudden, a daughter and a woman who are atheists (complained). … But something that’s hung on a wall for 50 years? People don’t even see it any more. If you’ve got that much time on your hands, go down and help at the children’s centre. Go help at the homeless centre. Go do something that helps other people. People need to stand up, be responsible for themselves and help other people. The Internet is to blame, the comment pages are to blame. There’s such hatred spewed out over the stupidest things.
That is Meat saying that. As it is on a subject that I care about — i.e., freedom of religion for all, not just for those who happen to have one — I cannot ignore that. Especially not when he lead it in with:
We got here because people stopped caring about other people and only care about their beliefs and what they want.
Jessica Ahlquist stood up for the constitution, and was responsible for herself and other people. Unlike like the people who only cared about their own beliefs and put up that prayer. The school board could just have removed the prayer when someone first complained about it — nobody saw it anymore, right? But no, they had to go to court, spend time and money that could have been better used elsewhere.
I don't see how she is what's wrong with the world.
Go yell at the people sending her death threats, or something.
robgomm
28 Mar 2012, 10:00
Are you all really naive enough to think that Meat really thinks that is the best example? It was an example he came up with at a moments notice in response to a question. It's like the other week when he said everyones got their hand out, were you all naive enough to think he really meant everyone in the world? Of course he didn't, and you'd be stupid to think so.
FFS HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU HAVE TO BE TOLD HE GETS NERVOUS ON TV AND DOESN'T ALWAYS SAY THINGS EXACTLY RIGHT? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE, STOP PICKING.
evil nickname
28 Mar 2012, 10:14
I've seen the same "best example" (Meat's words) pop up three times now:
http://www.lfpress.com/entertainment/music/2012/03/20/19527466.html
http://www.classicrockrevisited.com/interviewmeatloaf2012.htm
http://video.pbs.org/video/2213078176
Which would suggest that he didn't come up with it at a moment's notice.
THIS was the best example he could find of the world going to hell in a handbasket? Not starving children or needless wars or Kony. No. Some kid in middle America who wants the constitution upheld is the best example that he could find.
He talks about the world but obviously it's only his world he refers to. I expect a little bit more from an artist who obviously is not stupid and has travelled the world.
Interviews like this just tell me how out of touch ML really is with the rest of the world.
I hate to say it but I agree. There was a time when I enjoyed listening to his interviews because he came across as a witty, funny and educated guy. These days many of his statements make me shake my head in disbelief, some even make me angry and are beginning to spoil my listening experience of his current album. Good album, very disappointing interviews.
It's like the other week when he said everyones got their hand out, were you all naive enough to think he really meant everyone in the world? Of course he didn't, .....
STOP PICKING.
Seems to be the plat du jour for some at the moment.
I like the passion with which this intelligent, caring, and articulate man speaks about his concerns and beliefs. It simply reinforces the meaning of the album and enhances the pleasure in listening to it for me
shell120978
08 Apr 2012, 18:15
Great interview, thanks for posting!
Thankyou for posting this interview.
So I still stand by my original assertion that Meat got his facts wrong on this one.
Did he get his facts wrong or is his interpretation of the US Constitution differing from the legal precedent that has gone before? A very unique part of the US Legal System is for Judges to have the ability to interpret law, as well as steer law in one direction or another. Yes, the girl has freedom of religion and felt offended; however, depending on whether the school is "public" or "private" would depend on the level of freedom of speech the educational institution has for posting whatever they wish. As an entertainer, I have freedom of speech and can say whatever I want during my act; however, I must also put the intended audience's reaction into account when I write my material. There is nothing in the US law that says I cannot make racial slurs during my comedy act; however, for example, I must weigh loosing my audience if I make reference to the president's race and make off color references as such.
In the case of this school prayer, my personal opinion would go toward Meat's in this situation. If this is a private school, then leaving the prayer up on the wall should be totally upheld. The student/parent of the student has made a conscious decision to attend the school, and should have paid attention to what was posted on the walls prior to voluntarily enrolling. If this school is a public institution, the student/parent does not really have a choice - unless there is reciprocity of school district boundaries, which allow for students to "travel" outside the physical realm of the district where they physically live. Then the case should be up for further evaluation.
We could open up a whole new can of worms about the separation of Church and State with reminders that when Massachusetts converted from a Colony to a State, there was a state established church for quite sometime and no one said anything...but that is another can of worms for another thread altogether.
evil nickname
12 Apr 2012, 22:51
My understanding of US law in the matter of separation of church and state is that public schools—as the one in question is, check the Wikipedia article mentioned earlied—cannot 'promote' any religion. I don't see how the audience's reaction factors into that.
Also: have a look the nice reactions people are sending Jessica Ahlquist (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/04/11/jessica-ahlquist-gets-nasty-hatemail/).
robgomm
12 Apr 2012, 23:04
My understanding of US law in the matter of separation of church and state is that public schools—as the one in question is, check the Wikipedia article mentioned earlied—cannot 'promote' any religion.
The how come it was left on the wall for 50 years? That doesn't make sense?
My understanding of US law in the matter of separation of church and state is that public schools—as the one in question is, check the Wikipedia article mentioned earlied—cannot 'promote' any religion.
The brilliant Thomas Jefferson penned:
"... I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."
Does the legal precedent requiring the prayer to be removed not also impinge upon the freedom of other student's to exercise their religion? It is a two edged sword.
evil nickname
12 Apr 2012, 23:48
The how come it was left on the wall for 50 years? That doesn't make sense?
I don't know. Perhaps there have only been good Christians at that school who took it for granted and didn't care it was illegal. Perhaps there were people who objected to it, but didn't file a complaint. Perhaps there were people filed a complaint, and the school board chose to ignore that. I really don't know. Does it matter? Having something somewhere for some time doesn't automagically make it right or how it should be.
Does the legal precedent requiring the prayer to be removed not also impinge upon the freedom of other student's to exercise their religion? It is a two edged sword.
Probably not. From what I gather, US citizens are currently free and able to exercise their religion as they see fit, and the US government may not establish religion. But IANAL, and more details on the legal precedent can be found in the court's decision (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10811058226814137027&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr).
Evil Ernie
13 Apr 2012, 08:35
The brilliant Thomas Jefferson penned:
Does the legal precedent requiring the prayer to be removed not also impinge upon the freedom of other student's to exercise their religion? It is a two edged sword.
How is taking down a prayer banner infringing on their right to practice their religion? Please explain.
If the religious want religion in school than I want Science taught in church. Theists feel that they are being persecuted, but they're really just not getting their way for once. It's amazing how the spoiled act like children when you take away their rattle.
Having that banner up is an endorsement of religion in a public building. Plain and simple. I bet you that they wouldn't find it cool if they put up an Islamic prayer right beside it as a consolation.
If the religious want religion in school than I want Science taught in church.
Apparently you have never been to my church. I have learned about rain, the food chain, evolution and creationism and why they must go hand-in-hand, as well as how rain happens, learning that things live and die, and other scientific ventures - all of these have been presented to me directly from the pulpit during sermons, at various churches I have attended over the years.
Listen, I won't deny I consider myself a Christian Buddhist nor will I deny I consider myself to be politically Conservative; however, I will also not allow you to pigeon hole me into the stereotypes of people who hold my same beliefs. My best friends are Jews, Muslims, Cross Dressers, Ministers, Homeless....shall I go on?
I understand where Meat Loaf is coming from and you don't - no biggie. He has a problem with breaking of tradition, I believe that is where he is coming from. I have also done media blitzes like Meat Loaf did - not on the same scale, but have known I had like a dozen interviews where I knew the exact same questions were coming down the line. You rehearse your answer and pick your point of reference so you can come off pithy and succinct, yet sounding half way spontaneous, relevant, and hopefully on the positive side of intelligent.
Looks like we are going to have to agree do disagree on this one. There are matters of opinion and matters of salvation - this is opinion and the salvation is Mr. Loaf whose banner brought us all together across the cybersphere and for that I am thankful today.
Evil Ernie
14 Apr 2012, 02:53
Good, well thought out post.
Apparently you have never been to my church. I have learned about rain, the food chain, evolution and creationism and why they must go hand-in-hand, as well as how rain happens, learning that things live and die, and other scientific ventures - all of these have been presented to me directly from the pulpit during sermons, at various churches I have attended over the years.
Interesting. So they teach Science in your Church? Do you mean actual Science or an interpretation from scripture? If its actual science, good on them
Listen, I won't deny I consider myself a Christian Buddhist nor will I deny I consider myself to be politically Conservative; however, I will also not allow you to pigeon hole me into the stereotypes of people who hold my same beliefs. My best friends are Jews, Muslims, Cross Dressers, Ministers, Homeless....shall I go on?
I don't see how that was significant to my post. I wasn't talking about you. My point is that it wasnt about religious freedom to the jerks in RI, its about the promotion of Christianity in a secular country.
The only thing that I asked of you is how removing that thing was infringing on their right to practice their religion? For the record I think they're all equally ridiculous.
I understand where Meat Loaf is coming from and you don't - no biggie. He has a problem with breaking of tradition, I believe that is where he is coming from. I have also done media blitzes like Meat Loaf did - not on the same scale, but have known I had like a dozen interviews where I knew the exact same questions were coming down the line. You rehearse your answer and pick your point of reference so you can come off pithy and succinct, yet sounding half way spontaneous, relevant, and hopefully on the positive side of intelligent.
Looks like we are going to have to agree do disagree on this one. There are matters of opinion and matters of salvation - this is opinion and the salvation is Mr. Loaf whose banner brought us all together across the cybersphere and for that I am thankful today.
I think that he could have just said nothing. Him bringing this up was completely spontaneous. It wasn't really the 'best' example of HIAH. He wanted to comment on it due to his own indoctrination into religion but he ended up sounding backwards and close minded. The banner was illegal.
There are lots of things that are traditions. I never understood the mentality that just because something is old means that it's better. There were lots of things that were traditions and than we outgrew them as human beings.
In the case of this it's a tradition which never should have existed.
Don't believe I got my facts wrong at all, you need to understand the law a little better. Church and state came all the way from the 14th century. What it means is the state can not tell you how you can worship. The dollar still says in god we can trust. The 2 people that took down that prayer interfered with the civil rights of many. The judge was wrong with his decision and the school system does have the money to fight it. Your right, the US constitution
gives you the right to believe how you believe. the ruling was a violation of the US constitution . bottom line .
Re: that prayer on the wall thing. It appears Meat got his facts wrong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahlquist_v._Cranston). So unless objecting to a violation of the US constitution and standing up for what you believe is right is a sign of the world going to hell in a handbasket, I think it's a pretty bad example.
Given that this is one of my hobby horses, it irks me.
But what I was saying is that with so much wrong in the world and so many needing help I thought it was a selfish act by these 2 women. Again my facts are not wrong. I will stand up to any judge anywhere and argue the case. The reason the pilgrims left England is they were not allowed worship the way they wanted. The law is not about a prayer on a school wall , it's about everyone in that school has a right to believe how they believe, can't say Merry Christmas, can't put the 10 commandments on the outside wall of the capitol building. all people want to do is assume and not really read ,study, and understand. Why does the President attend a prayer breakfest. I see dumb people !! If they put a Muslim prayer next to the prayer that was on the wall for 50 years , I would say they have the right to do so. Separation of church and state is about the freedom to worship and believe what you heart tells you. Not to take away everything that says God From the world. If this case would have gone to the Supreme Court it would have been overturned.
You are basing your opinion on Wikipedia . Wikipedia ?? Please go take a course in Constitutional law. I did in college, I was a History major . People are destroying the US
Constitution . There are prayers all over the walls of government buildings in Washington.
They won't go after those. They would be overturned.
Yes the world is going to hell in a handbasket !!! That judge is living proof.
I'm glad you all like Paul, everytime I say anything it's wrong !! Please change to Paul Crook UK fan Club, and no I am not upset with Paul in any way. There are people here who do not like me at all. I am very confussed. " Meat Loaf UK Fan Club" is that a joke I'm not in on.
If they put a Muslim prayer next to the prayer that was on the wall for 50 years , I would say they have the right to do so.
Exactly. Schools here give children a grounding in all faiths, and before anyone who is agnostic or atheist says anything against that, to me it's about tolerance and understanding in a multi-cultural society, where understanding others' beliefs is important to embracing diversity, rather than trying to suppress or remove it.
I still say Happy Christmas because that is what I am celebrating on 25th December, and I respect the right of others to celebrate Divali, Hannukah etc. There seemed to me to be nothing wrong with the prayer that as on that school wall, and I would have had more respect for someone who simply asked to add a secular piece which exhorted children to something worthy, or asked that another religious prayer be added
Separation of church and state is about the freedom to worship and believe what you heart tells you. Not to take away everything that says God from the world. If this case would have gone to the Supreme Court it would have been overturned.
Agreed .. and I hope that would have been the case. There's enough negative and worrying stuff around to worry about in my view, before lobbying to remove a simple prayer because it doesn't fit your personal beliefs
Caryl
I'm glad you all like Paul, everytime I say anything it's wrong !! Please change to Paul Crook UK fan Club, and no I am not upset with Paul in any way. There are people here who do not like me at all. I am very confussed. " Meat Loaf UK Fan Club" is that a joke I'm not in on.
Paul's great .. and you KNOW that there are far more people on here who enjoy your company here, and respect and love you and your work, than those who may not or who find fault with what you say and do :-) You see the comments which are critical, and like most people don't like to read criticism and fault-finding. Just try to remember there are many more posts of support, agreement and care .. and enjoy those ;)
Caryl
There are people here who do not like me at all. I am very confussed. " Meat Loaf UK Fan Club" is that a joke I'm not in on.
*** hug *** ...
S ... xo
I'm glad you all like Paul, everytime I say anything it's wrong !! Please change to Paul Crook UK fan Club, and no I am not upset with Paul in any way. There are people here who do not like me at all. I am very confussed. " Meat Loaf UK Fan Club" is that a joke I'm not in on.
