I have often wondered exactly what it was that drives the current secularism surge in countries like Australia and America.
Having read the following article today, I feel I understand the reasons now.

http://www.salon.com/2014/12/20/were_putting_an_end_to_religion_richard_dawkins_bill_maher_and_the_exploding_new_american_secularism/

In America at least, one of the number one reasons is political, following the rise of the religious right groups such as the Christian Coalition and the Moral Majority etc.
What with their policies against abortion rights, anti-gay rights, supporting prayers in public schools, advocating abstinence before marriage and opposing gun control, to name just a few.
This has only served to alienate politically moderate left-leaning Americans who found themselves at odds with such a conservative agenda.
I feel that Australians are increasingly feeling the same way.

Other reasons include the way the Catholic Church (and other church run institutions) have dealt with paedophiles amongst their ranks. The church dealt badly with this issue by sending bad Priests to other parishes instead of de-frocking them and calling the police, as they should have done.
Many people, especially Catholics, gave up on religion because of this terrible scandal.

A more surprising reason for the rise of secularism is the fact that more women are in the workforce now, and are no longer encouraging their husbands or children to attend church or follow religious traditions. They just don't have time for this anymore, and have found their truth out in the real world now.

The last two reasons are that both Americans and Australians in general are much more accepting of homosexuality, and can't understand what many religions have against what they see as a legitimate sexual attraction and love amongst same sex people.

The Internet has opened up a whole new world for many in the Western society and has resulted in many previously religious people now having access to both pros and cons of religion and belief in deities or spiritual beings.

Maybe now, more and more people are beginning to think for themselves rather than have religious people tell us how we should think and act.

Suse as one who had witnessed the first flash of breasts on Australian TV through to the sexualisation of everything you can think of, I have become slowly jaded to the moral slip of the media since the 1960’s. Breasts....so what...penis or vagina, so what, that is the general consensus today. With this openness comes a re-positioning of the moral compass.

Given religions are moral compasses, the relevance of those morals have diminished in our society...as have the parishioners generationally in the first world. But religions are stable or growing in second and third world nations primarily because of the low education standards and economic conditions because any hope for better, even ethereal, is better than none.

But what group is behind the “Babylonization” of the first world societies we now have, and to what end. Is it the media or is it the government censors. At some stage Christian morals were abandoned and a new morality enlisted.

I don’t recall protest in the streets marching for more tits and ass, nor do I recall letters to the editor requesting more tits and ass. But I do recall the years of lobbying by Christian groups for a return to the former moral standard in broadcasting. I believe that the media has been manipulating the moral fabric of first world societies to disenfranchise them from Christianity. One of the commonalities that bound us.........couple this with a first world immigration policy that strips the homogeneous face of the population away and what you are left with is a divided prey item..........merry Xmas Suse......Paul.

Merry Christmas to you too Paul :)
I look at Christmas as a more cultural holiday season than a religious one.

I don't know that we need religions as a moral compass anymore.
Many people in our society now realise that the people in the forefront of these religions were/are no better or no worse than anyone else in society.

The recent child sex abuse scandals that infest several religion based organizations are certainly testament to how some of these supposedly 'moral' people treated children in their care.
They, and those that hid them, are no better than any common paedophile out there in the wider community.
So what gives them the right to say what is or isn't moral?

I honestly think that we can raise our kids to be good citizens, without telling them to believe in a religion or a god

Exactly, Sonofgloin.

So, why did you send your kid to a Catholic School, again, Suse?

But hang on, who said the Secularists are any better? Including the BBC:
John Lydon 'I'd like to kill Jimmy Savile' [1978]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rjy8oLVOvi4

Evil has arrived in all sectors of society.

No real sense of community - all is fake appearances. Nobody happy. People lose identity so get tattoos.

Is Ugly the New Beautiful?

To be “cool” is now more desired than to be comely.

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

"The rise of relativism has rendered the common Christian code of conduct obsolete". Is meaningless meaningful, Suse?

"As people lose their conscience, they also become less conscious, for ethics—the principles of accepted human behaviour - are an orienting influence. Granted that a rebellious subculture is certainly often involved in such exhibitions, there is hardly anything left to rebel against, leaving the populace expressing itself in its confusion between right and wrong, good and evil, beauty and ugliness."

Mad World - Gary Jules
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4N3N1MlvVc4

Enigma - Return To Innocence
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk_sAHh9s08

Enigma - Age Of Loneliness
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APW_QwzGg2o

Old narrative: Diversity is our strength and immigration enriches a nation.
New reality: Too much diversity can destroy a society.

Melting pot. Culture does literally melt.

Orwell’s 1984: Are We There Yet?

Constance said;
Old narrative: Diversity is our strength and immigration enriches a nation.
New reality: Too much diversity can destroy a society.

I think this is true.
I believe that the reason it is a new reality is that in this era
travel is so much faster, easier, cheaper than it was in earlier times,
that people can carry their old hatreds and biases with them and
better communications enables their contact with the source of their
culture that they have no need to integrate into the host nation.

Example the Norse that settled in Normandy, they became French even
though they kept a little of their Norwegian characteristics.
A better example might be the Angles, they lost all contact, except
some remote trading, with their origins and likewise the Saxons.

Interesting discussion topic. Thank you Suse.

Secularism is a concept I assumed I understood but I never actually read the definition until this morning.

secularism

1. a view that religion and religious considerations should be ignored or excluded from social and political matters.
2. an ethical system asserting that moral judgments should be made without reference to religious doctrine, as reward or punishment in an afterlife.

I don't subscribe to any religion and was not raised particularly Christian, though I did attend Sunday School briefly as a child. I've been attracted to Eastern philosophy since my early teens primarily because the philosophy advocates one's personal responsibility for discovering answers to the big questions about life, death and purpose.

I feel the benefit religion offers the masses is basic morals and values for society/culture to live by. The teachings of most religions promote similar values and if people would actually live by them, the world could be a better place. Buddha offered an alternative yet compatible moral compass for those who do not believe in God.

It seems to me there is a design flaw in the human psyche (called ego) that causes a gravitation toward bad habits. It takes will power to not succumb to selfishness. Buddha (not that I am a Buddhist) advises the basic problem is desire and that everything that causes pain stems from unfulfilled desire; let go of desire and contentment will flood in. Very few people actively seek a life of contentment.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is humans are flawed as individuals and need guidance in order to live together in harmony. Secularism in itself doesn't offer an extended set of values for people to live by.

Our 'secular society' is currently still rooted in Christian principals that encourage goodness. If all religious principals are removed from western culture over the next 500-1000 years, what is the likelihood of successfully also eliminating the influence of Islam during the same period?

Secularism may replace Christianity but Islam will continue to grow throughout the West and the two cannot peacefully coexist forever.

Religious forces held sway over human beings for far too long.

As Christopher Hitchens wrote,
I find something repulsive in the idea of vicarious redemption.
I would not throw my numberless sins on to a scapegoat and expect them to pass from me; we rightly sneer at the barbaric societies that practice this unpleasantness in its literal form. There is no value in the vicarious gesture anyway.
As Thomas Paine pointed out, you may if you wish take on a debt, or even offer to take the debtor’s place in prison. That would be self-sacrificing. But you may not a assume his actual crimes as if they were your own; for one thing you didn't commit them and might have died rather than do so; for another this impossible action would rob him of individual responsibility.
The whole apparatus of absolution and forgiveness strikes me as positively immoral, while the concept of revealed truth degrades the whole concept of free intelligence by purportedly relieving us of the hard task of working out ethical principles for ourselves.
Christopher Hitchens - Letters to a Young Contrarian –Ch. 9 P58

Socratic (discussion) educational methods help students learn how to think, not what to think (as they did when dogma held sway).
The most socially just and happiest countries in the world are in Scandinavia and they are secular. In an OECD study they and The Netherlands filled the top six places. Australia was 21st, well behind Canada , NZ and the UK, and the USA rated only ahead of Greece Chile, Mexico and Turkey.

it is more accurate to speak of the rise of selfishness than secularism. The two go hand in hand. The results are clear. MOre suicide, more drug use, more fatherless, more pornography, more child molestation, more welfare, more me, me, me and me, What a dead head unscientific ideology. Much in common with Islam hence the defence of it by the ignorant.

From: Mellhiush & Rizzo.
At the turn of the XXI century the ‘Secular’ as the dominant discourse in Western Civilization has been displaced by the revival of devotional forms of religiousness and orthodoxy and the resurgence of new forms of spirituality. The return of the ‘religious’ in the public sphere has had the effect of not only revealing the inherent tautologies of the secular paradigm, but also of prompting a legitimation crisis without precedent. The Post-Secular paradigm, inaugurated by the displacement of the secular, represents an attempt to overcome the existing aporia. The Post-Secular however should neither be read as an attempt at historical periodisation nor as a synonym of the Post-Modern, but as a new and authentic epistemological-hermeneutical paradigm, which envisages an integrated co-existence between secular and religious instances, a sort of indwelling or, as some have argued, immanent dualism. Such a paradigm involves, in fact, the redefinition of existing notions of time, place, agency and purpose and the identification of a new pattern of significance in which to cast the past and make sense of the present and eventually the future. It follows that traditional monistic models of historical development and their holistic assumptions and approaches, informed by secular discourses concerning time and space/place, along with the teleologies they incorporated or purported, have become meaningless and need to be discarded.

