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 ?

: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:

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

After you... :rly:

Seriously, no one here dislikes Meat Loaf, :roll:, why spend time on a Meat Loaf site if you can't stand the guy ?

:-P ... lol ...

Well, those are acknowledged fairytales. Pretty far reaching for the argument IMO.

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.

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.

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. ;)

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.

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".

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.

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**

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

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.

I belong to the Jedi religion :-)

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:

That sums it up in a nutshell for me

Just to clarify, there has been no official statement from R or from the Mod team saying this.

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.

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

Lol, me too, well,at least thats what my facebook says ;)

Really? Because from your posts, it sounds like it does matter.

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."

:twisted: I dislike, because I am Sith.

And now we must do battle

*PPPSSSSSSHSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH* <----- Impression of a light saber opening.

You goin down too :mrgreen:

PPPPSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHH <---- impression of spare light saber opening

Darth Mouse? :))

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7180/6...90204c00_n.jpg

You are only the master of evil!

That's awesome. Very off topic but awesome!

: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:



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.




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.




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:

:twisted: WE need a "Want one" button :mrgreen:

A little light relief in a pretty heavy thread :lol:

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?

: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).

very good point. that's exactly how i'm thinking.

just don't have the right words to tell you how much i love you, not only your music but even more your personality ...

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 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.

That is highly debatable.

Also, if there is no religion, how can there be sin? Does not compute.


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.

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.

:twisted: OK, i'll go round one more time, then i'm leaving it alone :lol:
Been an interesting convo though :cool:


Home schooling isn't always practical and private school is expensive.


But surely this is your opinion and not fact?


But the many are tarred with the same brush as the few.
Something the members of mlukfc can identify with at times :mrgreen:


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.



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.



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.



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 ;)

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

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.

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

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.

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!

Yeah, think they call it a grey jedi in some circles.

Aha, I see

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.

: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.




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

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

There is a big difference between going to school in Ireland and The Bible Belt of the US.

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? ;)

....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.