(( Hugs ))
Evil Ernie
15 Apr 2012, 04:24
I'm glad you all like Paul, everytime I say anything it's wrong !! Please change to Paul Crook UK fan Club, and no I am not upset with Paul in any way. There are people here who do not like me at all. I am very confussed. " Meat Loaf UK Fan Club" is that a joke I'm not in on.
Love you for your music, not always for your opinion. Just because of that doesn't mean the love isn't there.
Politics evoke a wide variety of emotions.
stretch37
15 Apr 2012, 05:56
Yes the world is going to hell in a handbasket !!! That judge is living proof.
Your opinions are great to me. I think a fan club should consist of people who are a fan of the artist....but thats just me. And im probably going to get shot down for that, but it seems to make sense to anyone i've asked.
I'm glad you all like Paul, everytime I say anything it's wrong !! Please change to Paul Crook UK fan Club, and no I am not upset with Paul in any way. There are people here who do not like me at all. I am very confussed. " Meat Loaf UK Fan Club" is that a joke I'm not in on.
Cowboy,
Can you find it in your heart to stay around for the people here that DO like you and your opinion? Please, what can we do to help the situation so you stick around and post?
RE: Paul. I think he's trying to help this community get back on track, so you'll enjoy your time here.
Suzieq
Cowboy,
Can you find it in your heart to stay around for the people here that DO like you and your opinion? Please, what can we do to help the situation so you stick around and post?
RE: Paul. I think he's trying to help this community get back on track, so you'll enjoy your time here.
Suzieq
I absolutely agree Suzieq ... on both points.
stretch37
15 Apr 2012, 08:02
Cowboy,
Can you find it in your heart to stay around for the people here that DO like you and your opinion? Please, what can we do to help the situation so you stick around and post?
RE: Paul. I think he's trying to help this community get back on track, so you'll enjoy your time here.
Suzieq
I agree as well.
This is a community full of good people. Yet many are not fans of Meat Loaf's personal opinions or attitude.....So Its hard. I don't want things to change around here because it risks us losing everything. At the same time, I don't want Meat upset. I'd much rather this place was a place he could call part of his team of loyal followers.
Nobody seems to have the answer to this issue, least of all me, I feel more helpless than anything.
And Sarge, I apologize for swearing at you the other day. I lost my patience and kind of went Busey because I've held my tongue many times with you before, and you always read into me the wrong way and it sucks. You didn't deserve what I said, and I although I'm still mad that you told me I'm forcing my opinion down others throats, I have felt bad since then. I can have a strong personality, but just because I have an opinion does not mean I won't like you if you don't agree with it. When I start to not like you is when you tell me im forcing it down others throats. I am not that type of person. If you don't agree with me, that ~~~~ing rocks. That's what makes the world great, difference in opinion. That's what encourages debate. Discussion is healthy, and thats what causes us to avoid world wars, by having that discussion. I was trying to do just that. State an opinion and hope to add something to it, not force anyone to do anything. Who am I to think I hold that kind of power? If I did, I would be the most self-absorbed prick on here.
Again, I apologize, and I feel bad, and I am sorry you felt I was too forceful. I'm currently in a really hard practicum at school, working, and was dirt poor for the last 3 weeks waiting for student loans. The stress got the best of me, and humbled me just as much.
lates.
matt
I watched that Tavis interview when it aired, and again on this thread. When Meat brought up the topic of the prayer banner being taken down I remembered seeing that on the news, and the empty wall of a banner that hung for so many years.
That being said, I thought Meat was using that recent story (because it was recent to the time of the interview) as an example of how these people are focusing their time and energy to have it removed...rather than utilizing precious time in some other manner to promote peace. We have all this hatred going on...our country has been, and continues to be...attacked. Soldiers are dying...still. People are starving, homeless, jobless...I could go on and on. I see suffering on a daily basis as I work in a field of "compassion" as a Registered Nurse.
It seemed to me the example Meat referred to was not religious or politically intended. Perhaps a thought of a news story that came to mind as an example of THIS is what people are spending TIME on...losing focus on the HUGE problems the world and our country are facing every day.
Hence, the world has gone to "Hell in a Handbasket".
Coming into an artist's FAN site, twisting his statements, insulting his latest and brilliant album makes you a contributing person to the TITLE of the album ITSELF. Who does that? WHY? What purpose does it serve?
The screen name you chose is INDEED appropriate.
For what it's worth Meat...HIAHB has changed MY LIFE, my views, "the truth has set ME free"...and I felt as though Another Day was written FOR me. I do remember when my life was "simple".
I am trying harder to be the person God wants me to be, to enjoy each day as I open my eyes, to cherish every moment I spend with my children, to stop and smell the roses, enjoy LIFE...because you "cannot turn back the hands of time"...unfortunately...sad but TRUE. :(
"Give up or give it everything inside"...I'm giving it EVERYTHING inside.
I intend to THANK Meat, when I see him in July... for some extremely powerful lyrics, incredible music and an amazing album that truly has turned MY life around 180 degrees for the BETTER. I tried to do it in a PM, unfortunately it was never read.
Does being "Evil" feel good??? :twisted:
Being kind and compassionate feels EVEN BETTER! You should try it sometime.
Please stick around Meat!
Kar
One more thing I'd like to add...and I RARELY if ever...post personal problems on forums, FB, myspace etc. Perhaps I'm in the wrong "area" and this will be moved accordingly.
Thinking about this whole school, banner, religion etc....
Here's MY dilemma:
My 9yr old daughter the youngest of my five, my baby, my angel, precious and sweet. She has made honor roll every marking period, received the Citizenship Award, Student of the month, and I could wallpaper her bedroom with "Random Act of Kindness Awards"...she has so many. Loves school, loves her teacher.
Right up until 2 months ago when she was hit by a chair flung by a student having a "tantrum". I am told by the school this child has no mental or physical disabilities. Every day my child comes home from school...with the exception of when this student is in OSS (out of school suspension) she tells me another story of this young boy's "outburst"..the entire class has to leave the room, while teachers try to calm this boy down.
Multiple phone calls to the school, principal, and superintendent have resulted in "there's nothing we can do" the boy has "problems at home", "anger issues".
Now my daughter is literally AFRAID to go to school, has attendance issues..headaches, stomach aches etc. My hands are tied. I could of course choose to home school her...but I prefer she attends public schools for the purpose of learning and social interaction.
If my daughter was subject to witnessing the violence at home that she is seeing in SCHOOL on a regular basis...she would be taken away from ME by child protective services... period.
A banner can be over-looked, how does this mother and daughter spend money with the words "In God WE Trust"????? Rip it up? Doubt it.
This is a perfect "REAL" example of how the world truly is going to or has GONE to Hell in a Hanbasket.
UNREAL
robgomm
15 Apr 2012, 11:00
Don't believe I got my facts wrong at all, you need to understand the law a little better. Church and state came all the way from the 14th century. What it means is the state can not tell you how you can worship. The dollar still says in god we can trust. The 2 people that took down that prayer interfered with the civil rights of many. The judge was wrong with his decision and the school system does have the money to fight it. Your right, the US constitution
gives you the right to believe how you believe. the ruling was a violation of the US constitution . bottom line .
But what I was saying is that with so much wrong in the world and so many needing help I thought it was a selfish act by these 2 women. Again my facts are not wrong. I will stand up to any judge anywhere and argue the case. The reason the pilgrims left England is they were not allowed worship the way they wanted. The law is not about a prayer on a school wall , it's about everyone in that school has a right to believe how they believe, can't say Merry Christmas, can't put the 10 commandments on the outside wall of the capitol building. all people want to do is assume and not really read ,study, and understand. Why does the President attend a prayer breakfest. I see dumb people !! If they put a Muslim prayer next to the prayer that was on the wall for 50 years , I would say they have the right to do so. Separation of church and state is about the freedom to worship and believe what you heart tells you. Not to take away everything that says God From the world. If this case would have gone to the Supreme Court it would have been overturned.
You are basing your opinion on Wikipedia . Wikipedia ?? Please go take a course in Constitutional law. I did in college, I was a History major . People are destroying the US
Constitution . There are prayers all over the walls of government buildings in Washington.
They won't go after those. They would be overturned.
Yes the world is going to hell in a handbasket !!! That judge is living proof.
I am really not sucking up by saying I believe Meat is right in everything he says here. It's a great example of people being plain selfish, I mean c'mon deciding to be offended by something that's been there for 50 years is just plain pathetic I don't care what anyone says.
robgomm
15 Apr 2012, 11:07
I'm glad you all like Paul, everytime I say anything it's wrong !! Please change to Paul Crook UK fan Club, and no I am not upset with Paul in any way. There are people here who do not like me at all. I am very confussed. " Meat Loaf UK Fan Club" is that a joke I'm not in on.
I think that's a bit harsh to be honest. I think if you look back the vast majority of the time everyone has been grateful for your posts and information and have said so, we all love you and want you here.
I agree that there are some people here that shouldn't be, and we would love to get rid of them believe you me. But please, please stick around for the vast majority of us who love and support you.
I'm glad you all like Paul, everytime I say anything it's wrong !! Please change to Paul Crook UK fan Club, and no I am not upset with Paul in any way. There are people here who do not like me at all. I am very confussed. " Meat Loaf UK Fan Club" is that a joke I'm not in on.
I like ya Meat ;)
**hugs** Please stick around here... There are many people here who love you and write positive comments. Pay attention to them and ignore the few dumb ones here who are too stupid to say ever something good.
Love ya. XXX
evil nickname
15 Apr 2012, 13:52
Hi Meat,
Don't believe I got my facts wrong at all, you need to understand the law a little better.
Disclaimer up front: I am neither an US citizen nor a lawyer. My understanding of the US Constitution and the separation of church and state comes from reading loads of articles about it. As I said, the subject of freedom of religion for all and not just those who have one is something I am very interested in.
Church and state came all the way from the 14th century. What it means is the state can not tell you how you can worship. The dollar still says in god we can trust.
"In God We Trust" has only been the US national motto since 1956, and it is not entirely undisputed (http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_mott.htm), as many people see it as an official endorsement of religion by the government.
The 2 people that took down that prayer interfered with the civil rights of many.
The people who put up the prayer and allowed it to stay there also interfered with the civil rights of many.
The judge was wrong with his decision and the school system does have the money to fight it. Your right, the US constitution gives you the right to believe how you believe. the ruling was a violation of the US constitution . bottom line .
If that's your opinion, I don't think we're going to agree on this.
But what I was saying is that with so much wrong in the world and so many needing help I thought it was a selfish act by these 2 women. Again my facts are not wrong.
I agree that there are many things wrong in the world. And indeed, this is just a minor issue in the great scheme of things.
But you said "We got here because people stopped caring about other people and only care about their beliefs and what they want." In light of that statement, I believe that this prayer banner thing is a bad example: Jessica Ahlquist stood up for what she believed in, the constitution, and was responsible for herself and other people. The schoolboard didn't care that she and others felt "excluded, ostracized and devalued." They just wanted to keep a statement of their beliefs up there. They even went to court over it. I don't get how she's what's wrong with the world.
Also, I tried my best to keep this out of the whole thing, since it seems kind of pedantic, but well, it was a girl and her father. While, indeed, that's nitpicking, it's still wrong. ;)
I will stand up to any judge anywhere and argue the case. The reason the pilgrims left England is they were not allowed worship the way they wanted.
Yes, and that's also why the establishment clause is there: they didn't want state-endorsed religion, and religious freedom for all.
The law is not about a prayer on a school wall , it's about everyone in that school has a right to believe how they believe, can't say Merry Christmas, can't put the 10 commandments on the outside wall of the capitol building.
As far as I can see, in the US individuals are free to worship as they please and free to say merry christmas. But indeed, the government and, by extension, public schools cannot display messages promoting religion.
all people want to do is assume and not really read ,study, and understand.
That's a bit of a generalization. If I didn't try to understand this situation, I would not be arguing over this, would I?
Why does the President attend a prayer breakfest. I see dumb people !!
I wonder about that too, Obama being the anti-christ (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/NRSC_celeb_thinks_Obama_may_be_antiChrist_sooooo_evil.html) and all. I kid, I kid.
If they put a Muslim prayer next to the prayer that was on the wall for 50 years , I would say they have the right to do so.
I would love to see that. But mostly because I would also love to see the Religious Right fuming over that.
Separation of church and state is about the freedom to worship and believe what you heart tells you. Not to take away everything that says God From the world.
Again, I don't see how anyone in this case is trying to take away anybody's freedom of religion. Putting up a prayer is as far as I know not a prerequisite for religious worship.
If this case would have gone to the Supreme Court it would have been overturned.
Somehow, I doubt it would:
School sponsorship of a religious message is impermissible because it sends the ancillary message to members of the audience who are nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.
I cannot see how allowing a prayer up on a wall and going to court over it is anything but sponsorship of the message.
You are basing your opinion on Wikipedia . Wikipedia ??
No, I am not. As I have said in several posts in this discussion that I believe the Wikipedia article to be a accurate, succinct summary of the many articles I've read on the case. In fact, I've also replied to exactly the same criticism that everybody should feel free to peruse the cited references (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahlquist_v._Cranston#References) at their leisure. And then, I also linked directly to in the court's decision (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10811058226814137027&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr). So, please, gimme a break.
Please go take a course in Constitutional law. I did in college, I was a History major . People are destroying the US Constitution . There are prayers all over the walls of government buildings in Washington. They won't go after those. They would be overturned.
There have been various lawsuits (https://www.aclu.org/content/highlights-ten-commandments-litigation) over, for example, displays of the ten commandments in state capitols and courthouses, with mixed outcome.
On a final note: I guess this all boils down to how you look at things. As an atheist, I think that freedom of church and state is a right that's worth defending. I'm perfectly fine with anybody believing and worshipping whatever they want, as long as they respect my right not to. For me, freedom of religion should also include freedom from religion. I don't see a war on religion, I see misplaced outrage over religious privileges being challenged. I see people sending sixteen year-old girls sending death threats because she stood up for what she believed in, and it just happened to go against what they believed in.