From: Ethnologist Fredrik Barth…
“One is led to identify and distinguish ethnic groups by the morphological characteristics of the cultures of which they are the bearer.” Barth conceived of ethnic groups as a form of social organisation, culture is then a means through which such groups construct themselves:
“The boundaries to which we must give our attention are of course social boundaries, though they may have territorial counterparts. If a group maintains its identity when members interact with others, this entails criteria for determining membership and ways of signalling membership and exclusion.”

So segregation cannot be envisaged independently from its political significance and manifestation. Multiculturalist discourse, which considers communities purely as cultural communities, is then highly questionable.

Foyle,

Are you living in a fog? I suggest you check out SwedishSurvey who arrived recently on OLO.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16854&page=0#296807

Sweden is entrenched in Socialism and now has the highest rape count in Europe and 2nd in the world. Thanks to the influx of assimilation-averse Muslim immigrants, Sweden, which once had one of the lowest crime rates on the planet, now has the second highest incidence of rape in the world.

“Socratic (discussion) educational methods help students learn how to think, not what to think (as they did when dogma held sway).” But Lefitists academics have taken over the universities and are teaching the youth to despise their own Western culture. And as a consequence, we have zombie think who actually can’t think for themselves. I see them all the time in the workplace - silly uni graduates who can't think outside the square.

Haven't you noticed that we are forbidden to say what we actually think thesedays?

Suseonline,

Having read your numerous 'drive-by' attacks on your favourite hates, the main ones being 'old white men'(?!) and Christianity, particularly the Roman Catholic Church (always priests, no mention of nuns and ties in with the 'old white male' fixation), I cannot do your OP and you personally any justice without observing the rather obvious, that you would do yourself a favour to deal with your personal baggage through confronting the ghosts of your Catholic upbringing, rather than casting about to rationalise and build upon your hates.

You are closer to authoritarian left, where your unreasoning hatreds bloom and not a liberal secularist at all. Islam has your blessing, for instance, but probably because its enemies is yours enemy.

I am a strong supporter of a secular State and believe that John Howard expressed the concept rather well. He was for tolerance in its proper (Oxford) dictionary sense and so am I.

If there is one point I would like to make it is that I find your aggressive 'secularism' quite unnecessary, presumptuous, intolerant and offensive. It is totalitarianism and narcissism too.

The fellow made some interesting comments. What do you think?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-10-15/secularliberalismmisunderstood/40148

Dear Suse,

I'll repeat what I've stated in the past -
Few citizens of modern societies would utterly
deny the possibility of some higher power in the
universe, some supernatural, transcendental realm that
lies beyond the boundaries of ordinary experience,
and in this fundamental sense religion is probably
here to stay.

Of course - no one can deny that sexual abuse of
children and young adults is horrendous and intolerable
and that the failure of the church to deal with it
effectively has done immeasurable damage both to the
church and to victims. The cover-ups, the protection
of abusive clergy and the refusal to admit egregious
mistakes are unjustifiable.

However, personally I am optimistic that Catholicism in
Australia will survive, probably with lesser numbers,
but with more commitment and ministerial energy.
Paul Collins points out in his book,
"Believers: Does Australian Catholicism have a future?"

"...Catholics will require genuine local leadership and
a willingness to confront both the difficulties and
opportunities that the church faces. My feeling is that
we are uniquely placed in Australia to be able to do
precisely that."

Religion may have been meant for the teaching of law in a society, but it's interpretation has been perverted by men who claim moral high ground, "our way or no way." Religion is about control and bondage. It's hypocrisy is being questioned as well it should. Spirituality, on the other hand,is about freedom.

Thanks to all for your comments.
I realise this is a controversial subject, especially at this time of the year.

Constance and Bazz, I dislike ALL religions, not just Christianity.
I don't dislike any person just for what they do or don't believe in however.
I take each person as they are, and how they treat others.

I believe religion to be at the root of almost all evils in our world....leading to wars and insanity.

Foxy, I realise that religions and religious people have done good things in our society and around the world. I just don't think they needed to believe in an invisible being to do them.
Mankind still grew and prospered long before they believed in a Christian God.

Yes, there are good and bad amongst secularists and atheists too, just as there are amongst any group of humans.
How do we explain a large family of God-fearing, church-going people where one or two members commit terrible crimes? I think it is because we are born that way, with some input from our environment and culture.

Dear Suse,

I'll repeat what I've posted on this forum
so many times previously.

Some form of religion has existed in every society
that we know of. Religious beliefs and practices are
so ancient that they can be traced into prehistory,
perhaps as far back as 100,000 years ago. Even the
primitive Neanderthal people of that time, it seems, had
some concept of a supernatural realm that lay beyond everyday
reality. Among the fossilized remains of these cave
dwellers, anthropologists have found evidence of
funeral ceremonies in the form of flowers and artifacts that
were buried with the dead, presumably to accompany them on
the journey to an afterlife.

Religion takes a multitude of forms. Believers may
worship gods, ancestors, or totems; they may practice
solitary meditation, frenzied rituals, or solemn prayer.
And obviously religion cannot be defined in terms of
the Western religious tradition alone. The sociologist
Emile Durkheim argued that shared religious beliefs
and the rituals that go with them are so important
that every society needs a religion, or at least some
belief system that serves the same functions.

He pointed out that the rituals enacted in any religion
enhance the solidarity of the community, as well as its
faith. Religious rituals such as Baptism, Bar Mitzvah,
Weddings, Sabbath Services, Christmas Mass, Funerals.
Rituals like these serve to bring people together,
to remind them of their common group membership, to
re-affirm their traditional values, to maintain
prohibitions and taboos, to offer comfort in times of
crisis and, in general to help transmit the cultural
heritage from one generation to the next.

The cause of much of the social disorder in modern
societies, Durkheim contended, is that, "the old gods are
growing old or are already dead, and others are not yet born."

In other words, people no longer believe deeply in traditional
religion, but they have found no satisfying substitute.

Just one of many theories and as with all theories - does
not allow for individual differences.

Hi Suse, this has really been interesting.

I raised a question in my previous post that I would like to gain an understanding of your perspective.

Assuming the success of secularism over Christianity prevails and we come to a point in time where Christianity is as popular as some of the forgotten pagan religions are today; Islam or more rightly the Muslim population of the world will continue to grow most likely reaching a point where people are either secularists or Muslim. The politically correct Western world may be willing to abandon religion but the Muslim world won't.

The Muslims will never buy into a political system run by non-believers and the secularist will never accept Muslim sharia law. This may be 500 years away but if secularism and Islam jointly share the world, an all out war is inevitable.

What is the secularist plan for dealing with the Muslim backlash? You can try to love them, allow them their space, but sharing the power cannot and will not be reciprocal.

Foxy "In other words, people no longer believe deeply in traditional
religion, but they have found no satisfying substitute. "

Foxy I think there is a very fine line between religion, culture and tradition.
No one is saying we should forget our religious history, or that everyone should become a secularist. I am saying that it is not as important now for an increasing number of people.
I have no belief in any God or religion, and I have not felt the need to find any 'substitute' either. I just feel annoyed I was forced to listen to all that rubbish and attend church when I was young.

Yes Josephus, I sent my daughter to the local Catholic school, but I first found out there were no nuns there, and the only other school, the local public school, was extremely over crowded and in disrepair.

My mother was saying today that as a young child at a Catholic boarding school, she was told by the delightful nuns that catching a train home to the farm on Good Friday for her Easter break would see her in hell for travelling on such a day. They told her she was more likely to be injured or die in an accident because God would be angry at her!

I believe we are all now more able to think for ourselves and not have to listen to such scare-mongering rubbish like that.

Conservative hippie, Muslims and Christians have been fighting wars against each other for thousands of years. I doubt much of that was due to religion as such, but more to do with securing land, people and riches for themselves.
I doubt much of that would change if there were not as many Christians around anymore.
Our great leaders of all countries will always want more than they already have.

Dear Suse,

As you know, I too was raised as a Catholic.
And I also used to think that I was not religious,
and perhaps I wasn't. I didn't like what organised
religion had done to the world. I still don't.
But I've come to realise that true religion is
internal, not external. The spirit within us can't
be blamed for the blasphemies carried out in its
name. What some have done in the name of religion,
projecting their neuroses, even perpetrating evil
on the world does not make religion as a mystical
phenomenon invalid.

I agree that secularised organised religions have
become in many cases as calcified as other institutions
that form the structure of our modern world. That's
why they are rejected by some. Our religious institutions
have far too often become handmaidens of the status quo,
while the genuine religious experience is anything but
that.

Religious institutions, as such are not the only arbiters
of religious experience. They do not own the Truth, for
Truth cannot be owned. Nor should they think they hold some
franchise on our spiritual life. They are consultants and
frameworks, but they are not God Himself. We should not
confuse the path with the destination.

I did turn away from religion for a while, but I found that
life without conscious awareness of God was difficult.
However I did not come back as a spiritually half-interested,
complacent congregant that many of our parents were when
we were growing up. I came back with an interest in actually
having a religious experience.

Yes, many people have dropped out but there are also many, like
myself, - who are beginning to come back and as a result of
this, organised religion will not be the same. It will have to
step up to bat religiously, or it will wither away.

Organised religious institutions are I believe in for a huge
transformation, for the simple reason that people
have become genuinely religious in spite of them.

Dear Foxy,

So beautiful, so precise, so true, I had tears in my eyes reading this!

I stand behind every word, but please give the well-deserved credit to Marianne Williamson.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Thank You for your very kind words and -
My sincere apologies for my oversight in
not acknowledging citing bits from Rabbi Williamson.
I've acknwledged her so many times in the past
that her words have now become second-nature to me.