Meat, I don't think we're going to agree on this matter, but just as you're free to assert that Jessica Ahlquist, her father and the judge got it wrong and should be doing something more constructive, so am I free to believe you're barking up the wrong tree here.
(And that's probably not going to earn me a lot of likes, but so be it.)
I'm glad you all like Paul, everytime I say anything it's wrong !! Please change to Paul Crook UK fan Club, and no I am not upset with Paul in any way. There are people here who do not like me at all. I am very confussed. " Meat Loaf UK Fan Club" is that a joke I'm not in on.
I like you and I've loved seeing you around the boards and reading what you have to say. I know the majority of the community feels the same.
I understand that negativity hurts and it's hard to ignore sometimes but there's a lot of messages that are very positive and supportive.
evil nickname
15 Apr 2012, 13:58
Does being "Evil" feel good??? :twisted:
Being kind and compassionate feels EVEN BETTER! You should try it sometime.
I hope that's not directed at me, 'cause it's just my nickname that's evil.
evil nickname
15 Apr 2012, 14:01
You are basing your opinion on Wikipedia . Wikipedia ?? Please go take a course in Constitutional law. I did in college, I was a History major . People are destroying the US Constitution . There are prayers all over the walls of government buildings in Washington. They won't go after those. They would be overturned.
Also, could the people liking this post please explain what part they liked? If it's Meat's assumption that I just used Wikipedia to base my opinion on: you're all dead wrong and didn't read the thread. -1, unlike, and unfollow.
Getting back ...
As an atheist, I think that freedom of church and state is a right that's worth defending. I'm perfectly fine with anybody believing and worshipping whatever they want, as long as they respect my right not to. For me, freedom of religion should also include freedom from religion. I don't see a war on religion, I see misplaced outrage over religious privileges being challenged. I see people sending sixteen year-old girls sending death threats because she stood up for what she believed in, and it just happened to go against what they believed in.
People's beliefs, when they are core beliefs, are very strongly held, whether they are to believe in some power beyond this life or not to. Challenging them will always be an emotive issue. Of course it's wrong to send death threats to ANYone .. just as it's wrong to issue religious fatois that declare holy war. That's why I believe that to include rather than ban or prohibit a wide variety of religious beliefs as well as secular is better than fighting to remove something from a school wall that has been there for years.
Freedom to practise what one believes, just as the much quoted freedom to express an opinion are both worthy ideals in a democracy, but not easy to uphold. To insist on the removal of something which does not incite hatred to anyone, but is simply intended to inspire some to positive effort was not in my view the way to uphold freedom, simply because a wholly positive message was prefaced with 3 words "Our Heavenly Father".
To me to insist on its removal does impinge on the freedom of those who believe in God. But I would have no quarrel with similar prayers being also posted on the wall which were addressed to Allah, or appealed to any other belief, including one which was an exhortation to try ones best because one was human, had no belief in an afterlife or presence that watches over us, so it was important to make the best of each day one had on earth, because we each have a lifespan and it's important to make the best of it because it won't come again. To me that would uphold everyone's freedom to practise whatever belief they hold. Seeking to prevent this would be a breach of rights imo
Caryl
Also, could the people liking this post please explain what part they liked? If it's Meat's assumption that I just used Wikipedia to base my opinion on: you're all dead wrong and didn't read the thread. -1, unlike, and unfollow.
Because Wikepedia is about as reliable as... well, a Land Rover Discovery.... well at least the one that we used to have at my work anyway, that thing was crap.
Also, could the people liking this post please explain what part they liked? If it's Meat's assumption that I just used Wikipedia to base my opinion on: you're all dead wrong and didn't read the thread. -1, unlike, and unfollow.
I read the thread very carefully. I "liked" ie agreed with "There are prayers all over the walls of government buildings in Washington. They won't go after those. They would be overturned."
I believe Meat is correct. The colonisation of America was based on a desire to practise religion without hindrance, it is embedded in the roots of its constitutional history. Every dollar bill has In God We Trust. Some things will endure in my view.
Caryl
I think that's a bit harsh to be honest. I think if you look back the vast majority of the time everyone has been grateful for your posts and information and have said so, we all love you and want you here.
I agree that there are some people here that shouldn't be, and we would love to get rid of them believe you me. But please, please stick around for the vast majority of us who love and support you.
Absolutely! Meat, if you compare the number of people on here who are in your corner, it FAR OUTWEIGHS the number of people who are not! I guess most of us have a tendancy to focus more on the negative things that people say about us, rather than the positive. But Meat, the nit-pickers are the minority here. The majority of the people here think you are great and we really appreciate it when you come here and interact with us.
evil nickname
15 Apr 2012, 15:41
To me to insist on its removal does impinge on the freedom of those who believe in God.
To me, it doesn't. Being free to believe in something and being free to make a public display of what you believe are two different things altogether. Especially if you're not a private individual but a public school.
I read the thread very carefully. I "liked" ie agreed with "There are prayers all over the walls of government buildings in Washington. They won't go after those. They would be overturned."
Yet, you liked the whole post. Which goes to show that the "like" button does not really help clear communication.
To me, it doesn't. Being free to believe in something and being free to make a public display of what you believe are two different things altogether. Especially if you're not a private individual but a public school.
We disagree. Life is never dull. But I understood it was permissable to publicly state or display one's opinions and beliefs, to practise one's beliefs publicly without let or hindrance as long as they don't incite hatred of another, and to do this both as an individual or a group. However, I think we see things differently, so need to each accept that having stated our view we might as well move on.
Yet, you liked the whole post. Which goes to show that the "like" button does not really help clear communication.
I didn't dislike any of it. I understood all of it, basically I agreed, and very strongly with what I quoted. It mattered to you to know more detail, you asked, I gave it to you.
My reaction you may recall re Wiki was the same. You have since pointed out you have done much research. However, I still think Meat probably understands more about the US constitution than you do. That's what I think .. so I agree with the post I liked.
Caryl
shell120978
15 Apr 2012, 16:08
I like you and I've loved seeing you around the boards and reading what you have to say. I know the majority of the community feels the same.
I understand that negativity hurts and it's hard to ignore sometimes but there's a lot of messages that are very positive and supportive.
Well said! :-)
I have tried not to get sucked into anything 'argumentative' which has happened in this forum (being only a baby poster), but have never seen anything like it before on any fan pages. But goodness, one man's words have been taken way, way, way out of context and scrutinised far too much. Can we just get the thread back on track and just enjoy our favourite music together and be chuffed that he wants to actually communicate with his fans? There are so many more artists that do not bother!
And Sarge, I apologize for swearing at you the other day. [...] You didn't deserve what I said, and I although I'm still mad that you told me I'm forcing my opinion down others throats, I have felt bad since then. [...] Again, I apologize, and I feel bad, and I am sorry you felt I was too forceful. I'm currently in a really hard practicum at school, working, and was dirt poor for the last 3 weeks waiting for student loans. The stress got the best of me, and humbled me just as much.
Please don't feel bad. This forum shouldn't be a place to make one feel bad. Let's just bury the hatchet and focus on our common interest. Written communication is especially prone to misunderstandings. I understand the stress thing and I know you can be very passionate ;) at times. Good luck with the practicum! :-)
I agree that there are some people here that shouldn't be, and we would love to get rid of them believe you me.
Can we finally stop this, please? Who defines who should and who shouldn't be here and why and how to get rid of them? Good Lord*, some posts on this forum remind me of Communist Germany. :roll: Robgomm, you're obviously a smart person, I think you're not in need of that. You can show what a loyal and supportive fan you are without referring to other people's alleged shortcomings and without provoking conflicts within the community, can't you?
It's probably a very stupid, naive question to ask but can't we all just try to get along, in spite of having different opinions and different ways of expressing them? After all we're adult, reasonable people. (At least I hope so.)
* religious reference :yikes:
There are lots of things that are traditions. I never understood the mentality that just because something is old means that it's better. There were lots of things that were traditions and than we outgrew them as human beings.
True, if we'd stick to things just because they have been there for quite a while there would be no progress at all. We still might have things like slavery or deny women the right to vote.
Love you for your music, not always for your opinion. Just because of that doesn't mean the love isn't there.
Exactly. I often disagree with my best friends and they disagree with me, yet none of them has ever accused me of "not liking" them. We all have different backgrounds, experience of life, careers, opinions... I can enjoy some old movie with Brigitte Bardot, even though her political beliefs are not my cup of tea.
Church and state came all the way from the 14th century.
In America, too? Before Columbus?
I agree that Christianity has significantly influenced our culture over the centuries, regarding everything else I rather agree with evil nickname.
Your right, the US constitution
gives you the right to believe how you believe. the ruling was a violation of the US constitution . bottom line .
We had a similar arguments over here, regarding whether there must be crucifixes in classrooms or whether female Muslim teachers should be allowed to wear headscarfs while teaching. Or if pork must be served in school cafeterias... Freedom of religion and separation of church and state are sensitive issues and trigger differing points of view and interpretations. The problem is that things that some people consider to be an essential part of their religion / their beliefs / their culture might make others who believe in something else feel restricted or even offended.
There are prayers all over the walls of government buildings in Washington.
You can still find relics of doctrines represented by past eras on the walls of buildings in my country. They haven't been removed but we no longer have to live by them.
Removing a prayer from a school wall does not keep people from excercising their religion. They can still believe in whatever they want, they can pray, go to church, etc. If I want to be religious and believe in something, I can do so without a prayer hanging on a wall in a building that wasn't built to represent my religion. Unless it's a religious school, there shouldn't be prayers on display. As far as I understood, Ms. Ahlquist did not attack Christians or Christianity, the case just raises the question in which places religion should be present and if/where people who have another or no religion should be confronted with it that way. Are you "compassionate" enough not only to understand the feelings of those who wanted to keep the prayer but also the motivation of those who had an issue with it?
As it is on a subject that I care about — i.e., freedom of religion for all, not just for those who happen to have one [...]
I don't see how she is what's wrong with the world.
Go yell at the people sending her death threats, or something.
Meat, you repeatedly complained about the rude, inconsiderate and dastard way people behave on the internet, didn't you? Does that also go for the issue evil nickname referred to in the sentence quoted above?
It's odd that some people who claim to be in favor of that prayer actually act against to what that prayer says. I wonder if they actually read and understood it. You say "we have lost our humanity and compassion". Is sending people hatemail "humane" or "compassionate"? What's worse? Requesting the removal of a prayer and maybe hurt people's (religious) feelings or threaten to actually hurt or kill someone?
If people have an issue with what the girl did, fine, but there are more decent and appropriate ways to express discontent. The way some people reacted just led to another silly Christians vs. atheists fight. That's one of the things I'd pick as an example for "the world going to hell in a handbasket": The inability of people to solve conflicts in a civilized manner, the tendency to hate each other for secondary, minor reasons.
But what I was saying is that with so much wrong in the world and so many needing help I thought it was a selfish act by these 2 women.
Everybody can decide for themselves what cause they fight for, regardless of what others think of it. Do you know for sure that she hasn't put time and energy in other issues, too? By the way, most of the things people do are somehow "selfish", even things we believe to be altruistic.
So, aside from the girl from Rhode Island that bothers you that much, what else is it that's "wrong in the world", in your opinion? You focus on some argument over a prayer when explaining the album title. What about the very complex economic and social issues the world suffers from? The latter will affect our lives in the long run, the prayer argument probably won't. It's easy but unfortunately not very constructive to complain about what other people have allegedly done wrong. I'm more interested in what you think is the "right" thing to do. What's your idea of solving the world's problems, how would you make the world a better place?
Just like to add one thing: I wonder why presumably reasonable people freak out when it comes to religion or politics and fight with people they could actually be good friends with if those two things wouldn't interfere.
It's probably a very stupid, naive question to ask but can't we all just try to get along, in spite of having different opinions and different ways of expressing them? After all we're adult, reasonable people. (At least I hope so.)
Very well said and a question I have been asking myself countless times during my life. I remember saying something to a girl I worked with once and that was that everyone has an opinion but differing opinions does not have to stop people being friends or at least getting along.
I'm glad you all like Paul, everytime I say anything it's wrong !! Please change to Paul Crook UK fan Club, and no I am not upset with Paul in any way. There are people here who do not like me at all. I am very confussed. " Meat Loaf UK Fan Club" is that a joke I'm not in on.
There is so much love to be found here but for some reason you ONLY seem to pick out everything you dislike.
What Paul brought to this board was an insight on the production of a Meat Loaf album. Of course we love that!
I saw questions in Paul's 'production' topic about if you were willing to do something similar. Like the Facebook/YouTube Q&A. As far as I can remember that only got positive vibes on this forum!
People agree with and love you on most matters. On some matters they have different views or opinions. So what? Why fixate on what we don't agree on? Instead of fighting those opinions try to take a compliment from the board every now and then. I hardly see you reply to positive posts. Maybe you should do that a bit more and perhaps it gives you a better feeling coming here. ;)
I'm glad you all like Paul, everytime I say anything it's wrong !! Please change to Paul Crook UK fan Club, and no I am not upset with Paul in any way. There are people here who do not like me at all. I am very confussed. " Meat Loaf UK Fan Club" is that a joke I'm not in on.
I don't post often. Mainly I only read. But there are à lot off people who like you and like your music Mr. Loaf. You need to start to believe that. There are more people on here than you think who feel that way. Maybe they are not very outspoken but they are there.....
Try to stay positive!!!!!!
robgomm
15 Apr 2012, 19:05
Can we finally stop this, please? Who defines who should and who shouldn't be here and why and how to get rid of them? Good Lord*, some posts on this forum remind me of Communist Germany. :roll: Robgomm, you're obviously a smart person, I think you're not in need of that. You can show what a loyal and supportive fan you are without referring to other people's alleged shortcomings and without provoking conflicts within the community, can't you?
It's probably a very stupid, naive question to ask but can't we all just try to get along, in spite of having different opinions and different ways of expressing them? After all we're adult, reasonable people. (At least I hope so.)
* religious reference :yikes:
I'm sorry if I offended you Sarge but there is an important point to make here. It just seems to me that there are fans of Meats music here, and fans of Meat the person as well as the music. This is the problem. There are a small group of people who do not seem to like Meat Loaf the person, and because of this they end up posting negative things an awful lot of the time that then cause arguments and bad feeling on the board.
I really appreciate you saying we should all try to get along. I'm with you 100% on that. I just can't see it happening while some people are here.
Evil Ernie
15 Apr 2012, 19:12
Every dollar bill has In God We Trust. Some things will endure in my view.
Caryl
I will point out that 'In God We Trust' was put on the notes in the 50s as a reaction to the cold war.
I will also point out that the UK puts great men like Charles Darwin on their money. I'm surprised to have so many people on a UK forum NOT defending secular values.
Evil Ernie
15 Apr 2012, 19:19
I'm sorry if I offended you Sarge but there is an important point to make here. It just seems to me that there are fans of Meats music here, and fans of Meat the person as well as the music. This is the problem. There are a small group of people who do not seem to like Meat Loaf the person, and because of this they end up posting negative things an awful lot of the time that then cause arguments and bad feeling on the board.
I really appreciate you saying we should all try to get along. I'm with you 100% on that. I just can't see it happening while some people are here.
It's not a problem. It's the Internet.
Do you think that everyone is just gonna agree on everything? It's not gonna happen. Never.
And why WOULD somebody want that? Sounds boring to me.
Disagreements are not hate or negativity. People need to realize that and stop making leaps in judgement. Including Meat himself.
I'm sure most people who are fans of his music, but disagree on some of his views are still fans of ML the person. He's not a bad person, just wrong (IMO) sometimes.
There are a small group of people who do not seem to like Meat Loaf the person, and because of this they end up posting negative things an awful lot of the time that then cause arguments and bad feeling on the board.
The fact that someone disagrees with something Meat Loaf says or does, does not necessarily mean that they dislike him. Sometimes people are pretty quick with the "hate" accusation, maybe that's easier than trying to understand why someone posted a "negative" comment.
Fans like their favorite artists for various reasons. We're all different from each other and have our own preferences, expectations and values. It's not unusual that there are different levels of admiration and different ways to show that admiration.
P.S.: Let me also point to the fact that this is an international community. There are people whose mother tongue is not English which might lead to misunderstanding or posts appearing a tad too "blunt".
I'm sure most people who are fans of his music, but disagree on some of his views are still fans of ML the person. He's not a bad person, just wrong (IMO) sometimes.
It's not that he's wrong... so to speak ... just that his opinion may differ from yours ... Imo ... lol ... opinions can't really be called wrong ... It's just the way one feels... ie... one person thinking one flavor of ice cream is better than another... That doesn't make it so ... It's just an opinion ...
S ... xo
The Flying Mouse
15 Apr 2012, 20:05
:twisted: A lot of strong feeling about this :shock:
I feel (although I might be wrong) the problem Meat has with so much effort going into the removal of the prayer is not a religious issue, but one that there is a portion of society that really goes out of their way to upset other people.
The prayer was on the wall for 50 years.
Had it hurt anyone in 50 years?
Was it due to hurt anyone in the next 50 years?
So what was the big problem?
It might have brought comfort to some people, so it did a little good in the world, but who the hell was it going to harm?
If there were a lot more things that could do some good but no harm, we'd be living in a better world.
If there was something in the prayer that insighted racial or religeous hatred toward others, I can see the point in wanting it taking down. But a message of reasurrance? :wtf:
Why couldn't the prayer be ignored by the people who didn't believe in it?
Why is another persons views (in this case, religious beliefs) be such an affront to people with different views? (perhaps they are all forum users :mrgreen: )
That's the message I got from Meat frustration, but again, maybe i'm wrong :shrug:
I myself am offended when things like Christmas are deemed politicaly incorrect. There have been plenty of reports in newspapers over the years over different places in England that have decided to ban a public Christmas tree in case it offends other religions or non believers.
I do not feel intimidated by Chritianity, I don't feel my human rights violated, and have no problem with the national anthem being GOD Save The Queen.
In fact I rather envy people who have stronger religious beliefs at times as I can imagine them to be of comfort at times.
I'm not a particularly religious person, but Chritianity is the religion of my land, and I believe that those who wish to worship should be given that right.
If other religions wish to practice in my country, all fair and good, but don't go saying that Christianity offends you.
And you don't have to be a dyed in the wool God wholloper to think a tree with pretty lights on sort of brightens the place up a bit.
(The fact that the "Christmas" tree was hijacked off the pagans and actually has ~~~~~~ all to do with the son of God is something I supports that viewpoint :mrgreen: )
But is this the place to discuss this?
Yes, and no.
Yes, because it was said by Meat, and we are all fans of Meat and might have an opinion on what he has to say. Wether that be positive or negative.
No, because it has nothing to do with his career.
Ultimatly, if somebody well known takes a public stance on an issue it is more than likely that there will be people who agree and people who disagree, and as we all have a differnent compass governing our political/religious/social views, it's not to be too surprising when it's discovered that some of the people who disagree are within his own fan base.
In fact, you can pretty much count on it. If a dude from Westlife says something about politics or religion it's not likely to interest me. From Meat I might take more interest.
If you admire JFK, you probably admire him for his political views, but you might not like his art collection.
If you admire The Pope it's probably because you think he's a righteous dude, but looking through his CD rack you might wonder "WTF is he thinking?" :wtf:
I think the people of this forum are here because they appreciate the artistic output of the artist Meat Loaf.
Not because they hold the same religious/political beliefs, so when Meat says something publicly they don't agree with, it's bound to cause debate.
So Meat doesn't respect the peoples efforts to have the prayer taken down, some people don't respect Meat's comments on the issue, other people don't respect their disagreement with Meat, and so the world keeps going around and around. :roll:
I believe Meat is over the top with this...............
I'm glad you all like Paul, everytime I say anything it's wrong !! Please change to Paul Crook UK fan Club, and no I am not upset with Paul in any way. There are people here who do not like me at all. I am very confussed. " Meat Loaf UK Fan Club" is that a joke I'm not in on.
He's said things like this a lot, and I for one thing it's very unfair.
Most of the posts on this forum are positive (as you'd expect on a fan forum).
There have been pleas not to leave the forum, posts of love and devotion, some have posted supporting your stance (with giving reasons why) and I think they are the most supportive posts of all.
But to reply to a whole forum that you are not liked because somebody holds an opinion different to your own concerning a freaking prayer on a wall is (and I say this with all the love in the world, even though the "dislikes" are going to go through the roof) as silly and one minded as the people who made such a fuss about taking down a prayer they didn't happen to agree with.
Meat, I love you a lot, but look at the support you have on the forum, and for God's sake stop thinking that just because someone disagrees with a public stance you take means they hate you.
stretch37
15 Apr 2012, 20:12
There are a small group of people who do not seem to like Meat Loaf the person, and because of this they end up posting negative things an awful lot of the time that then cause arguments and bad feeling on the board.
This is what i've been trying to say as well....Everyone deserves the right to this community, and nobody should be forced to leave...But there are a group of people on here who seem to disagree with Meat most of the time, or dislike him or his opinions, and that is NOT what a fan club should consist of. Having said that, there are many people who are a great fan of Meat the person and the artist.
Just the very fact that were having this debate shows that this is not a fan club of an artist - we are debating whether its ok to NOT like this person or NOT agree with this person's opinions. Then it begs the question, WHY is this called a fan club of said person?
I don't want anyone to leave. This community is for everyone. But I think i've come to the same conclusion as Meat: Perhaps this community has the wrong artist's name in its title?
I really appreciate you saying we should all try to get along. I'm with you 100% on that. I just can't see it happening while some people are here.
Despite what some critics might say, I also fully agree with this statement. And have all along. If we could all find a way to get along, if somebody had the answer to that question, I would be a happier person knowing we did it.
Most of the posts on this forum are positive (as you'd expect on a fan forum).
There have been pleas not to leave the forum, posts of love and devotion, some have posted supporting your stance (with giving reasons why) and I think they are the most supportive posts of all.
But to reply to a whole forum that you are not liked because somebody holds an opinion different to your own concerning a freaking prayer on a wall is (and I say this with all the love in the world, even though the "dislikes" are going to go through the roof) as silly and one minded as the people who made such a fuss about taking down a prayer they didn't happen to agree with.
Meat, I love you a lot, but look at the support you have on the forum, and for God's sake stop thinking that just because someone disagrees with a public stance you take means they hate you.
:up: ...
stretch37
15 Apr 2012, 20:24
everytime I say anything it's wrong !! Please change to
Well this has already proven to be true on this particular thread...
Its true that Meat usually responds to something negative on here, but its common for a person to respond to things that upset them. I'd say its human nature. Meat only has Meat to stand up for himself on here. When there are an unknown number of people who "dislike him", it immediately puts him on the defensive when there is a negative comment, because he knows he is "disliked" by some. And before I get jumped on, I don't mean disliked in the sense that you disagree with Meat's opinion, I mean people who literally do not like Meat and you can tell by the way they word their posts (IE "I'm not really a fan of the artist"). I've seen that posted on here somewhere. And its ok elsewhere, but its NOT ok for a fan club of said artist.
And I am not one for renaming this place either, I would be very upset if the branding changed because it would ~~~~ the identity of this place over. I don't have all the answers, i don't think any one of us does....But We have not made any progress as of today because we see people telling Meat he's wrong for saying what he did, and we have people being told they "hate" meat when they feel they have a right to their opinion.
I will point out that 'In God We Trust' was put on the notes in the 50s as a reaction to the cold war.
And it remains on them
I will also point out that the UK puts great men like Charles Darwin on their money. I'm surprised to have so many people on a UK forum NOT defending secular values.
I have consistently advocated the inclusion of secular values in my comments here.
I feel (although I might be wrong) the problem Meat has with so much effort going into the removal of the prayer is not a religious issue, but one that there is a portion of society that really goes out of their way to upset other people.
The prayer was on the wall for 50 years.
Had it hurt anyone in 50 years?
Was it due to hurt anyone in the next 50 years?
So what was the big problem?
It might have brought comfort to some people, so it did a little good in the world, but who the hell was it going to harm?
If there were a lot more things that could do some good but no harm, we'd be living in a better world.
If there was something in the prayer that insighted racial or religeous hatred toward others, I can see the point in wanting it taking down. But a message of reasurrance? :wtf:
Why couldn't the prayer be ignored by the people who didn't believe in it?
Why is another persons views (in this case, religious beliefs) be such an affront to people with different views? (perhaps they are all forum users :mrgreen: )
That's the message I got from Meat frustration, but again, maybe i'm wrong :shrug:
That's how I saw it too. My approach would be to add to rather than remove. Just 3 words introducing it were Christian, yet the message was to me wholly laudable
Caryl
The Flying Mouse
15 Apr 2012, 20:56
its common for a person to respond to things that upset them. I'd say its human nature.
:twisted: You mean like the people who disagree with what Meat said on the matter?
They read Meat's remarks, they were upset, and have responded.
And for the record, i'm more inclined to Meat's feelings on this issue, but i'm willing to listen to what they have to say.
Isn't how all this started? The lack of mutual respect shown by these people in taking down a banner that had nothing to with them?
Meat only has Meat to stand up for himself on here.
I beg your pardon, but that's BS :shit:
If anyone has a large body of support on this forum, it's Meat.
The repeatedly posted fantasy that Meat is all alone on this forum facing down a vast army of nay sayers and bullies who are the majority of the forum users is both ludicrous and deluded.
To continue to insist on the paranoid fantasy that most of the people on this forum are here to bully, berate, and belittle Meat is as untrue insulting and offensive, to both this forum and the fans who use it, as Meats remarks themselves.
When there are an unknown number of people who "dislike him", it immediately puts him on the defensive when there is a negative comment, because he knows he is "disliked" by some.
If he's looking for a 100% approval rate on all his views and opinions, even within his own fan base, he's got a long long wait, because you can't please all of the people all of the time.
But on the whole there is a lot of love for Meat here, and it's been said more than once that sometimes it's only Meat who doesn't recognize that.
If I had Meat's approval rate i'd run for Prime Minister and play Wembley 5 nights a week.
And before I get jumped on, I don't mean disliked in the sense that you disagree with Meat's opinion, I mean people who literally do not like Meat and you can tell by the way they word their posts (IE "I'm not really a fan of the artist"). I've seen that posted on here somewhere. And its ok elsewhere, but its NOT ok for a fan club of said artist.
Have you got a link to that, cause I would really like to see that for my own eyes.
Anybody who visits a forum of an artist they are not a fan of, and keeps visiting and posting, must be a bit of an odd ball :nuts:
And I am not one for renaming this place either, I would be very upset if the branding changed because it would ~~~~ the identity of this place over.
Don't worry, there are no plans to rename this place.
I don't have all the answers, i don't think any one of us does....But We have not made any progress as of today because we see people telling Meat he's wrong for saying what he did,
Agreed.
They should say "I disagree" rather than "you're wrong".
With opinion there is no such thing as a fact.
There are laws, but as with so much with the legal system, just because something is correct doesn't also mean it's right.
and we have people being told they "hate" meat when they feel they have a right to their opinion.
People have said they hate Meat on this forum? :wtf:
Links please.
The Flying Mouse
15 Apr 2012, 21:02
I will point out that 'In God We Trust' was put on the notes in the 50s as a reaction to the cold war.
:twisted: And yet the bomb never fell.