I see my name mentioned, and I haven't commented yet.
I too started at a country Catholic school at six in winter as there were no other schools in the area, and in those days no buses. I was abused by the nun the first day at school for cutting my hand on the cross cut saw after volunteering to cut wood with another for the classroom fire. I spent six weeks at that school and could recite every times table from 2 x to 12 x. However being picked on for not attending Mass my parents sent me 200 miles down the line to live with grandparents where I could attend a Public School.

I have had to think out my own decisions in life and evaluate the lives of people based on their values and personal philosophy. I have found the understanding the New Testament Christianity gives the greatest value to life, it offers freedom from past foolishness, and a sense of worth to the most worthless of men, examples; Mr Eternity, Arthur Stace and John Newton of "Amazing Grace".

Secularism does not give a united set of values that spiritually bond a society. The only bonded secular societies are ruled by dictators who impose their values. A secular society that feels they are free to do as they please without responsibility to others and self denial is a broken society of strained relationships. Every society has to function with laws of restraint to the strong willed, and provision to the weak. True spirituality is not about suppression, but about living in community. A train functions best on a controlled track, with brakes and appropriate movements.

(A copy and paste of an earlier post from me, but it seems to fit here well enough)

Here's something Ivan Illich wrote on traditional society.

I'm not suggesting that we should make an informed choice to revisit such a model, although the things we've lost were part and parcel of cooperating within such a model.

Perhaps there's something we can learn from it.

Here's the way he put it:

"...Traditional society was more like a set of concentric circles of meaningful structures, while modern man must learn how to find meaning in many structures to which he is only marginally related. In the village, language and architecture and work and religion and family customs were consistent with one another, mutually explanatory and reinforcing. To grow into one implied a growth into the others..."

Seems our greatest challenge is to find "meaning" in our lives and a sense of ourselves being "needed" in the scheme of things.

Without that.....

Foxy I think I understand where you are coming from.
We have had a lifetime of religious instruction and rituals that are hard to break.
Many people need religion as a comfort to them in times of need, and I wouldn't want to discourage that.

I can understand the concept of spirituality, and have strangely felt that out in the bush areas of northwest Australia and the Northern Territory.
I would be more likely to embrace a sort of empathy with Mother Earth, if you get my drift, rather than trying to believe there are invisible beings out there somewhere.

At least you can see and feel the wonders of nature!
Maybe I have just turned into an old cynic. :)

People talk about death and spirits and the afterlife, and yet, in over 30 years of being with people before, during and after their death, I have never seen nor heard any spirit!

Josephus, I apologize, I wrote your name when I meant to address Constance.
Thank you for adding to the discussion too anyway. :)

I do know many people who describe themselves as living in a secular society who are good, decent people, living productive lives and enjoying loving relationships.
I also know some people who describe themselves as living a God-fearing life, who quite honestly are nasty to the core.

I guess what I am trying to say is that whether one believes in a God or not has no bearing on whether they are a 'good' person or not, and I take each person as they come.
I don't need to know what they believe in or what they don't, as long as I enjoy their company.

Those that are looking for a god in the sky will never find one. Those that look for high moral character, actions that enhance life, and avoid socially destructive behaviour, and listen to wisdom will find the spirit of the the expression of God revealed. God is not a physical being or spatial reality, for God is defined by the reality of holy character, actions that enhance the weak, and wisdom that gives meaning to life. God is spirit; not a spirit. As Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, the life"; no one approaches God without coming that way. What he was speaking of was the character, actions and wisdom that defined his relationship to God.

Josephus,

Nicely put. Merry Chritmas to you and all here.

Thanks George, A merry Christmas also to you.
Secularism can only accept physical reality and define it by test tube analysis. Secular or defined by a physical universe. Secular cannot define the ultimate philosophy of reality of Why. to secularists humans are merely evolved animals, they can only define the body, when as we know the body is only a vehicle borrowed from the living earth, while our real being is our character, our actions and wisdom; ether good or evil. It is in this reality that God is revealed incarnate. Christmas reminds us that became incarnate in the life and mission of Jesus, to bring persons lost to a relationship with God. That means a denial of selfish passions for the enhancement of others lost and vulnerable.

Dear Suse,

I think that we understand each other very well.
There's nothing more that needs to be said
except to wish everyone a very Happy Festive Season
and a Healthy, and Safe New Year.

Thanks Foxy, I agree.
You have a wonderful Christmas too.

And to everyone else, whether you worship a God or not, have a lovely Christmas Day with your families and friends.

Cheers,
Suse.

Foxy,

This paper might be of some interest,

http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/mageespaper.pdf

Suseonline, "and yet, in over 30 years of being with people before, during and after their death, I have never seen nor heard any spirit!"

Have you detected any difference in how the dying and their loved ones approach their death?

I haven't had much experience with human death, but from volunteering some time with elderly people who have lived independent lives and would like to continue to do that for as long as possible, I would have to say that those with religious faith and who grasp the beauty of life and wake every day thankful (despite their pain and limitations) do seem to enjoy a state of grace. However there are some, invariably Roman Catholics, whose waking moments are filled with the fear put there by men who should never have become priests and in an organisation that has in the past been quite ruthless and could easily become so again.

I could have explained that better, but after not much sleep over the past weeks following an injury, I think I will leave it that way. The RC church remains a nightmare to some, maybe many.

I'm sorry to hear you have an injury Onthebeach.
I can honestly say that at the end of life it isn't a belief in God, or prayers etc, that calmed anyone. They just wanted to be comfortable.

Mostly, they just want their loved ones with them, and they want to talk about their family or close friends. Many worried about how their family would cope with their death.
Strangely enough, very few mentioned religion at all, although maybe they did to other nurses!
The ones that did speak about the afterlife wondered what they would find.
I told them nobody knew really, but that it seemed to me that after a person died in a hospital or at home, they looked peaceful and happy to me.

Dear otb,

Sorry to hear about your injury.

Thank You for the link. It's always
interesting to read the opinions of others.

However, as far as I'm concerned - My religion
is embedded in my identity - (which means I know
all too well where it falls short).

Take it easy over this Festive Season.
And All the Best for 2015.
I look forward to more robust discussions with you
in the future.

All The Best.

Suseonline,

Thanks for the sympathy. Some moments affect concentration. Not complaining. Out doing things and that is good.

Thanks too for your experiences with patients and their families.

Foxy,
Thanks too.

The very best to you and all.

Any pretense that there are two distinct categories: secularists V religious , is shown to be pure sue-mantics when you have such devote believers in divine revelation as Foxy and Poirot lining up with the secularists.

Dear SPQR,

Rabbi Williamson points out that -

A healthy vital society is not one in which we all
agree. It is one in which those who disagree can do
so with honour and respect for other peoples'
opinions, and an appreciation of our shared humanity.

Our political conversation must shift away from the mass
infantile finger-pointing that now pervades it. What's
ruining our communities is the tendency on so many
people's parts to think that their way is the right
way and that people who disagree with them are bad.

What Rabbi Williamson says is particularly relevant
to this time of the year.

Pray for your friends and families, but by all means
pray for your enemies. And don't pray that they'll change;
pray that you might change from an accusatory mind to a
loving one.

Without a spiritual basis, every system disintegrates.
Any branch that does not bear fruit will fall off the tree.
As the Rabbi tells us - we must not think that we are
immune to the viruses that destroy nations, any more
than any of us are immuneto the flu if it's coming through
town. Many of the things that most of us were brought up
to think "could never happen here," have already begun
to happen; dangerous scapegoating, violent hate crimes'
small-minded intolerance for the views of others.

Enjoy the Festive Season - but come back to the Forum -
in 2015, with a positive outlook and a determination to
make more positive contributionss to further discussions.
I shall try to do the same.

Take care and All The Best.

Foxy,

I am not sure which part of that comes from Marianne Williamson and which from you, but anyhow, thanks for the words of wisdom that we all should abide by.

Dear George,

The thoughts are all Rabbi Williamson's.
She's had a tremendous influence on me.
I discovered her ages ago and she really
helped me during a difficult time - health wise, in
my life. I found her words inspiring,
helpful, and meaningful, at a time when I
needed them the most. I continue to
learn from her teachings.

I highly recommend her writings.

OntheBeach,

People like Suze are part of the problem that we have today. She states in very simplistic terms like the “invisible person” and denigration of her own cultural legacies with her throwaway lines. She probably has something against fairies too. She comes across as all bluster. I have suspicions because of her own bias. As for Foxy, posts confusing contradictions and babble. George has just confirmed this that we never know if it is her own thoughts, or someone else’s. Then any criticism and she goes into victim mode.

“The RC church remains a nightmare to some, maybe many.” Think of it this way, like those seeking a remedy for an illness will hear more from the complainers expressing the bad side effects of the medication. As those complaining will always be the loudest. Those without complaint will be the quieter ones, for eg. no complaints so no need to post online. Hence you will hardly hear of the positives. This is what I have realised with my own health issues and seeking answers on line. You will always hear the worse, not the better.

Excellent link you posted. The English psychiatrist, Theodore Dalrymple calls modern Spiritualism “psychobabble”. He has plenty to say on the current state of the world especially with his experience in working in prisons around Birmingham, UK. And he is in sync with your link posted.

It’s This Bad
Spring 2006

http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/demello-dalrymple-2647

....Cont

Wow folks...we again have something highly caustic under the
guise of "criticism" from Constance.

Her incessant vitriolic assault on various contributors
of this Forum -
have made it hard not to conclude that the lady does have
a serious problem.