Coincidence? :bleh:
Sorry, was just a chain I couldn't resist pulling :mrgreen: :p :lol:
And it starts all over again... :roll:
When there are an unknown number of people who "dislike him", it immediately puts him on the defensive when there is a negative comment, because he knows he is "disliked" by some.
How can the number be "unknown"? If you claim that there are people who allegedly dislike Meat Loaf, that statement must be based on things that have been said on this forum somehow, so it should be pretty easy to come up with a number. All I see are shallow references to a group of people that is allegedly hostile towards Meat Loaf. That rather appears like scapegoating to me than addressing an actual problem. In fact these allegations devalue the large number of positive posts and are unfair to the people who submitted those posts. I agree with Adje. He pays way too much attention to negativity and wrongfully considers disagreement or criticism as an attack on him as a person.
Meat Loaf is 60+ years old. He has worked in one of the toughest businesses in the world for several decades. He expresses his opinion in public. He openly disagrees with certain things himself. He really should have a thicker skin and shouldn't have an issue with people discussing his statements and disagreeing with him sometimes. Just because I buy someone's records I don't have to share their beliefs. If that was the case, I'd be pretty confused by now as the artists I like have very different ideas and points of view.
If you want to be liked do you think it's a good idea to accuse your fans (customers) of not liking you again and again? Even the most faithful fan will eventually get tired of that.
I beg your pardon ...
If anyone has a large body of support on this forum, it's Meat.
Agreed. Meat's the best source to explain what he means, what his thinking is, his reasons and his argument. But to suggest he has no-one to stand up for him but himself on here is simply incorrect. He has huge support here. It's just he tends to feel compelled to respond to criticism, or being told he's wrong, which is I agree how most of us react. I thought he argued his case well, then let previous experiences grab his feelings. And I do understand that too ;)
Caryl
stretch37
15 Apr 2012, 21:23
But to suggest he has no-one to stand up for him but himself on here is simply incorrect.
Caryl
I worded that badly.
By his own actions he seems to feel that he needs to be on the defensive when he comes here. That leads me to believe that he feels he is the only one who can truly defend his position.
stretch37
15 Apr 2012, 21:27
The repeatedly posted fantasy that Meat is all alone on this forum facing down a vast army of nay sayers and bullies who are the majority of the forum users is both ludicrous and deluded.
Well its a good thing I don't think that. And I don't think i've ever heard someone on here say it quite like that. There are a few bullies on here that ruin a lot of good conversation where the majority of the people are not bullies.
The Flying Mouse
15 Apr 2012, 21:32
It's just he tends to feel compelled to respond to criticism, or being told he's wrong, which is I agree how most of us react. I thought he argued his case well, then let previous experiences grab his feelings. And I do understand that too ;)
Caryl
:twisted: It's a human trait, but he seems unable to seperate disagreement on an issue with disrespect and dislike, and then "taring everyone with the same brush".
So from our point of view we have a forum full of supportive and enthusiatic fans, of whome a couple may disagree with him at one time or other.
From Meat's it's a bunch of whinning ~~~~~~~s who don't like him.
And posts like Stretch's, agreeing with and supporting the notion that Meat is bullied and disliked, are not helping Meat see things from our side of the reality wall.
How that's supposed to make Meat feel better and more welcome, I have no idea :shock:
robgomm
15 Apr 2012, 21:33
I worded that badly.
By his own actions he seems to feel that he needs to be on the defensive when he comes here. That leads me to believe that he feels he is the only one who can truly defend his position.
He really doesn't need to feel that way.
robgomm
15 Apr 2012, 21:36
:twisted: It's a human trait, but he seems unable to seperate disagreement on an issue with disrespect and dislike, and then "taring everyone with the same brush".
So from our point of view we have a forum full of supportive and enthusiatic fans, of whome a couple may disagree with him at one time or other.
From Meat's it's a bunch of whinning ~~~~~~~s who don't like him.
And posts like Stretch's, agreeing with and supporting the notion that Meat is bullied and disliked, are not helping Meat see things from our side of the reality wall.
How that's supposed to make Meat feel better and more welcome, I have no idea :shock:
I'm sure Meat doesn't view everyone as the same here nor should he. He just gets emotional and lashes out which is understandable given all he's been through and put up with. Certainly Paul has come out and said there are a lot of good people here and I'm sure Meat knows this also. He just wears his heart on his sleeve.
stretch37
15 Apr 2012, 21:36
He pays way too much attention to negativity and wrongfully considers disagreement or criticism as an attack on him as a person.
He really should have a thicker skin and shouldn't have an issue with people discussing his statements and disagreeing with him sometimes.
Just because I buy someone's records I don't have to share their beliefs. If that was the case, I'd be pretty confused by now as the artists I like have very different ideas and points of view.
If you want to be liked do you think it's a good idea to accuse your fans (customers) of not liking you again and again? Even the most faithful fan will eventually get tired of that.
I don't think Meat thinks he deserves to be told what he should and should not do on these forums. I think that after 40+ years in the music industry, he'd like to have a very different conversation with his fans.
The world should implies you did something wrong. And Meat is very sensitive to that accusation since he is his hardest critic.
And it starts all over again... :roll:
And unnecessarily in my view. Meat let past experience trigger his feelings. I can accept that, assure him he is not disliked but valued tremendously by many of us, and in his heart he knows that I think.
I do understand HOW he sees criticism as an attack, even though that is I think generally not the intent. It's always better imo to dodge bullets than try and catch them in your teeth and spit them back, but the latter is a common human frailty ;)
So assure him he IS valued by many, because that's plain to see on this forum, rather than start up the argument again that there are those who dislike him, implying somehow they're out to get him etc. In my view, on reflection, he'll acknowledge that he has huge support here, huge affection, and a lot of respect for his work and for him as a man.
He doesn't have "a thick skin". He wears his heart on his sleeve. He feels things. That's part of what makes him who and what he is. To me it's part of what makes him and his performances so special. I just accept that. He's very human ;) I think he knows though that he is very loved as well.
And I agree, that to hold a different view doesn't need to stop you liking someone. Nor I guess do you have to like a performer as a person to enjoy his performance, although to me it enhances the experience hugely :-)
Caryl
The Flying Mouse
15 Apr 2012, 21:39
I worded that badly.
By his own actions he seems to feel that he needs to be on the defensive when he comes here. That leads me to believe that he feels he is the only one who can truly defend his position.
:twisted: When he comes to the forum and says "nobody likes me", and you say "no they don't, see just how much you are disliked", it's not going to make him feel the love :facepalm: .
Well its a good thing I don't think that. And I don't think i've ever heard someone on here say it quite like that. There are a few bullies on here that ruin a lot of good conversation where the majority of the people are not bullies.
It's not often the minority bully the majority, so............
....i get bullied...so does my idol...
bullying must be rife on the forum.
The Flying Mouse
15 Apr 2012, 21:45
I'm sure Meat doesn't view everyone as the same here nor should he. He just gets emotional and lashes out which is understandable given all he's been through and put up with. Certainly Paul has come out and said there are a lot of good people here and I'm sure Meat knows this also. He just wears his heart on his sleeve.
:twisted: When Meat says that the members of mlukfc hate him, that we are a hate club rather than a fan club, that insults and upsets me.
Both as a member and a mod.
Evil Ernie
15 Apr 2012, 21:45
I'm sure Meat doesn't view everyone as the same here nor should he. He just gets emotional and lashes out which is understandable given all he's been through and put up with. Certainly Paul has come out and said there are a lot of good people here and I'm sure Meat knows this also. He just wears his heart on his sleeve.
It's of my opinion that because of his vast life experience he should have more tact than getting mad on the internet. It's just not worth it.
Evil Ernie
15 Apr 2012, 21:49
It's not often the minority bully the majority, so............
That can actually relate to the banner issue itself.
The Flying Mouse
15 Apr 2012, 21:51
It's of my opinion that because of his vast life experience he should have more tact than getting mad on the internet. It's just not worth it.
:twisted: We all need more tact at times when we disagree.
I just think he needs to not take disagreememnt of opinion so damn personally.
stretch37
15 Apr 2012, 21:55
:twisted: It's a human trait, but he seems unable to seperate disagreement on an issue with disrespect and dislike, and then "taring everyone with the same brush".
Ok. This I agree with. And it sucks when you feel you've had that happen to you when you were being a supportive fan.
So from our point of view we have a forum full of supportive and enthusiatic fans, of whome a couple may disagree with him at one time or other.
I don't think that is everyone's point of view, but it seems to be the mods.
Rainer puts his sweat and blood into this site, and he's a great man. The mods are quite fair and also do a great job.
This forum is full of supportive and enthusiastic fans who may disagree or agree with Meat at times.
This forum also has a handful of fans who fruitlessly and without thought say things that upset Meat Loaf or other fans seemingly to just get a rise out of them. These people upset the numerous good fans and commonly dominate discussions and spread negative energy
From Meat's it's a bunch of whinning ~~~~~~~s who don't like him.
Has meat ever said that about all of us? I'd like to hear him say that, I don't think that is his opinion. I think that he sees a few comments that are upsetting and is surprised that they even exist on his fan club.
And posts like Stretch's, agreeing with and supporting the notion that Meat is bullied and disliked, are not helping Meat see things from our side of the reality wall.
How that's supposed to make Meat feel better and more welcome, I have no idea :shock:
I never once agreed and supported the notion that Meat is bullied and disliked by all his fans on here. EVER. What I said is that there are a few bullies that ruin it for everyone, and having a free open forum seems to encourage people to say things to Meat that they would not say to him over at a pub over a pint! Please Don't make my posts out to be the downfall of this discussion.
And posts like Stretch's, agreeing with and supporting the notion that Meat is bullied and disliked, are not helping Meat see things from our side of the reality wall.
How that's supposed to make Meat feel better and more welcome, I have no idea :shock:
I think Meat is capable of seeing your side of things as well as his own.
Even (surprise!) I am capable of seeing that side. In the "how to fix things" thread it really became apparent that the mods feel that Meat is just being a complainer seeing things in tunnel vision, when really this is a great place full of great people and he IGNORES that fact blatantly to focus on a few negatives (such as taking personal offense to someone who disagrees with him)
There is also the point I am conveying, which is NOT to say it is ok for Meat to tell us we are all bullies. That, Flying Mouse, is not ~~~~ing ok. That would be Meat bullying his fanbase, saying we are all horrible, disrespectful fans spreading negative energy when we all know that we are NOT THAT!
This is where the confusion arises. I do not support the notion that you can label everyone here with an all encompassing label of people who dislike Meat Loaf. That is rude, crude, and indeed focuses way to ~~~~ing much on negativity.
So, with that out of the way, my point, and the point of many others on here still stands: Most of us are supportive, enthusiastic fans, yet there are some comments said here that would not be said to him over a pint, or at a meet and greet, and that most people wouldn't have the balls to say to their favorite artist in person, but feel they have the right to say it while hiding behind a computer.
This is a complex situation that is probably not gonna be fixed any time soon. But Don't tell me that I can't see the different sides to the argument. Just because I'm arguing on Meat's points does NOT mean I do not understand the full extent of the situation.
Matt
The Flying Mouse
15 Apr 2012, 22:02
That can actually relate to the banner issue itself.
:twisted: If the banner was used to bash people over the head (physically or metophorically) i'd say you had a point.
As it was, it was on a wall, and doing no harm to anyone.
Not physically, not spiritually.
It wasn't mounted on a flag pole and burried in somebodys belly, it wasn't quoted in hate speeches against "the non believer" or other races or religions (for some reason I have the image of Malachi from Children Of The Corn in my head shouting "OUTLANDER" :shock: ).
It was removed because somebody could not abide something on a wall of a public building that they didn't agree with.
Was it's message so terrible such effort had to be expended to make sure it was taken down?
Was it so really offensive and untollerable?
As I posted above in reply to Meat, you can't please all the people all of the time, and if every plaque, statue, building and arch requires a 100% approval rate to be built, we're in for a hell of a wait before any of the above are put up again.
And posts ... agreeing with and supporting the notion that Meat is bullied and disliked, are not helping Meat see things from our side of the reality wall.
I agree. To be perfectly honest some years ago I think Meat was singled out quite a bit to be poked and prodded, but after the last great debate I think that has changed. I think the moderating team work well to keep that change in place. I also understand Meat probably remembers previous times, and that may not be easy to get past at times. I accept that. And I believe he really knows he is very loved and supported here, and suggestions of bullying are just inflammatory and not in my view supported.
Caryl
evil nickname
15 Apr 2012, 22:15
:twisted: If the banner was used to bash people over the head (physically or metophorically) i'd say you had a point.
As it was, it was on a wall, and doing no harm to anyone.
Not physically, not spiritually.
It wasn't mounted on a flag pole and burried in somebodys belly, it wasn't quoted in hate speeches against "the non believer" or other races or religions (for some reason I have the image of Malachi from Children Of The Corn in my head shouting "OUTLANDER" :shock: ).
It was removed because somebody could not abide something on a wall of a public building that they didn't agree with.
Was it's message so terrible such effort had to be expended to make sure it was taken down?
Was it so really offensive and untollerable?
You know what. I've had enough of this, and I give up. I keep discussing this issue because it's something I care about, but I guess I have to agree with Meat when he said that "all people want to do is assume and not really read ,study, and understand."
To quote the court's decision (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10811058226814137027&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr):
Since the lawsuit was filed, Plaintiff [Jessica Ahlquist] has had several occasions to speak in public about her views and experiences. At her deposition, Plaintiff described herself as an activist working toward the removal of religious references from government. She also testified that, when she first saw the Prayer Mural, it made her feel "excluded, ostracized and devalued."
Interviewed on a local radio show, Plaintiff confessed that she didn't like the Catholic Church, which she described as hypocritical. When asked about the Prayer, she said that the Prayer was not offensive and that its message was a positive one. She continued, "Yeah, I'm not offended by it, but you can't — can't violate the Constitution." When asked about this statement during her deposition, Plaintiff explained that she was trying to demonstrate a detached, "grown-up" attitude about the dispute, particularly in light of the very personal harassment that she had experienced after publicly expressing her views.
I'm done with the prayer banner discussion, and the sideshow discussion that we've all seen before. Have at it.
Evil Ernie
15 Apr 2012, 22:15
:twisted: If the banner was used to bash people over the head (physically or metophorically) i'd say you had a point.
As it was, it was on a wall, and doing no harm to anyone.
Not physically, not spiritually.
It wasn't mounted on a flag pole and burried in somebodys belly, it wasn't quoted in hate speeches against "the non believer" or other races or religions (for some reason I have the image of Malachi from Children Of The Corn in my head shouting "OUTLANDER" :shock: ).
It was removed because somebody could not abide something on a wall of a public building that they didn't agree with.
Was it's message so terrible such effort had to be expended to make sure it was taken down?
Was it so really offensive and untollerable?
As I posted above in reply to Meat, you can't please all the people all of the time, and if every plaque, statue, building and arch requires a 100% approval rate to be built, we're in for a hell of a wait before any of the above are put up again.
It's not about the banner itself, it's about the larger issue at hand.
Getting that banner taken down is a small victory against the Christian Right in the United States. It's not just Jessica that disagreed with it, it was many people. She was just the face of it. She was one of the only people BRAVE enough to say something. Most people in the US who feel the same way don't have the guts to say anything due to possible loss of employment, family and friends. There's a reason why you have to have organizations such as 'Recovering From Religion.' http://recoveringfromreligion.org/
To be clear I don't hate anyone who is religious, but I hate when it's shoved your face and especially when it's endorsed by a SECULAR government.
There are many other larger battles at play in the US:
- In God We Trust On The Money
- Mention Of God In The Pledge Of Allegiance
- Use of religious imagery in Government Buildings
- Hate Groups like 'American Family Association'
- Teaching of Creationism in Science Classrooms
- Accepting Religious exclsuion when it comes to elections
It relates to the banner issue itself because Christians call stuff like speaking out against religion, The Reason Rally and other things as 'persecution' and 'bullying'.
It is not. It's just not getting their way for once.
Some people would say "What's the big deal?". And I would agree. Why can't you just be a secular country? One that doesn't seek to exclude anyone?
Paul Richardson
15 Apr 2012, 22:27
It just seems to me that there are fans of Meats music here, and fans of Meat the person as well as the music. This is the problem.
Why should it be a problem ? I'm ambivalent (if I'm honest) about the subject of this thread, but I can't see why someone who is a fan of the music is a problem. Meat loaf is a musician, and if you're a fan of the music, as I believe we all are, why is anything else important ?
The Flying Mouse
15 Apr 2012, 22:30
It's not about the banner itself, it's about the larger issue at hand.
Getting that banner taken down is a small victory against the Christian right in the United States. It's not just Jessica that disagreed with it, it was many people. She was just the face of it.
There are many other larger battles at play in the US:
- In God We Trust On The Money
- Mention Of God In The Pledge Of Allegiance
- Use of religious imagery in Government Buildings
- Hate Groups like 'American Family Association'
- Teaching of Creationism in Science Classrooms
- Accepting Religious exclsuion when it comes to elections
It relates to the banner issue itself because Christians call stuff like speaking out against religion, The Reason Rally and other things as 'persecution' and 'bullying'.
It is not. It's just not getting their way for once.
:twisted: I don't believe that tigers can bounce on their tales, or that witches once turned mice into horses to pull a carrage made from a pumpkin, but i'm not going to go down to the childrens hospital (because it's a public building)and demand they paint over the mural on ethical grounds because I believe the world needs more reason and less heart.
I am not religious, but I do not believe that the sign of the cross is offensive, I do not find churches places of mystery where I have no place, priests don't make me feel nervous, and I eat chockie eggs at Easter.
If a religious zealot was preaching fire and brimstone, advocating violence towards other religions, races, nationalalities, sexual preferences, and discriminating against gender, I might say, "you have a point, rip down the ~~~~ing banner".
But unless there is a religious loonie trying to oppress you or change your beliefs, why not live and let live a little?
I am not arguing "THAT BANNER SHOULD STAY UP" :bicker: .
I'm asking "why does it really need to come down if some folks like it?"
And I never intended to get that involved :facepalm:
Paul Richardson
15 Apr 2012, 22:34
P.S.: Let me also point to the fact that this is an international community. There are people whose mother tongue is not English which might lead to misunderstanding or posts appearing a tad too "blunt".
As you're using colloquialisms such as 'mother', 'tad', and 'blunt', I think your command of the English language is remarkable as a non native speaker :-)
It's sex, politics and religion that shouldn't be discussed as parties ... So... two outta three and all that... Oh, hell... when DOES the sex chat start ??? ... :twisted: ...
S ... a bit dizzy at this point from riding/ reading the unmerry go round ... xo
Evil One
15 Apr 2012, 22:50
when DOES the sex chat start ??? ... :twisted: ...
S ... a bit dizzy at this point from riding...
After you... :rly:
Paul Richardson
15 Apr 2012, 22:59
When there are an unknown number of people who "dislike him", it immediately puts him on the defensive when there is a negative comment, because he knows he is "disliked" by some. And before I get jumped on, I don't mean disliked in the sense that you disagree with Meat's opinion, I mean people who literally do not like Meat and you can tell by the way they word their posts (IE "I'm not really a fan of the artist").
Seriously, no one here dislikes Meat Loaf, :roll:, why spend time on a Meat Loaf site if you can't stand the guy ?
After you... :rly:
:-P ... lol ...
Evil Ernie
15 Apr 2012, 23:36
:twisted: I don't believe that tigers can bounce on their tales, or that witches once turned mice into horses to pull a carrage made from a pumpkin, but i'm not going to go down to the childrens hospital (because it's a public building)and demand they paint over the mural on ethical grounds because I believe the world needs more reason and less heart.
Well, those are acknowledged fairytales. Pretty far reaching for the argument IMO.
I am not religious, but I do not believe that the sign of the cross is offensive, I do not find churches places of mystery where I have no place, priests don't make me feel nervous, and I eat chockie eggs at Easter.
Me neither. I may think it's pointless, but offense is not the word.
Once again, this has nothing to do with the banner issue. It's about a secular institution endorsing Christianity and Religion in general. A public school is supposed to be secular. There are private Non-Secular private schools for those who wish to practice their faith within the confines of their educational institution.
If a religious zealot was preaching fire and brimstone, advocating violence towards other religions, races, nationalalities, sexual preferences, and discriminating against gender, I might say, "you have a point, rip down the ~~~~ing banner".
But unless there is a religious loonie trying to oppress you or change your beliefs, why not live and let live a little?
Uh, there are plenty of those. Tons. Both involved and not involved in this paticular case.
I don't think that people like that would be a reason in itself to rip it down. The best reason is why it eventually was: It was unconstitutional to have up in the first place.
I am not arguing "THAT BANNER SHOULD STAY UP" :bicker: .
I'm asking "why does it really need to come down if some folks like it?"
And I never intended to get that involved :facepalm:
Short answer: Yes.
I would ask if that banner coming down really changes their overall happiness? The answer is no. The emotion involved all comes down to The Christian Right trying to claim the United States as their own. Not only is the imagery and doctrine visible, they use it as leverage in making government policies.
-Abortion
-Homosexual Issues
-Marriage Issues
-Sexual Issues
-Vices
Not to mention that they are all tax exempt, but that's a whole other issue.
And for someone who didn't want to get involved you put out some long and well thought out responses.... whether I agreed with them or not. ;)
Julie in the rv mirror
15 Apr 2012, 23:38
The prayer was on the wall for 50 years.
Had it hurt anyone in 50 years?
Was it due to hurt anyone in the next 50 years?
So what was the big problem?
It might have brought comfort to some people, so it did a little good in the world, but who the hell was it going to harm?
If there were a lot more things that could do some good but no harm, we'd be living in a better world.
If there was something in the prayer that insighted racial or religeous hatred toward others, I can see the point in wanting it taking down. But a message of reasurrance? :wtf:
Why couldn't the prayer be ignored by the people who didn't believe in it?
Why is another persons views (in this case, religious beliefs) be such an affront to people with different views? (perhaps they are all forum users :mrgreen: )
I personally agree with your views, Mouse. Frankly, I think as a society, we have gotten too "politically correct". However, I think we get on a slippery slope when we try to pick and choose what is "offensive" versus what is not. Some things are obviously clear, as in the vast majority of people would agree; others, not so much.
In a previous job I had in a managerial position, I was required by the company (as were all employees in a similar position) to attend "sensitivity" training. One of the key take-home messages was that when it comes to a "hostile work environment", what is important is not how a comment/action by one employee is intended, it's how it is perceived by the second employee. In other words, the company has to take all complaints of offense seriously.
I myself am offended when things like Christmas are deemed politicaly incorrect. There have been plenty of reports in newspapers over the years over different places in England that have decided to ban a public Christmas tree in case it offends other religions or non believers.
My current job is in a service position, and I am always careful not to wish people a Merry Christmas, for example (unless they say it first), not because I'm forbidden by my employer to do so (I'm not), but because I try to keep in mind that not everyone celebrates Christmas. While I wouldn't personally be offended by someone basically wishing me well (for example if someone said "Happy Hanukkah" to me), some people might be. I usually stick with a generic "Have a nice day".
Ultimatly, if somebody well known takes a public stance on an issue it is more than likely that there will be people who agree and people who disagree, and as we all have a differnent compass governing our political/religious/social views, it's not to be too surprising when it's discovered that some of the people who disagree are within his own fan base.
True; I know there are many people in the Springsteen fan community who don't agree with his politics, and they're not afraid to say so. Yet, they're still big fans of the music.
Religion and politics are two issues that people feel very strongly about, and to discuss them is bound to cause disagreement.
Not to mention that they are all tax exempt, but that's a whole other issue.
I was going to mention that myself, what this being Tax Day in the States and all ... Faiths' tax exempt status pishes me off ... but then again... there are several abandoned buildings in the area in which I live... Perhaps I should start my own church !!! ... :twisted: ...
Evil Ernie
15 Apr 2012, 23:51
I was going to mention that myself, what this being Tax Day in the States and all ... Faiths' tax exempt status pishes me off ... but then again... there are several abandoned buildings in the area in which I live... Perhaps I should start my own church !!! ... :twisted: ...
If only it was that easy.
You're not a religion unless the government says you're a religion. Scientology fought for years for that right.
But I figure that since theists always like to say (erroneously) that Science and Atheism are a religion... :twisted:
Hey Meat, you never say something wrong to me. It's the truth you thelling ! and i respect you for that, so many people are afraid to do that. I understand you, every time I open my mouth i have the feeling too that whatever i say isn't good either, so sometimes i think... It's better to say nothing at all...
Negativity is all spreading over the world... I might sound crazy, but i believe in the mayan prediction. The world is not gonna end, the world is going to change. And before it changes we are heading for disaster first ! For then starting over again...We have to get through this... Most important thing is that we don't get influenced by negativity that is now all around...
Meat, i love your performances, your interviews. it's making me smile every time. :) and when you come back to the U.K to perform i'll be there, that's my vow, i keep my promises. Love to travel to see you, it's my greatest reward to get to you even for a brief moment... I'll travel to the U.S if i must for you. You are worth it, i only do that for you ! I wouldn't travel to London for someone else, only for you.
You're a honest guy, with a big heart. You are very talented and i'm proud to be your fan !! I love ya !! XXX **HUGS**
Evil Ernie
16 Apr 2012, 00:13
I might sound crazy, but i believe in the mayan prediction.
http://brundleflyonthewall.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/jumptheshark.jpg
Julie in the rv mirror
16 Apr 2012, 00:27
Just the very fact that were having this debate shows that this is not a fan club of an artist - we are debating whether its ok to NOT like this person or NOT agree with this person's opinions. Then it begs the question, WHY is this called a fan club of said person?
Not liking a person's opinions and not liking the person are not the same thing.
When it comes to an artist's work, it's also possible to not care for them as a person but still like or appreciate the work. For example, Phil Spector, by many accounts, was a nutter who showed up to recording sessions with a bullhorn and a handgun, :shock: yet many consider him to be a genius as a producer. I've read that Jackie Gleason was not a very nice man in real life, yet many people loved his work on television.
Disclaimer: I am in no way implying that this is how I feel about Meat Loaf
allrevvedup
16 Apr 2012, 02:41
:twisted: When Meat says that the members of mlukfc hate him, that we are a hate club rather than a fan club, that insults and upsets me.
Both as a member and a mod.
I don't like that either and there are a lot of things that Sir Loaf posts that I don't like either, however I wouldn't consider my response to mean that I 'hate' him.
Hate is a very strong word and to actually be repulsed by something or someone takes a lot of effort.
There's been so many posts in a short space of time that I can't refer to specific parts of them all but suffice to say what I take from all of this is that the sensitivity amp has been turned up all the way to 11 with plenty of feedback.
We, people in general, seem to get fixated on incredibly small issues thus building them up to the point where arguments with shaky foundations seem to be built.
I personally think the daughter and her father had a right to file their complaint, to take it to court and abide by whatever the verdict was going to be. But just because you don't agree with their view does not mean that they do not have the right to take this to court. Nor is there the right to disagree with their view that it results in possible verbal/physical abuse.
Again, for me, it comes down to having an opinion and why some consider that to be a terrible thing?
As for things on this site, I can see that sometimes lights the blue touch is when we appear to be told what Sir Loaf is thinking or feeling by those who have no idea what his thought process is.
Paul Crook's posts have given us some insight into the inner workings of recording and performing live with Sir Loaf and that's great because he has lived it for nearly 10 years now, but those (not in the know) who claim to know exactly how he'd react to something seems crazy to me. I can see how some feel like that is being rammed down their throat.