Normal people can have honest
disagreements over contentious subjects without the use
of vitriol. It's the venom displayed by Constance that is
so baffling. Suse has spoken from her own
life experiences - but she has never negated anyone elses.
And to attack her is not logical. It is abusive.

I have spoken on this Forum -
about the work of the Saint Vincent de Paul Society (Vinnies),
Catholicism at its best. About the Sacred Heart Mission
which provides 300 to 400 people with a three-course lunch
every day, about Father Chris Riley and his work for youth
in Sydney and the list goes on. The positives of religion and
the positive work of many religious organisations
has been discussed many times on this Forum.

I also need to correct another wrong perception made by
Constance - I am not a "victim."
I am a survivor.

There's a difference.

Foxy,

As you are aware, I'm not the only one here on the forum who reacts vehemently to your shaky moralising. I've had enough of your political correctness (the modern bellwether of virtue) and cultural relativism and false optimism. I find it damaging to our society. Ignoring the most salient unpleasant facts makes you implicit to these evils. Playing down of the bleeding obvious and submitting to ubiquitious mind control from you and your fellow comrads won’t do. It is pernicious. Your moralising platitudes I find patronising, insulting and narcissitic.. When you keep on defending the undeserved and blame the plebs for the cause of their angst, I will persist.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_urbanities-terrorists.html

It is people like yourself who slowly drive people mad. Entrenched in bureaucracy and love of rules, your total faith in the law believing it solves everything becomes absurd. It didn’t help the people in the Lindt Café at Martin Place, did it?

A few quotes from Theodore Dalrymple:

“Optimism is the parent of despair, while pessimism allows the mind to accustom itself to the inevitable disappointments of human existence by degrees, just as some drugs induce a state of tolerance. Pessimists, moreover, have the better sense of humour, for they have a livelier apprehension of pretension and absurdity. In a meritocracy, furthermore, those who fail must either indulge in elaborate mental contortions to disguise reality from themselves or sink into a deep melancholy.”

Cont..

..Cont

“In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is...in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.”

“Never has so much indifference masqueraded as so much compassion; never has there been such wllful blindness. The once pragmatic English have become a nation of sleepwalkers.”

“When a population feels alienated from the legal system under which it lives, because that system fails to protect it from real dangers while lending succor and encouragement to every possible kind of wrongdoing, the population may well lose faith in the very idea of law. That is how civilization unravels.”
Little Britain
http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_2_oh_to_be.html

Dalrymple’s father was a Communist so he is very aware of the oppressive effects of the communist propaganda tool of political correctness

Hiya Constance,

Continuing your petulant and nasty vendetta against Foxy, I see.

At least that means you'll let up on Suze for a bit.

Do you get your jollies from chumming up with the usual suspects and then assailing certain ladies with belligerent and unprovoked attacks?

Does it give you a feeling of inclusiveness?

It must be just about my turn for a bit of your pointless venom...I hope you don't leave me out.

I'm just in the mood for a joust....

On second thoughts, Constance, I shouldn't invite you to be more belligerent than you already are. Having reread your last post to Foxy, and having recently noted the odious post you wrote to Suze on another thread, I surmise you might be nursing some deep seated and problematical angst.

I hope you find a way of dealing with it that doesn't include regularly excoriating fellow posters (female) with whom you fail to share an outlook.

Dear Constance,

I trust that venting your spleen against me
has helped you in some way.

While I appreciate your taking the time to
quote from Mr Anthony (A.M.) Daniels, nee Theodore Dalrymple
to me - I am quite familiar with his work and
his quotes on communism.

Unlike Mr Dalrymple -
my family actually experienced the tyranny of communism
first-hand.

Dad's brother was tortured to death
by the retreating Red Army.
He was a high-school student at the time.
Dad's sister - a fifteen year old, had
to identify his body, had a nervous breakdown
and ended up in a Siberian gulag - and
there's much more - but you go ahead and preach
to me all about "political correctness" and
the evils of communism. I won't bother responding
to the rest of your attack on me - I simply can't
be bothered.

Suffice to add a quote from Mr Dalrymple:

"Facts are much more malleable than prejudices."

But don't let that stop you.

Constance,

I dont know what you are doing. But if you have got BOTH Foxy and Poirot in a tiffy you must be doing some good lol ;)

Foxy,

Pascal said that the beginning of morality was to think well; generosity of spirit is not enough (especially when hard facts get in the way). Life is too precious to be indifferent.

“The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference.”
- Elie Wiesel

Poirot,

There is plenty to be angry about when we are living in the Dark Ages. I just choose not to be one of the zombies who have succumbed to mind control. Don't worry, my angst is balanced to the beauty in life I can still see.

I agree that "the RC church remains a nightmare to some, maybe many" (as anti-Catholicism seems to have become, c.f. Constance’s reaction as misdirected as it is at Foxy of all people).

Constance’s metaphor might be one explanation of this nihgtmare. Another metaphor comes from my personal experience: mathematics remains a nightmare for many, and this is most often the maths teacher’s fault. Nevertheless, only very few people would argue that mathematics is useless or that a professional math teacher cannot contribute to one’s understanding and acquisition of mathematical skills.

I think that there are many philosophical systems that can compete with those built on the background of a Catholic worldview. And there are many Christian or non-Christian orientations that can compete with the traditionally Catholic on the level of spirituality and emotional satisfaction. But only a few religions or philosophical systems can BOTH.

My personal experience with Communism/Stalinism was not nearly as intimate as that of Dairymple’s father or Foxy’s uncle but living now in Europe in a, sort of, vicinity of Ukraine I can see closely the tragic consequences of attempts to resurrect the distant past with its cruelties, injustices and hatreds.

As always, George's sentiments are like balm : )

My church-going elderly Catholic friends are probably the most contented, least agitated people I know.

Constance,

You may be dissatisfied with the way Western society is heading. However it's possible to make your points without constantly slandering Foxy and Suse in the process.

Thanks, George, but......my whole point is that people like Foxy contribute to the mess we're in. It really is pernicious.

Poirot,

Its a tad bit of exaggeration that I pick on the likes of Foxy all the time. Something like maybe 3 times in 4years or something. Big deal. She's a big girl. For me, anyway, I don't use this forum for socialising. When you are constantly fed bulldust (in our current Dark Ages) occasional outbursts become necessary (consult Dr Dalrymple). I'm only human.

I still see you're in your usual form on Black and White, slipping and sliding with your juvenile jabs at concerned people with your obtuse denials and ignorance.

I can predict now you'll probably go through my post history to count my comedy of should be shamefuls - I'm a bad girl. As that is your modus operandi where you like to bring down people who have legitimate concerns with their intellectual inquiry in lieu of searching for any truths yourself. Just shows your hypocrisy once again, as you are always attacking people and you have nothing to say. For some odd reason you have this need for attention.

Public Image Limited - Rise
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vq7JSic1DtM

And how many times have you been deleted for abuse on this forum. Weren't you barred once?

Dear Constance,

I've been accused of many things but indifference
has never been one of them. Being too passionate
about issues - yes, definitely. But being indifferent?
NO!

I also need to politely suggest that if you're
going to attack someone for certain supposed traits that
you feel they possess - then you really need to
check those traits to make sure that you don't
put them on display yourself - otherwise your credibility
suffers.

Anyway, as I stated earlier - honest people can have honest
disagreements over contentious subjects. It is the vitriol
displayed that is so baffling - and it should not appear
in a discussion under the guise of criticism.

In conclusion here is a quote that may give you some food
for thought its from a book by Dr Haim Ginott - who has
lectured and led seminars in child psychotherapy, parent
guidance, and teacher education in the United States,
Europe, and Israel, and has published numerous articles
on these subjects. You gave a quote about "indifference"
by the wonderful Elie Wiesel and I thought the following
quote would make an appropraite addition:

"On the first day of the new school year, all the
teachers in one private school received the following note
from their principal:

Dear Teacher:

I am a survivor of a concentration camp. My eyes saw what
no man should witness:

Gas chambers built by "learned" engineers.
Children poisoned by "educated" physicians.
Infants killed by "trained" nurses.
Women and babies shot and burned by "high school"
and "college" graduates.
So, I am suspicious of education.
My request is: Help your students become human. Your
efforts must never produce learned monstors, skilled
psychopaths, educated Eichmanns.

Reading, writing, arithmetic are important only if they
serve to make our children more humane."

So much for "indifference."

BTW: Regarding "Political Correctness?"
If it's political, how on earth can it be correct. (smile).
the following should make a

Constance,

>> my whole point is that people like Foxy contribute to the mess we're in. <<

Each one of us has somehow contributed to the mess this world finds itself in now, but as far as this forum is concerned I think there are quire a few who seem to be contributing much more than Foxy.

Maybe this, from my earlier post, might help to understand what I mean:

We seem to be living in times that in some way resemble those of St Augustine: Although himself part of the declining Roman civilisation, he did not lament over its demise with the civilised pagans, nor did he rejoice over its downfall with the new barbarians. His faith turned lament and nostalgia into respect for tradition, and fear of the new, unknown, into hope for a better world, as painful as the transitional period might turn out to be.

Dear George,

Thank You.
I enjoy reading your posts.
And always learn something from them.

Dear Poirot,

I envy your way with words and your ability
to get to the crux of the matter in difficult
situations. My patience here is beginning to run out
and I just might take a page from our resident - learned
poster - David Fisher, who when he sees a discussion
that's made up of personal attacks simply doffs his hat
and walks away. He realises that nothing constructive
will be achieved by continuing and doesn't see the
point in pursuing a discussion with someone who's only
interested in condemnation and abuse.