But hey it all comes down to respect; that to me is what is sorely lacking in the world and is contributing to the majority of its problems. You may not like what someone has to say, and believe me there are a lot of posts I read that have me doing this :roll: , but whoever is posting it has a right to state their view.
robgomm
16 Apr 2012, 08:51
If only it was that easy.
You're not a religion unless the government says you're a religion. Scientology fought for years for that right.
But I figure that since theists always like to say (erroneously) that Science and Atheism are a religion... :twisted:
I belong to the Jedi religion :-)
stretch37
16 Apr 2012, 09:23
Not liking a person's opinions and not liking the person are not the same thing.
When it comes to an artist's work, it's also possible to not care for them as a person but still like or appreciate the work. For example, Phil Spector, by many accounts, was a nutter who showed up to recording sessions with a bullhorn and a handgun, :shock: yet many consider him to be a genius as a producer. I've read that Jackie Gleason was not a very nice man in real life, yet many people loved his work on television.
Disclaimer: I am in no way implying that this is how I feel about Meat Loaf
Yeah exactly, thats what i've been trying to say. Liking the artists work is different than liking the artist as a person.
And it really does not matter to me which is which. I don't necessarily like Axl Rose as a person, but I love his work. Would I go on his fan club though? No, because I don't really like him much as a person. If he came to Victoria near where I live I would buy tickets without fail.
Meat's upset because he thinks this should be a place where people like both his work and him as a person. Maybe he's barking up the wrong tree.
This place is a community built on the hard work of the moderators and R who do this as a volunteer activity. They're naturally upset that anyone asking for change is suggesting they are not doing their job. The general consensus seems to be that most people like this place the way it is, feel that the administrators are doing a good job, a few people want some changes, but still appreciate the mods and the work they put into keeping this place alive. Its a great place to hang out and a home away from home :)
Change is always hard because both parties blame each other, and if the relationship is at the point where trust has already been lost on both sides, things get rather ugly don't get :P It seems we have reached that point here. Meat wants change, the people who run this community and many fans want Meat to change. At this point, it looks like Meat is not willing to change....he is too upset at others for hurting him. And the fan club is not willing to change, they are too upset at Meat (and others) for suggesting that change could be an option.
The whole situation feels like a divorce....with "irreconcilable differences" :evil:
I'm still on the fence with no answers. :roll:
chairboys
16 Apr 2012, 12:09
:twisted: When Meat says that the members of mlukfc hate him, that we are a hate club rather than a fan club, that insults and upsets me.
Meat, I love you a lot, but look at the support you have on the forum, and for God's sake stop thinking that just because someone disagrees with a public stance you take means they hate you.
That sums it up in a nutshell for me
Monstro
16 Apr 2012, 12:17
the people who run this community and many fans want Meat to change.
Just to clarify, there has been no official statement from R or from the Mod team saying this.
And the fan club is not willing to change, they are too upset at Meat (and others) for suggesting that change could be an option.
With regard to changes could you please not quote "the fan club" as a whole, this insinuates that R and the Mod team have dismissed out of hand any changes that can help the site move forward. This site has continuously evolved over time to try to cater for the increasing numbers and diversity of it's users but it has never brought changes in as a knee jerk reaction to a situation, R will only bring changes in after careful deliberation.
I'm still on the fence with no answers. :roll:
Sorry Matt, but for someone with no answers I think you're making a lot of broad statements about Meat, the "fanclub" and the members. Rainer has introduced some changes, has said more are to come. I don't see that as resisting or being unwilling to change. I don't see how you can speak for Meat either. Nor for all the members.
Caryl
I belong to the Jedi religion :-)
Lol, me too, well,at least thats what my facebook says ;)
Julie in the rv mirror
16 Apr 2012, 16:59
Yeah exactly, thats what i've been trying to say. Liking the artists work is different than liking the artist as a person.
And it really does not matter to me which is which.
Really? Because from your posts, it sounds like it does matter.
I don't necessarily like Axl Rose as a person, but I love his work. Would I go on his fan club though? No, because I don't really like him much as a person. If he came to Victoria near where I live I would buy tickets without fail.
If you would buy tickets, and I presume you own his albums/CD's as well, how are you not a fan on some level? Why do you feel it's necessary to like the person (whom, keep in mind, you don't really know, you only know what you've read or heard about him, unless you do know him personally, in which case I stand corrected) to join the fan club?
I don't think a Frank Lloyd Wright Fan Club exists, but if one did, I would join. From what I have heard about Mr. Wright, he was rather arrogant and had other traits I might not look for in an acquaintance, but I would call myself a huge fan of his work.
If I may quote St. Bruce of Freehold, "Trust the art, not the artist."
The Flying Mouse
16 Apr 2012, 18:10
I belong to the Jedi religion :-)
:twisted: I dislike, because I am Sith.
And now we must do battle
*PPPSSSSSSHSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH* <----- Impression of a light saber opening.
The Flying Mouse
16 Apr 2012, 18:14
Lol, me too, well,at least thats what my facebook says ;)
You goin down too :mrgreen:
PPPPSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHH <---- impression of spare light saber opening
Julie in the rv mirror
16 Apr 2012, 18:45
:twisted: I dislike, because I am Sith.
And now we must do battle
*PPPSSSSSSHSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH* <----- Impression of a light saber opening.
Darth Mouse? :))
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7180/6867850268_7a90204c00_n.jpg
robgomm
16 Apr 2012, 18:53
:twisted: I dislike, because I am Sith.
And now we must do battle
*PPPSSSSSSHSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH* <----- Impression of a light saber opening.
You are only the master of evil!
robgomm
16 Apr 2012, 18:54
Darth Mouse? :))
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7180/6867850268_7a90204c00_n.jpg
That's awesome. Very off topic but awesome!
The Flying Mouse
16 Apr 2012, 19:07
Well, those are acknowledged fairytales. Pretty far reaching for the argument IMO.
:twisted: I know, I was just being naughty :mrgreen:
Once again, this has nothing to do with the banner issue. It's about a secular institution endorsing Christianity and Religion in general. A public school is supposed to be secular. There are private Non-Secular private schools for those who wish to practice their faith within the confines of their educational institution.
I don't know enough about the American schooling system to make much comment, but I think any child should have the right to be schooled within their religion.
But that said, whose choice is it wether to school the child within a religion?
The parents (i'm assuming) and not the childs.
Guess kids don't get to have much of a break when it comes to freedom of choice where religion is concerned :lol:
Uh, there are plenty of those. Tons. Both involved and not involved in this paticular case.
I don't think that people like that would be a reason in itself to rip it down. The best reason is why it eventually was: It was unconstitutional to have up in the first place.
There are tons of nutters in various religions, but my point was does the banner increase their number or strengthen their case?
There are nutters that support the Koran, but does that mean that everyone who supports the Koran is a nutter?
As for the consitution, like many laws of many lands, the law IMHO is an ass without enough common sence.
Short answer: Yes.
I would ask if that banner coming down really changes their overall happiness? The answer is no. The emotion involved all comes down to The Christian Right trying to claim the United States as their own. Not only is the imagery and doctrine visible, they use it as leverage in making government policies.
I agree that it's wrong to base all government policies on religion.
But that will be done wether there is a banner on a wall or not.
No ammount or lack of religious argument is going stop a woman who believes abortion to be a sin voting for the guy who stands up and says abolish abortion.
And for someone who didn't want to get involved you put out some long and well thought out responses.... whether I agreed with them or not. ;)
Thanks :lol:
For someone who never expected to have any strong opinion (and even though i'm discussing it a lot, and thinking about it, I don't think my opinion is strong ) i'm spending a lot of time on the issue.
I was thinking about this last night walking the dog, and I was thinking that is Christianity an easy target?
Or at least the easiest target.
In the West we seem to be able to support everybodys views and religions, except the one that is native to us.
We seem so afraid to offend, we are afraid to say anything about other religions, and have very little to say in support of our own nations religion and are often quite comfortable bashing it.
For instance, every December here in Liverpool a menorah is erected outside St George's Hall for Hanukkah.
St George's Hall is a civic building (bearing the name of a saint, a Christian device I belive :wink: ) yet every year a large Jewish religious sign is placed outside.
Should that offend or displease me?
Would it offend or displease an athiest?
If not, why not? It's religious isn't it?
I think if anybody tried to campaign against the menorah they would be slammed as an anti semite rather than be taken at face value.
If it were a muslim device that was being petitioned against, forget it :kickass:
So why is it that Christianity, the religion of our our own people (for lack of a better phrase right now) the one that is the easy target?
This must be the longest convo i've had on religion in my life :shock:
The Flying Mouse
16 Apr 2012, 19:09
Darth Mouse? :))
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7180/6867850268_7a90204c00_n.jpg
:twisted: WE need a "Want one" button :mrgreen:
That's awesome. Very off topic but awesome!
A little light relief in a pretty heavy thread :lol:
chairboys
16 Apr 2012, 20:47
Flying Mouse, in light of the possibility of you entering politics full-time, may I suggest you stand as an MP for Bradford West at the next election.
I reckon you would give Gorgeous George a run for his money!
robgomm
16 Apr 2012, 21:05
Flying Mouse, in light of the possibility of you entering politics full-time, may I suggest you stand as an MP for Bradford West at the next election.
I reckon you would give Gorgeous George a run for his money!
How on earth did that cat cream licking idiot get elected?
The Flying Mouse
16 Apr 2012, 21:07
Flying Mouse, in light of the possibility of you entering politics full-time, may I suggest you stand as an MP for Bradford West at the next election.
I reckon you would give Gorgeous George a run for his money!
:twisted: Why?
Is he skilled with a lightsaber and would make a worthy opponent? :mrgreen:
Or is it more political/religious (i've no idea what he stands for).
But what I was saying is that with so much wrong in the world and so many needing help I thought it was a selfish act by these 2 women. Again my facts are not wrong. I will stand up to any judge anywhere and argue the case. The reason the pilgrims left England is they were not allowed worship the way they wanted. The law is not about a prayer on a school wall , it's about everyone in that school has a right to believe how they believe, can't say Merry Christmas, can't put the 10 commandments on the outside wall of the capitol building. all people want to do is assume and not really read ,study, and understand. Why does the President attend a prayer breakfest. I see dumb people !! If they put a Muslim prayer next to the prayer that was on the wall for 50 years , I would say they have the right to do so. Separation of church and state is about the freedom to worship and believe what you heart tells you. Not to take away everything that says God From the world. If this case would have gone to the Supreme Court it would have been overturned.
very good point. that's exactly how i'm thinking.
I'm glad you all like Paul, everytime I say anything it's wrong !! Please change to Paul Crook UK fan Club, and no I am not upset with Paul in any way. There are people here who do not like me at all. I am very confussed. " Meat Loaf UK Fan Club" is that a joke I'm not in on.
just don't have the right words to tell you how much i love you, not only your music but even more your personality ...
Evil Ernie
16 Apr 2012, 22:18
:twisted: I know, I was just being naughty :mrgreen:
I don't know enough about the American schooling system to make much comment, but I think any child should have the right to be schooled within their religion.
But that said, whose choice is it wether to school the child within a religion?
The parents (i'm assuming) and not the childs.
Guess kids don't get to have much of a break when it comes to freedom of choice where religion is concerned :lol:
They do have a choice. It's called home schooling or private school.
Religion has NO PLACE in the government. Or in schools, where you learn things which have value (which religion has none).
And I agree, children DON'T have a choice of freedom of Religion. Every child is born an Atheist and parents brainwash them into believing.
That's where recoveringfromreligion.org comes in.
There are tons of nutters in various religions, but my point was does the banner increase their number or strengthen their case?
There are nutters that support the Koran, but does that mean that everyone who supports the Koran is a nutter?
As for the consitution, like many laws of many lands, the law IMHO is an ass without enough common sence.
There are various nuts in any form of life. Those who are mildly religious shield those who are nuts. It validates them.
And I don't agree about what you say about the constitution.
I agree that it's wrong to base all government policies on religion.
But that will be done wether there is a banner on a wall or not.
No ammount or lack of religious argument is going stop a woman who believes abortion to be a sin voting for the guy who stands up and says abolish abortion.
That is highly debatable.
Also, if there is no religion, how can there be sin? Does not compute.
I was thinking about this last night walking the dog, and I was thinking that is Christianity an easy target?
Or at least the easiest target.
In the West we seem to be able to support everybodys views and religions, except the one that is native to us.
We seem so afraid to offend, we are afraid to say anything about other religions, and have very little to say in support of our own nations religion and are often quite comfortable bashing it.
I have no problem bashing any religion.
It just so happens that Christianity is the biggest problem in the US.
I find that Muslims don't insist upon themselves as much. Same with most other religions. Therefore it's worth speaking out against.
I think that all religions are equally dumb.
For instance, every December here in Liverpool a menorah is erected outside St George's Hall for Hanukkah.
St George's Hall is a civic building (bearing the name of a saint, a Christian device I belive :wink: ) yet every year a large Jewish religious sign is placed outside.
Should that offend or displease me?
Would it offend or displease an athiest?
If not, why not? It's religious isn't it?
I think if anybody tried to campaign against the menorah they would be slammed as an anti semite rather than be taken at face value.
If it were a muslim device that was being petitioned against, forget it :kickass:
So why is it that Christianity, the religion of our our own people (for lack of a better phrase right now) the one that is the easy target?
This must be the longest convo i've had on religion in my life :shock:
Well, the UK is a NON secular country (officially), so there is less grounds to speak out against it.
Offense is not the word. More like head-shaking befuddlement.
The Flying Mouse
16 Apr 2012, 22:47
:twisted: OK, i'll go round one more time, then i'm leaving it alone :lol:
Been an interesting convo though :cool:
They do have a choice. It's called home schooling or private school.
Home schooling isn't always practical and private school is expensive.
Religion has NO PLACE in the government. Or in schools, where you learn things which have value (which religion has none).
But surely this is your opinion and not fact?
There are various nuts in any form of life. Those who are mildly religious shield those who are nuts. It validates them.
.