Constance,

I couldn't give a "you-know-what" about your posting history...I've never visited it. That action is not necessary because you tread the same obnoxious path every time you descend upon this forum.

I'm addressing your overtly "personal" and insulting attacks on this forum toward certain women - usually undertaken with no provocation.

We all get heated around here at times, however your deliberate targeting whenever you visit of a small coterie of posters should not be immune from rebuttal.

You write regarding moi:

"....As that is your modus operandi where you like to bring down people who have legitimate concerns with their intellectual inquiry in lieu of searching for any truths yourself. Just shows your hypocrisy once again, as you are always attacking people and you have nothing to say. For some odd reason you have this need for attention."

If I step in and call people out for their dubious debating tactics, it's because I'm well versed in their foibles, having seen myriad examples of the same over the years.

This post from you recently concerning Suse is a case in point:

"Yes, Lego, you are very entertaining, and I agree with you wholeheartedly in all you say.

Susieoncrack - gentle? Are you kidding? Every time I try and read her posts she is full of aggro and makes me feel unwell. She is one sick puppy. Actually, I think a rottweiler is more appropriate.

What is it with these females always coming to the rescue for each other? Like a tribe.
Posted by Constance, Saturday, 20 December 2014 3:06:02 PM"

How does that assist in espousing your deliberate concerns regarding society?

It's just spitting venom for the sake of spitting venom.

Don't act like butter wouldn't melt in your mouth...this forum isn't designed to host unprovoked malicious personal attacks like the above.

And yes I have been suspended from this forum, however, if you repeat anything akin to the above example again, I'll report you.

Geez guys, I step off the forum for one fun day, and I return to find some very unseasonal Christmas vitriol!

Constance obviously had a bad Christmas Day?
If so, I am sorry, but why take out your disgusting mood on the rest of us?

I had already decided to ignore your charming misguided sheister on another thread, but now you are pestering the fine Foxy and Poirot.

What IS your problem?

What, exactly, is your position on the rise of secularism in the Western World, or have you just swung by to fling dung?

Constance - take a chill pill. Anyone who is a regular reader of this forum knows you can't stand some of the women who have different opinions than your own. The last several posts from you are way over the top and unpleasant to read.

Most of the time I would lean toward your way of thinking more than I would Poirot, Foxy or Suseonline but when you turn to just being plain nasty, nothing you have to say impresses me. Jeeze what a b*tch, came to mind reading your posts from yesterday.

You seem to especially have it in for Foxy and seem to attack her personally at every opportunity. Give it rest for awhile, we'll know what you are thinking even if we don't see posted.

Thanks for your wise words Conservative hippie.
Merry Christmas to you. :)

Dear Suse,

You've really raised a very interesting topic -
one that will keep me thinking and discussing
various aspects of it for quite some time and its
such a relevant topic at this time of the year.
My husband and I have been discussing things
like policy decisions pertaining to issues like
abortion, contraception, embryonic stem-cell
research, same-sex marriage, sex education and so
on. These are all prominent issues - and issues
that many people have different views on. They are
issues that affect people's lives and possibly may
explain in some cases the rise of secularism
in the Western World. What part does religion play in
politics is another issue that we'll be discussing
later on.

My husband pointed out the fact that -
it is widely believed that the American Constitution builds
a "wall of separation" between church and state, but
this view is largely a myth. In practice, civic affairs and
religion have long been closely intertwined in the US.
For example, the Pledge of Allegiance declares that the
country is one nation "under God." It's coins declare,
"In God we trust." Religion is an element in oaths of
office, party conventions, court-room procedures, and
nearly all formal public occasions.

Even their Scouts give a "God and country" award, a phrase
that implies, to say the least, a compatability of
interest between the two.

Many of the nation's secular symbols, also have a sacred
quality - the flag, the eagle, the Constitution, the
Bill of Rights, the Statue of Liberty, "America the
Beautiful," "The Star-Spangled Banner." Washington, Jefferson,
and Lincoln. Political leaders must always pay at least lip
service to religious belief.

So much more thought needs to be given to this
topic - especially as far as the role that religion
plays in our political arena compared with that of the US.
I've got to go right now - but I shall be back with more
on this topic.

Yes Foxy, it is a very complicated issue alright.
I noted with interest the current dilemma the doctors in Ireland had with their problem of turning off the life support machines on a poor brain dead woman who was 18 weeks pregnant.

The doctors were worried they would be prosecuted for 'killing' the 18 week old foetus by turning off the mother's life support system, even though the mother's body was already starting to break down and the foetus would not survive at that age anyway.

The father of the baby, and the parents of the woman were all requesting the machines be turned off.

What a ridiculous and sad state of affairs that the Catholic Church has such a dreadful stranglehold on the laws of that country, even in these modern times.

Dear Suse,

Well I'm back. I've spent a very pleasant afternoon visiting
my mum in an aged care facility - she's quite remarkable -
and very pleasant company. Mum has always been my biggest
booster. I take pleasure in telling her of my affection.
Will you look at my mum, I think. What a knockout. I've always
marvelled at her capability and the way she's organised her
life. But I digress.

Thank You for your Irish example. That's a shocker.

At least this would not have happened in the US -
even though the line
between government and religion is not always clearly drawn
but you can be sure that there - in some cases (particularly involving minors), the
state would interfere in the exercise of religious freedom.
There - Courts, have shown little
sympathy for sects that claim biblical authority to give
children a purely religious education, or deny them
vaccinations or medical treatment, or severely beat them.

It's interesting also that there is an implicit cultural
assumption that Americans should be religious - not
necessarily by attending church or synagogue, but at least
expressing a belief in God and in religious principles. I
read somewhere that
President Eisenhower once commented
that it did not matter
what rellgion a person believed in, as long as he or she
had one.

And yet, I wonder how many people would be able to name
more than half of the ten commandments. How many
people claiming to be Christians in this country could
also do it. How many people do you think would be able to even
name the four gospels that contain Jesus's message, and
how many would have an idea that it was Jesus who delivered
that central Christian statement, the Sermon on the Mount.

Suse, yes, I came upon that story on twitter.

Reminds of a quote I once read...something to the effect that Irish Catholicism has always terrified the Vatican.

Hi Foxy, I'm glad you had a great day with your mum, after a nasty brush with Constance!

Yes indeed Poirot, the Irish brand of Catholicism is something else!
When visiting friends and neighbours in my Irish husband's home town after we were first married, every single one of them asked me was I Catholic, and as we left each house they splashed us with holy water to keep us safe!

I was told all sorts of awful stories re IRA supportive priests, unmarried mothers being 'sent abroad' , and family members being forced into the religious life.

Even so, they were still a wonderfully fun people...and I married one!

This thread is beginning to sound like a Powerpuff Girls debriefing session : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hP967rS9RfM

LOL

Dear Suse,

I grew up with having an Irish priest as a close
family friend. Father Kennedy, bless his heart.
He established our Parish Church in what was then
a small suburb of Sydney. He performed the marriage
ceremony at our wedding. Father was a regular guest
at our home - and the stories we'd hear about the
conditions in Ireland were also very worrying.

Eventually Father got moved to a much wealthier
suburb by the ocean and I remember spending
some very enjoyable summers there with the daughter
of Father's housekeper who was my age at the time.
Even though the wealthier suburb involved much less
work for him - father was never as happy there as he
was in the poorer Parish he had helped establish.
His parishiners missed him very much. I often think
of him, even today. He was a good man - and role model.
May he rest in peace.

SPQR....

And ya know what's even funnier.....more Lol-ful?

Not one of us is going to bother viewing your silly video!

(talk about puffery:)

SPQR,

LOL, women. Or in this case, womyn.

- The ritualised stroking, flattery and cheering-on is being laid on thick with a large trowel to cement together the 'hit' squad who did the job on another woman poster.

Over-sugared superflattery - insincere and needy.

Hmmmm, perhaps the target of their 'attention', Constance, may have touched a nerve somewhere.

Look out, incoming!

Lol!...and what thread would be complete without the faux defender of feminine honour stepping up to the plate...thanks otb!

How remiss of us to call to task a poster whose semi-regular visits to this forum are notable for her malicious and personal attacks on posters who hold different views to her own.

You guys seem to think that's fine...and I know otb is fond of deploying similar tactics when he's scratching around for odium in lieu of argument.

Constance is welcome to put her views across - she's not welcome to systematically engage in unprovoked personal abuse and belligerence.

Cheers

Constance has annoyed Poirot on another thread. The ganging up for the hit and over-sugared flattery and stroking afterwards is what some women do.

The ongoing flattery and over-interest in the minutiae of one another's lives also serves the (bullying) purpose of 'icing out' the female who is deemed to have 'crossed' the particular group (gang) of women.

Where's the solidarity and sisterhood?

"Constance has annoyed Poirot on another thread..."

Pray tell, otb...which "other thread"?

I do become a little annoyed with posters who hurl personal abuse as a matter of course - especially when they single out a target and find ways to whack 'em a good one whenever they can confect the opportunity.

Come to think of it, you're inordinately fond of pulling the same stunt in relation to Foxy. I've lost count of the number of times you've skewed her argument in order to slam her with personal innuendo.

No wonder you're stepping in to defend such behaviour, attempting to turn our censure into a 'ganging-up".....you're a practitioner of such low tactics yourself.

Figures....

Oh what's wrong Onthebeach?
Is no one giving you any attention?
Poor baby....

OK, so obviously my closing sentence should have read,

"Where's the solidarity and sisterhood? (SIC)"

Just trying to be helpful. After all, you are the products of your now aged generation and if one is so bold to add, frozen in time decades back in the last century - the previous Millenium in fact.

You are representative of what girls used to be, princesses (made of sugar and spice) who were doted upon and wrapped in cotton wool by parents who went though WW2, did everything for you and excused every fault. The inheritance: superficial 'niceness' and a mass of unresolved stress and baggage underneath. If only those mums had let you express your real emotions, especially anger, huh?

Give me young women any day. Open, risk-taking and authentic, they abhor the life-wasting games their dino rad fembot grandmothers play.

We can disagree vehemently yet appropriately.
Yet there are still some people who think that
nasty ill-intentioned words are not a big deal.
In reality they are - especially if the perpetrators
only direct criticism and only criticism at their
chosen targets.

Unfortunately, this appears to be quite a common practice
on public forums such as this one where one encounters
people with a wide variety of backgrounds, education,
experiences, and values, including some that one would
normally avoid in our daily lives. That's as they say is
the jungle of the internet - where strident voices try
to manipulate others.

The best reaction is usually the
one that does not give these people the power to have
any sort of control. - Best - simply not respond and walk
away. But of course that's easier said than done.
And when the right buttons are pushed - we all tend to
react.

Where have I heard the term - "handbag hit squad" before?
Sounds so familiar. Reminds me of other labels
like - aka Progressives, Fabians, Emily Listers,
ad nauseum.
All so repetitive and predictable.

cont'd ...

otb,

By the way, you are obviously a product of
your generation with your antiquated reference
of the "...hit squad."

Not only is this sexist
in the extreme, condescending and downright
offensive - it also shows how out of touch
you really are with today's women.

OTB,

The pack is back without a SOH again.

As an outsider looking in, you are so right. Spoilt little thin skinned princesses.
Poirot complains about personal attacks and her comments gets deleted for abuse on various times. But I'm the only abuser here. She pesters everyone. Take a look at Black and White Flag. She just dives in defending Muslims without any idea of Islam and tries to ridicule the posters for questioning. She’s all empty leftie ideology. You might notice that they are unable to partake in any heavy topics. They just go on pestering. Natter, natter…

Reminds me of one of the characters in Little Britain says “I’m a lady, I’m a lady”. I agree, I do find them terribly old fashioned too. But there are still some men around who still fall for it and think they need protection. They love that and then a not long after they suddenly become ardent feminists. Gets confusing.

Nows she’s threatening to report me. Ho hum, another BORING BUREAUCRATIC lackey.

“What is it with these females always coming to the rescue for each other? Like a tribe." And Poirot calls this venomous! How lame can you get? Look what society’s done to them. This is one of the reasons why I am so concerned.

Their fawning over each other is plain sicko. This is one reason why I relate to men more. I can’t stand all that superficiality.

I’ve been writing something which includes a bit on false charm. Stay tuned.

SuzeOn..?,

Using the same mantra I see. I had a really joyful Xmas thanks and am still in a cheery mood.

I’ve posted about Secularism in the West in collision with Islam in the recent past. I didn’t want to repeat myself on this thread. But stay tuned for a bit of a touch on that, not that I’m expecting you to take it seriously.

Poirot,

As predicted. You’re all over the joint. One minute you say you never read my posts then I’m quoted all over. Something is going on there.

"How does that assist in espousing your deliberate concerns regarding society?" Heck you know, because you are one of the major concerns who want us all silenced.

Abnoxcious all the time? I guess you might find it that when it gets beyond your understanding because you are unable to think beyond anything outside the Lefty Square. I’ve caught you on a few occasions actually agree with me. “How to be Free” by Dr Tom for instance. Even my PapaTech take many moons ago you begrudgingly expressed interest.

I act like butter wouldn’t melt in my mouth? I think you got me mixed up with the Fox. I’m mad and bad, bro. I’m not one dimensional nor a holy Jo. Who wants to be that?

Bye.

Constance , it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy (and not surprised) that you feel able to relate to men more.
I am sure Onthebeach needs a bosom pal like you.....in fact your MO is very similar!

The way all the other posters relate to each other is up to them, and as this is an opinion forum then it is obvious that we are all allowed our own opinion on subjects as long as we remain within the guidelines from the Moderator.

If you step outside of those rules again,. Poirot won't be the only one reporting you....

Constance,

I know you can read - in fact you are probably the most articulate aggressor on this forum...however, I didn't say I never read your posts. I said I had never visited the page that hosts your "posting history".

Yes, in fact I do agree with much of your sentiment...it's just that I don't feel the need to personally slander the men and women around here in order to get my point across.

Why do you do it?

I mean why can't you just say what you don't like about modern Western society without picking up an OLO poster and smearing them with invective - unprovoked.

I mean "now" you're obviously provoked because someone has called out your questionable behaviour...already in the last two posts we have:

"Spoilt little thin skinned princesses.
Poirot"

"Their fawning over each other is plain sicko..."

"SuzeOn..?," (an allusion to your recent despicable label for Suse)

But this is the bit I like the best:

"...I’m mad and bad, bro. I’m not one dimensional nor a holy Jo..."

Bring it on, Constance

(I think you'll find that Poirot is not one dimensional either:)

"Bring it on"?!

Says Poirot channelling ex-PM, Julia Whatshername (you know, the one with the $2million bungalow in Adelaide).

It cannot always be about you, Poirot, and Julia is sitting up in First Class for life and feeling no pain. LOL

Suseonline, 'I'll tell the teacher on youse'(sic)

The other prep school kids must have loved you for that, best part of a century ago. (NOT!)

BTT

In a discussion there are always two sides
to the coin and most people can have
disagreements over contentious subjects without
the use of vitriol or having to stoop to personal
attacks.

Unfortunately, discussion forums also -
attract those who use internet anonymity to
shed their veneer of decency and show their ugly
sides. They take politeness as a sign of
weakness. And tend to choose their targets with that
in mind. These are basically people who want an audience
and to provoke a reaction. They want to divert the discussion
and stop meaningful dialogue. They enjoy stirring.

You have a choice. You can give them what they want
and react - or you can look at the attack for what
it is - mean nasty people - being mean and nasty.

It isn't personal if you refuse to take it personally.
They are the one with the problem.

Look at how much time has been wasted - and how off-subject
this discussion has gone. Let us learn from this and
not allow it to happen again. Next time we see either
Constance or otb - all we need do is simply scroll
past their posts.
Don't even bother to read them. Who of us really cares
what these two really think or say.

Enough said - lets move on.

Dear Suse,

The following link from the New York Times -
although a few years old -
might still be of interest:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/12/world/europe/12poland.html

An interesting link Foxy.

I was surprised that after invitro fertilization was available for years in Poland, the Catholic Church tried to ban it.
No wonder it has upset the Poles and caused a backlash against the church in Poland.

The Catholic Church will have to move with the times if it wants to remain relevant in this world.

Argument for peace.

Here is an explanation by a native Egyptian Jesuit who takes into account recent history and the growing extreme secularism in the West; poor education in Islamic countries . Exacerbated by the West’s meddling in the Middle East.
http://m.ncregister.com/daily-news/father-samir-on-isis-what-they-are-doing-is-diabolical/%23ixzz3CCHeuFxw#.VAboCz0ayc0

This is our moral obligation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_the_West
Historians in free countries have a moral and professional obligation not to shirk the difficult issues and subjects that some people would place under a sort of taboo; not to submit to voluntary censorship, but to deal with these matters fairly, honestly, without apologetics, without polemic, and, of course, competently. Those who enjoy freedom have a moral obligation to use that freedom for those who do not possess it. We live in a time when great efforts have been made, and continue to be made, to falsify the record of the past and to make history a tool of propaganda; when governments, religious movements, political parties, and sectional groups of every kind are busy rewriting history as they would wish it to have been, as they would like their followers to believe that it was. All this is very dangerous indeed, to ourselves and to others, however we may define otherness -- dangerous to our common humanity. Because, make no mistake, those who are unwilling to confront the past will be unable to understand the present and unfit to face the future.

I refuse to accept any more Muslim apologetics when our children’s future is at stake, and if it requires some stepping on toes, so be it.

The desire to engage with Islam in critical argument and debate is not a form of disrespect, but of esteem. Westerners who refuse to do so patronise Muslims and hypocritically oppose sexist practices and beliefs only where it is “politically correct” or expedient to do so.

Western indifference to the fate of women from other cultural or religious backgrounds is far more racist than demonstrating interest in their struggle for human rights.

When you keep on treating Muslims as children that is disrespectful.

Good stuff-- Constance

<<<Westerners who... hypocritically oppose sexist practices and beliefs only where it is “politically correct” or expedient to do so>>

Yeah saw that patron saint of feminism Germaine Greer do just that on ABC Q&A --and that alter boy/girl of feminism Poirot does it all the time.

It is simply amazing how successful (leftist 'Progressive') political correctness has been in controlling the narrative.

No so long ago when a First Grade footballer, paid in the millions and with every support in the world took the opportunity of one word innocently uttered by a girl minor to grandstand his claimed discrimination, the media and politicians immediately fell into line. The sacrifice of the innocence and welfare of that child minor was merely collateral damage in the victim politics played that day and for months after.

Was it Christopher Hitchens, who once paused to wonder just who was driving the 'Progressive' (in fact, regressive), cultural agenda? While he could easily describe the process and the consequences and noted that the cultural war had indeed been lost well before, he admitted that the actual key figures and organisations behind it always remained in the shadows, hidden.