But the many are tarred with the same brush as the few.
Something the members of mlukfc can identify with at times :mrgreen:
And I don't agree about what you say about the constitution.
We'll agree to disagree on that.
My proof that the legal proffession is nuts at base level is Australia.
The English find a paradise. A vast sun soaked land with golden beaches and set in a sea of the deepest blue.
And what did we do?
We sent our convicts there while we stayed on our little rain swept rock.
If any lawyer at that time was even half witted, he'd have said let's go over there and leave the convicts behind.
Nothing since then has given me any more confidence in the legal system.
That is highly debatable.
Also, if there is no religion, how can there be sin? Does not compute.
I don't think it's highly debatable at all.
A woman whose religious beliefs forbid abortion is more likely to agree with (and therefore vote for) a candidate who will ban abortion than someone who doesn't share her views.
No banner needed, just listen to the candidate make a speech to see what their views are.
And if you want to stop the use of the word "God" in speeches, I think you are very close to impeding freedom of speech.
Ergo, there is no reasonable or practical way to keep religion 100% out of politics.
I have no problem bashing any religion.
It just so happens that Christianity is the biggest problem in the US.
I find that Muslims don't insist upon themselves as much. Same with most other religions. Therefore it's worth speaking out against.
I think that all religions are equally dumb.
OK, fair enough :shrug:
But I still think you'd have a lot more opposition and stigma as a racist or religious hater if you took on a petition concerning a different religion.
Well, the UK is a NON secular country (officially), so there is less grounds to speak out against it.
Offense is not the word. More like head-shaking befuddlement.
We have the Church Of England, so I guess that's pretty official, so in retrospect I think there would be more grounds to speak out about it (no, I don't think anybody needs to speak out about it :lol: )
Again, it just seems that the closer something is to our national identity, the more we fear that it will upset others.
I don't think people in this country would have a problem with athiests speaking out against Chrisianity, but I think their motives would be misunderstood if it were another religion being targeted at any particular time.
Anyway, i've had my say, you've had yours, and we are never going to agree.
Been an interesting chat though :mrgreen: :up:
Ok so I posted this with a quote, but it didn't seem to work...
Rob and I are like qui gon & obi wan...... I am obi wan ;)
But I still think you'd have a lot more opposition and stigma as a racist or religious hater if you took on a petition concerning a different religion.
We have the Church Of England, so I guess that's pretty official, so in retrospect I think there would be more grounds to speak out about it
..................
I don't think people in this country would have a problem with athiests speaking out against Chrisianity, but I think their motives would be misunderstood if it were another religion being targeted at any particular time.
I think that's probably true in general. Perhaps because the Church of England is seen as so closely tied to the State, given the monarch is the head of the Church (hello Henry ;) ) and freedom to speak out against the State is accepted. Targeting other religions (and here I suspect you may be referring to those other than Christianity) sits on more dangerous ground because many are so closely identified with race/ethnicity, and the motives of those speaking out against them arguably more suspect. When I hear some people speaking out angrily about Mosques for eg, I am forced to wonder if it is Muslim belief they are angry with or that they are targeting Muslims for their race and culture as much as their religion.
Like you I see no reason to avoid celebrating Christmas, but I respect the right of others to celebrate Divaldi, or whatever their religious beliefs dictate. Accepting, respecting and welcoming diversity is imo the way forward. That's why I believe it's right that in state schools here children learn about a wide range of different creeds. Whether I hold any religious beliefs or not, there are many in our society who do, many religions are tied strongly to culture, and understanding different cultures is important in a multi-cultural society in my view. How far that happens in private schools (which as you say are expensive) is I suspect questionable, and it probably would not happen in home schooling (which always concerns me, as in my view children who are home schooled will generally be limited to the knowledge of their parents, and their education limited by their parents' beliefs, values and constructs .. and in some cases their prejudices).
Caryl
robgomm
17 Apr 2012, 15:09
Ok so I posted this with a quote, but it didn't seem to work...
Rob and I are like qui gon & obi wan...... I am obi wan ;)
Actually i'm more like Anakin before he turned into Darth Vader. Can't live by the strict rules of the jedi about not loving and so on.
Home schooling isn't always practical and private school is expensive.
In America, where this case is based, you receive a tax break if you home school and you can choose to credit your tax dollars to a private school, if it meets certain criteria - therefore, lowering your tuition rates.
In America, where this case is based, you receive a tax break if you home school and you can choose to credit your tax dollars to a private school, if it meets certain criteria - therefore, lowering your tuition rates.
Yes, I would have expected that. You seem to be able to claim many more things against tax than we do in the UK .. although I was supporting Mouse's point that private education is generally costly, and is costly here. It doesn't alter my grave reservations about home schooling though, which are not based on cost but on limitation. I would think that someone who chose to home school in order to educate their child in their beliefs would be less likely to educate them in the beliefs of others, and still have concerns that their education would be limited to and by the parents' knowledge, experience, values and constructs.
It's of particular concern in the UK where home educated children do not have to follow the national curriculum or take tests, and do not even have to register or have the level of education inspected and assessed. Because of that they don't even know how many children are being home schooled, the estimates ranging between 7.5 and 34.5 thousand, and the most common reason given is bullying at school .. another sad indictment on the state of play these days.
Caryl
Evil Ernie
18 Apr 2012, 03:21
Actually i'm more like Anakin before he turned into Darth Vader. Can't live by the strict rules of the jedi about not loving and so on.
http://i.qkme.me/36i84l.jpg
Evil Ernie
18 Apr 2012, 03:38
In America, where this case is based, you receive a tax break if you home school and you can choose to credit your tax dollars to a private school, if it meets certain criteria - therefore, lowering your tuition rates.
Exactly. But besides that due to religious organizations being tax free, the freedom to practice any religion is abundant and extremely available (temples, churches, personel).
A big reason (besides all the other reasons) why it should not be allowed in schools.
Yes, I would have expected that. You seem to be able to claim many more things against tax than we do in the UK .. although I was supporting Mouse's point that private education is generally costly, and is costly here. It doesn't alter my grave reservations about home schooling though, which are not based on cost but on limitation. I would think that someone who chose to home school in order to educate their child in their beliefs would be less likely to educate them in the beliefs of others, and still have concerns that their education would be limited to and by the parents' knowledge, experience, values and constructs.
Very good post.
I think that the MOST important thing about School is the Socializing aspect. You learn how to deal with people and it's where you start becoming the person you are today. You learn about different cultures and people in the melting pot that is The United States and many other countries.
That is a big reason why I don't believe that it's right for any public school to endorse a religion. It makes sense that the majority would want it that banner up because the US about 80% Christian and even the rational are polarized by the nut jobs.
As I said earlier, in the grand scheme of things this is nothing significant. It's a small victory for the rational thinkers of the United States.
Ah, so you're more like a non-practicing Jedi then Rob!
robgomm
18 Apr 2012, 09:25
Ah, so you're more like a non-practicing Jedi then Rob!
Yeah, think they call it a grey jedi in some circles.
Yeah, think they call it a grey jedi in some circles.
Aha, I see
I think that the MOST important thing about School is the Socializing aspect. You learn how to deal with people and it's where you start becoming the person you are today. You learn about different cultures and people in the melting pot that is The United States and many other countries.
Imo, if it's not THE most important thing about school, it comes in a close second to all else. My daughter is homeschooling my youngest grandson. He's 10 years old and clings to my daughter for friendship. He's shy around others. I keep telling her it's time for her to get him into school. She and her mate are unhappy with the public schools where they live and can't afford private... The lad really needs to get into a school with kids his age ... I find it a bit unhealthy, actually ...
S ... xo
robgomm
18 Apr 2012, 15:54
Imo, if it's not THE most important thing about school, it comes in a close second to all else. My daughter is homeschooling my youngest grandson. He's 10 years old and clings to my daughter for friendship. He's shy around others. I keep telling her it's time for her to get him into school. She and her mate are unhappy with the public schools where they live and can't afford private... The lad really needs to get into a school with kids his age ... I find it a bit unhealthy, actually ...
S ... xo
Yes that's really quite unhealthy as the child won't learn how to interact with other people his age, might not have any friends etc.
for what its worth I went to a private school in belfast, every morning in assembly we had morning prayers by the school chaplain, by no means was it a religious school but it practiced christian morals. We even had 2 classes for R.E, a moral one and a biblical one.
But yes, what im getting at is there were some student who would be considered an ethnic minority, particularly in an all boys school in belfast. But during the R.E lessons that didnt stop the teacher from inquiring about his muslim beliefs on the various different aspects being studied. It also allowed the students to have a broader understanding, but not once did he feel intimidated in a school where every morning the lords prayer was said and each week he'd have to attend a biblical class. Sometimes i think people just like to make a fuss.
Like the whole atheist vs christian thing, why cant either side just agree to disagree. Instead it becomes nasty and spiteful.
just my 2 pence. (because we dont use cents). Dunno if its applicable, but hey, it came out.
The Flying Mouse
18 Apr 2012, 16:56
might not have any friends etc.
:twisted: You mean like rebel scum? :p :mrgreen:
*PPPPPPSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH* <------- you've had it now
Seriouly though Sue, it's not for me to second guess your daughters parental choices, but I too think children should have the social opportunity to mix with their peers.
I hope your grandson at least gets some social time with others when his lessons are done for the day.
Like the whole atheist vs christian thing, why cant either side just agree to disagree. Instead it becomes nasty and spiteful.
It doesn't always have to become nasty and spiteful.
On this thread you can see a rather long conversation between Evil Ernie and myself.
Two different points of view, but we both spoke our minds in a frank and non agressive manner, and, as you said, I believe we've agreed to disagree.
Perhaps it was because on my part there are no strong feelings on the matter, I certainly don't feel personaly invested (even though I believe my point of view makes sense), that stopped our exchange from becoming heated.
It's when people go from speaking their minds and sharing their opinions to trying to change other peoples opinions, or telling them that they are wrong, that's when they are more likely to dig in and push back just as hard.
yea. think i didnt fully explain. was speaking as a generalization but as u say it doesnt have to become anything, but generally through out the world the bad apples make it so
for what its worth I went to a private school in belfast, every morning in assembly we had morning prayers by the school chaplain, by no means was it a religious school but it practiced christian morals. We even had 2 classes for R.E, a moral one and a biblical one.
But yes, what im getting at is there were some student who would be considered an ethnic minority, particularly in an all boys school in belfast. But during the R.E lessons that didnt stop the teacher from inquiring about his muslim beliefs on the various different aspects being studied. It also allowed the students to have a broader understanding, but not once did he feel intimidated in a school where every morning the lords prayer was said and each week he'd have to attend a biblical class. Sometimes i think people just like to make a fuss.
I agree. I went to a Catholic school, simply because my parents judged it to be the best scholastically. Roman Catholicism was taught daily (and pretty emphatically ;) .. "Caryl Simmons, you've got the devil sitting on your Protestant shoulders!!" ) but that simply provided things to talk through with my parents who weren't Catholic, and who did not push any particular belief at me, but rather the message that one needed to be tolerant of others' beliefs, and that of the nuns in particular; my father would say "Remember, the nuns don't have much of a sense of humour or light touch about a belief they've dedicated their lives to." :-)
The thing is that many cultures are based on religious beliefs, so whilst I don't think a public/state school should push one religion (and frankly I don't think the "prayer on the wall" actually did that much pushing), I do see it as valuable for them to give a grounding in the basic tenets of those practised by people you will be sharing your world with, because each will dictate the culture and practices of those who follow them. So understanding for eg fasting, doctrines regarding what some people eat because of their beliefs, or the refusal of Sikhs to wear motor cycle helmets is imo useful, to name just a few simple issues. Most of those whom I have heard argue fiercely against the motor cycle helmet exemption for Sikhs for example, haven't understood either the significance of the turban, nor it's protective strength. I think education has a responsibility to help children understand why people adhere to certain practices, dress in certain ways etc that might otherwise seem odd to them. I mention Sikhism because it's also valuable to understand that one of their central beliefs is to defend the equality of all humans, whatever their beliefs, and eschew discrimination on the basis of creed.
Caryl
Evil Ernie
18 Apr 2012, 22:14
for what its worth I went to a private school in belfast, every morning in assembly we had morning prayers by the school chaplain, by no means was it a religious school but it practiced christian morals. We even had 2 classes for R.E, a moral one and a biblical one.
But yes, what im getting at is there were some student who would be considered an ethnic minority, particularly in an all boys school in belfast. But during the R.E lessons that didnt stop the teacher from inquiring about his muslim beliefs on the various different aspects being studied. It also allowed the students to have a broader understanding, but not once did he feel intimidated in a school where every morning the lords prayer was said and each week he'd have to attend a biblical class.
There is a big difference between going to school in Ireland and The Bible Belt of the US.
Sometimes i think people just like to make a fuss.
Agreed. The religious should not make a big fuss about removing religion from schools. I don't see what the fuss is about. It's not like people are stopping them from worshipping.
See what I did there? ;)
ricgough
28 Apr 2012, 04:52
Don't believe I got my facts wrong at all, you need to understand the law a little better. Church and state came all the way from the 14th century. What it means is the state can not tell you how you can worship. The dollar still says in god we can trust. The 2 people that took down that prayer interfered with the civil rights of many. The judge was wrong with his decision and the school system does have the money to fight it. Your right, the US constitution
gives you the right to believe how you believe. the ruling was a violation of the US constitution . bottom line .
....or the right to believe or not believe, which is probably far more fundamental at the core of the issue. frankly the current u.s. THEOCRACY turns the rest of the world off more than anything and contributes to more of the worlds problems than ever widely acknowledged. at the inception of the constitution and until the recent rise of vested interests in world polititcs however the seperation of state and religion is EXACTLY what made america a leading aspirational force in the world. Get a grip people. Humanity comes first. the way you worship or whether you worship at all is personal and is not for wider societal consumption. PERIOD.
vBulletin® v3.8.10, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.