In Australia it was plainly the taxpayer-funded ABC and SBS that lead the charge with leftist 'Progressive' propaganda, slavishly following the BBC in the main, but also by over-exposing select humanities academics, most notably from the social 'sciences'. In politics, Labor was captured by the 'Progressives', the self-described 'Wolves in Sheeps' Clothing', when the Whitlam government (and specifically Whitlam himself) came to power.

Since then, senior Labor figures have professed 'Progressivism' and been notable supporters of Fabianism (same thing). Although that professed Fabianism never prevents them from obtaining significant personal benefit from their public positions. Senior Labor men and women don't mind living high on the hog and it shows.

As far as the proclaimed 'rise in secularism' is concerned, it is (as per usual) all in the 'Progressive' narrative, something easily seen from noting the players who spruik it (and the weak-minded leftist automatons who follow).

otb,

"As far as the proclaimed 'rise in secularism' is concerned, it is (as per usual) all in the 'Progressive' narrative, something easily seen from noting the players who spruik it (and the weak-minded leftist automatons who follow)."

Lol!....no doubt this "weak-minded leftist" chooses to home educate because she's an "automaton".

Actually, Emerson's words still ring true for me..."Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail."

My point being that it's not unusual to hold opinions that sway to one side, but find there are certain embedded principles involved that go against one's grain.

I certainly have criticised modern secular society for its resemblance to a conveyor belt...something makes me uncomfortable...yet humans are bovine in reality. whether it's a secular collective or a religious one, most people will herd together where they feel most secure.

It's psychologically very difficult to operate outside those parameters. I should know, as the biggest hurdle in deciding to educate outside the traditional institution was psychological...in practice it's not difficult at all.

The following link may be of interest:

http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/Public/focus/essay0409_west.html

Poirot, "..no doubt this "weak-minded leftist" chooses to home educate because she's an "automaton""

Why yes, that is very likely that is the case.

A very caring and well-read poster gave this link in another thread,

http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/demello-dalrymple-2647

To do you justice I must draw your attention to the likelihood that your child is not being well-served by home education. There are limitations. Maybe compromise and shift near one of the alternative schools? We considered that option because there was a very good alternative school near, but preferred a private school instead.

Sorry to be harsh through directness, but knowing that you care for your child and are taking a very hard path while introducing risks through over-protection, cause me to be very blunt (that and being a father - vive la différence).

Dear Suse,

It's not only the Catholic Church in Poland that
has to change in order to survive. The following link
also explains that - "We must not forget that there is
more to Western Muslim dynamics than mutual fear and
hostility..."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/Islam-and-the-west/

otb,

"To do you justice I must draw your attention to the likelihood that your child is not being well-served by home education. There are limitations. Maybe compromise and shift near one of the alternative schools? We considered that option because there was a very good alternative school near, but preferred a private school instead."

Lol! (again)....never you mind "Mr-I-can't-imagine-actually-being-educated-outside-an-institution"

Your limitations are showing - how automaton of you.

Have a bright, happy, engaged young man who's turning into a whizz at historical research - and yes, he does have good friends his own age...it's all good!

Predictably, Foxy flips back to labelling any criticism of Islam with negative epithets such as 'Islamohobia'.

Peter Hitchens on 'Islamopbobia',

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-PP61qTmic

Dear Suse,

I don't know if you're aware - so just for your
further information - there is a classic study
by eminent historian Norman Daniel and I'll quote
from the description of the book on the web -

"which should be of
interest to anyone wishing to gain a deeper insight into
the complex relations between the two of the world's
greatest religions. "

We're told that Norman Daniel was educated at Queens College
Oxford and Edinburgh University. He specialised in this
area of study and in inter-cultural relations. The ground
that he covers is from medieval times to the modern world.
And although this book was considered a classic in its
time - it is still relevant today.

"Islam and the West: The making of an Image."

Poirot,

No, you took unnecessary risks with your son. We bring children into the world, but we don't own them. Here you go, just one report of many and recent,

<Children educated at home twice as likely to be known to social services select committee told

Children educated at home are twice as likely to be known by social services and four times more likely as young adults to be out of work, education or training than those who go to school, MPs have been told.>

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2009/oct/13/home-education-badman-inquiry

Go take a running jump, otb.

We are registered and moderated - he's excelling in some areas. Well-behaved and communicative with adults of all ages (which is more than can be said for many schooled kids)

This young man has been an absolute boon to his Nanna who recently broke her hip, helping around her unit and helping her shop....how delinquent is that!

We're all extremely proud of him.

Go and mind yer own business - and stop generalising like an old maid.

Poirot, to my mind I would think that organised religions and their rigid teachings would involve more 'automaton' learning than anything a more secular education could offer.

Foxy, the links you provided are interesting alright, and I realise that the major religions in our world have much history in their involvement with each other.

They are also very strongly intertwined with cultures and politics, and as such will always be a major part of our lives, even if we no longer believe in any God or religion, like me.

I don't know what a truly secular society would be like, and I am not even sure I would want that!
All I know is that I would love to see an end to religion being involved in politics at all, eg with subjects like abortion, euthanasia, stemcell research etc.

Dear Suse,

It is a concern for many people that government policy
decisions pertaining to issues like abortion, contraception, embryonic stem-cell research,
same-sex marriage, sex-education,
and many others not be influenced by religion.

We'll have to wait and see - concerning the current
government's take on these matters.

Poirot,

You can save the petulance.

You introduced the subject of the home schooling of your son.

It was a government report I linked to and there were red flags.

Outside of yourself and his 'nanna', I sure hope your son gets to hang out with other youth, even if they are the 'schooled kids' you look down on.

otb

for once in my life I agree with Poirot. I was a school dunce only passing high school for being good at sport. I now have a daughter with a couple of degrees and honours in languages and a son with 2 years left in medicine. The smartest one is a sparky. Homeschooling mainly done by my wife paid huge dividends and exposed how poor the education system is. Why do you think so mainly highly paid 'shiny'bums are against it? The bureacrats certainly gave my wife and I a hard time. Egg is all over their face. They know how flawed the system is. They are the ones pushing the Gonski distortions trying to make out more money will end in better results. What they mean is more money for average teachers, more bureacrats and no net gain.

otb,

You sure are desperate to get a reaction, aren't you.

What a strange way to go about your business.

Judging from the 4 boys abounding here today (ages 13, 13, 12, and 10) I'm thinking there's not a problem with socialisation - sleep over last week - meeting back here later in the week....and whoopydoo they all go to school!

I know you'd love to assume that it's all dysfunctional - but it's not (sorry about that)

He does attend a theatre class at the local entertainment centre once a week in a class with around 20 other young people - he's into seniors next year!

Now let's see what you can conjure up to cast a dark shadow on that aspect.

(I'm sure you can come up with something...what a sad act you have)

runner,

It's interesting that your wife was given such a hard time by the authorities for homeschooling.

We contacted the Education Department in my state and right from the start have had nothing but respect and cooperation from them. We've been home educating for 7 years now and it's working out very well.

I'll just add that otb's article was pertaining to home education in Britain.

Education in Australia is controlled by state governments which handle registration for home education - not as in Britain where where it all appears a little ad hoc.

otb, the only red flags around are the ones you keep waving to get a reaction.

It must be trying living with such a sour provocative disposition...

'It's interesting that your wife was given such a hard time by the authorities for homeschooling.'

Yea Poirot thankfully we had a very good local pollie (Labour) who went in the bat for us and got the hounds off our back. Ironically the bureacrats were insisting we teach a second language even though the local school had no LOTE teacher. It ironic because my daughter did four languages at ANU.

Poirot and Runner, good on you for home schooling your kids.
I would never have had the patience for it.

Mind you, we didn't have enough income for one of us to stay home with our daughter, so you two were lucky in that respect.

I was happy with her education though, and she is doing very well now too.
I think it all depends on the child as well.

Poirot, it doesn't do to give people like OTB too much personal info, because he will use anything he can get to goad you into a fight with him....

runner,

Bear in mind that I have already mentioned alternative schools as an option.

Apart from that what I have done is post a UK government report where it along with others before and since expresses real not invented concerns about home education.

Regarding public education, my principle concern is not with the standard of it, because that is relatively easily monitored and improved where realistic standards are set and measured, but that we don't seem to have ever arrived at a way of preventing some students from falling through the cracks.

Taking the last mentioned deficiency, I know of many parents who have had to patch together home schooling, tutors, external education and so on and some to their credit and to the very great credit of the student as well, have managed to achieve success.

I do not see homeschooling as anything to encourage and history shows there have been all manner of cranks who have separated their children and families from society.

Lastly, the vexing question concerns the ethics of denying the child the contact and experience of public education (or the private school alternative). That is certainly the case that would be put by education departments and I reckon they have a point. Indigenous children could present some examples.

"I do not see homeschooling as anything to encourage and history shows there have been all manner of cranks who have separated their children and families from society."

You are the one who slung off at "automatons" in an earlier post. I find it strange that you can't get your head around someone receiving an education outside an institution, merely because it doesn't follow modern day societal norms. Your problem is your think home education only takes place 'at home". On the contrary, the point is that my son is very much in society. He's out in the community partaking of it, whether it be the library, local historical society or the rec centre...etc, while the other kids are boxed up in school, segregated into age-peer groupings.

There is practically no difference between the social interactions of my son and his schooled friends, except I notice that they are more likely to feel they've missed out or been hard done by if they lose in competition. I also note as he and his peers are growing older that my son is the one displaying the level mature head during times when the group is in minor disagreement.

"Lastly, the vexing question concerns the ethics of denying the child the contact and experience of public education (or the private school alternative). That is certainly the case that would be put by education departments..."

Not in my experience, they have been most supportive and cooperative - because in our case, as in most cases, they can see that the child's parents take a special interest in their child's education.

But when all is said and done, otb, I'm fully aware that your laments on this subject are just another in the long line of opportunities you take to grab hold of another poster's trouser hem (almost exclusively a woman's) and savage it like a terrier...you're an interesting case in that respect.

Suse,

Just saw your post...

"Poirot, it doesn't do to give people like OTB too much personal info, because he will use anything he can get to goad you into a fight with him...."

You are absolutely correct in that assertion....we've all seen him do it a million times to Foxy.

Funnily enough, I let that piece of info out when I was attempting to get the thread back on track a little earlier...and poor old otb got all excited and saw it as an opportunity to deploy his rhetorical device. It's interesting what gives some people their jollies.

Chairman Suse Mao,

Really good to see you're controlling the in depth discussion on Secularism.

I should have dropped this sooner, but anyhow better late than never.

I'll keep battling on.

Leonard Cohen - First We Take Manhattan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTTC_fD598A

"Chairman Suse Mao,

Really good to see you're controlling the in depth discussion on Secularism."

Gee, Constance....Well done - showing us the depth of your aspirations on this thread.

As an example of an insightful, free-thinking multi-dimensional troll - you've only managed to get the "troll" part right.

Room for improvement.

Troll king Efteling (or effing) Poirot
http://gniffies.deviantart.com/art/Troll-king-Efteling-144548793

Leonard Cohen & U2 : Tower Of Song
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wbDSd17uzE

Tower Of Song Lyrics:

Well my friends are gone and my hair is grey
I ache in the places where I used to play
And I'm crazy for love but I'm not coming on
I'm just paying my rent every day
Oh in the Tower of Song
I said to Hank Williams: how lonely does it get?
Hank Williams hasn't answered yet
But I hear him coughing all night long
A hundred floors above me
In the Tower of Song

I was born like this, I had no choice
I was born with the gift of a golden voice
And twenty-seven angels from the Great Beyond
They tied me to this table right here
In the Tower of Song

So you can stick your little pins in that voodoo doll
I'm very sorry, baby, doesn't look like me at all
I'm standing by the window where the light is strong
Ah they don't let a woman kill you
Not in the Tower of Song

Now you can say that I've grown bitter but of this you may be sure
The rich have got their channels in the bedrooms of the poor
And there's a mighty judgment coming, but I may be wrong
You see, you hear these funny voices
In the Tower of Song

I see you standing on the other side
I don't know how the river got so wide
I loved you baby, way back when
And all the bridges are burning that we might have crossed
But I feel so close to everything that we lost
We'll never have to lose it again

Now I bid you farewell, I don't know when I'll be back
There moving us tomorrow to that tower down the track
But you'll be hearing from me baby, long after I'm gone
I'll be speaking to you sweetly
From a window in the Tower of Song

Cont....

Yeah my friends are gone and my hair is gray
I ache in the places where I used to play
And I'm crazy for love but I'm not coming on
I'm just paying my rent every day
Oh in the Tower of Song

Leonard Cohen - The Partisan (live in France, 1970)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Heilr2-H-WM

"The Partisan"

When they poured across the border
I was cautioned to surrender,
this I could not do;
I took my gun and vanished.
I have changed my name so often,
I've lost my wife and children
but I have many friends,
and some of them are with me.

An old woman gave us shelter,
kept us hidden in the garret,
then the soldiers came;
she died without a whisper.

There were three of us this morning
I'm the only one this evening
but I must go on;
the frontiers are my prison.

Oh, the wind, the wind is blowing,
through the graves the wind is blowing,
freedom soon will come;
then we'll come from the shadows.

Dear Banjo,

I miss Belly more than words can say.
I have mentioned this many times on the forum.
Hopefully he'll come back one day - I only
hope it will be soon.

I agree with Poirot about Ludwig's stance on
Rolf Harris. It was baffling.

Yabby6's still around - I've noticed his posts
appearing from time to time.

Now before I forget - I'd like to Thank everyone who's
contributed to this discussion and I wish us all
a vitriolic-free New Year on this Forum.

Cheers.

My apologies, I've posted on the wrong discussion.
Please ignore my previous post.

Constance,

On the transience of things...

Ozymandias

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
`My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away".

I tossed up between that and "How Soon is Now?" by the Smiths - on the unfairness of things ....but Shelley won out.

Dear Poirot,

Beautiful poem.

I like this quote from Leonard Cohen:

"There is a crack in everything
that's how the light gets in."

Dear Foxy,

I nice poetic wisdom. Here are two variations of it:

“Look at this window: it is nothing but a hole in the window, but because of it the whole room is full of light.” (Chuang Tzu)

“Ah! happy they whose hearts can break
And peace of pardon win!
How else may man make straight his plan
And cleanse his soul from sin?
How else but through a broken heart
May Lord Christ enter in?” (Oscar Wilde)

Happy New Year to you and all OLO debaters.

Poirot,

To repeat what is already there on record in this thread, you can save the petulance and faux victimhood (cheered on by Suseonline, as usual).

You introduced the subject of the home schooling of your son.

It was a government report I linked to and there were red flags.

Just as an aside, the State schools local to us are losing many boy students to the private schools from year 5 on. They are failing to thrive. The additional cost must be a stretch for some families.

Recently a report on home schooling was tabled in the NSW parliament. An article on the subject report arrived at the conclusion that the review and by inference education policy and management are ideologically driven. Then again, some might observe that the news article itself was likely ideologically sensitive too.

http://theconversation.com/evidence-of-home-schooling-success-erased-from-inquiry-report-35087

Perhaps the 'Progressive' ideologues are at odds with each other on either side of the fence now. That is amusing, but spells more sad outcomes for children and youth, especially boys.

Perhaps the leftist 'Progressives' and especially the radical feminists who have been so active in re-engineering education to suit their values and world views might take some responsibility for the unforeseen negative consequences of their work? That is not likely from their previous form.

Stastný Nový Rok, George.
Feliz Año Nuevo para 2015
Glückliches Neues Jahr
Bonne Année
etcetera etcetera

Poirot,, You talk of fairness? You really mean fairness between Lefties, re/Progressives and their lackeys, and no one else, don’t you?

But we'll be right because:

Leonard Cohen – Democracy is Coming
(I love the country but can’t stand the scene, And I'm neither left or right )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEDSRP3yNPo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbqM9R8g7rU

It's coming through a hole in the air,
from those nights in Tiananmen Square.
It's coming from the feel
that this ain't exactly real,
or it's real, but it ain't exactly there.
From the wars against disorder,
from the sirens night and day,
from the fires of the homeless,
from the ashes of the gay:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.
It's coming through a crack in the wall;
on a visionary flood of alcohol;
from the staggering account
of the Sermon on the Mount
which I don't pretend to understand at all.
It's coming from the silence
on the dock of the bay,
from the brave, the bold, the battered
heart of Chevrolet:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.

It's coming from the sorrow in the street,
the holy places where the races meet;
from the homicidal bitchin'
that goes down in every kitchen
to determine who will serve and who will eat.
From the wells of disappointment
where the women kneel to pray
for the grace of God in the desert here
and the desert far away:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.

Sail on, sail on
O mighty Ship of State!
To the Shores of Need
Past the Reefs of Greed
Through the Squalls of Hate
Sail on, sail on, sail on, sail on.

It's coming to America first,
the cradle of the best and of the worst.
It's here they got the range
and the machinery for change
and it's here they got the spiritual thirst.
It's here the family's broken
and it's here the lonely say
that the heart has got to open
in a fundamental way:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.

Cont......

........DEMOCRACY IS COMING

It's coming from the women and the men.
O baby, we'll be making love again.
We'll be going down so deep
the river's going to weep,
and the mountain's going to shout Amen!
It's coming like the tidal flood
beneath the lunar sway,
imperial, mysterious,
in amorous array:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.

Sail on, sail on ...

I'm sentimental, if you know what I mean
I love the country but I can't stand the scene.
And I'm neither left or right
I'm just staying home tonight,
getting lost in that hopeless little screen.
But I'm stubborn as those garbage bags
that Time cannot decay,
I'm junk but I'm still holding up
this little wild bouquet:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.

Dear George,

Thank You for the inspirational quotes.
Maya Angelou stated that:

"I've learned that people will forget what you said,
people will forget what you did, but people will
never forget how you made them feel."

Thank You for consistently making myself (and others) feel
good about themselves on this Forum.

Happy New Year!

Gawd!...been out food shopping and come back to this whacky pair of hysterics banging on interminably.

otb..I mentioned it in passing and your started foaming at the mouth (as usual) because all you saw before yer eyes was a nice juicy trouser hem.

And...Lol!... I note on that other thread after you went for o sung wu's trouser hem that you decided, in lieu of him taking you on...and in lieu of him being a "bloke"....that you'd better apologise.

How not surprising!

Constance,

"Poirot,, You talk of fairness? You really mean fairness between Lefties, re/Progressives and their lackeys, and no one else, don’t you?"

What a lot of bollocks you go on with....I'm off out to the garden as an antidote to your petty moronics.

No doubt you'll declare that weeding is a leftist conspiracy - go for it!

Dear Poirot,

People really should not be concerned about
those "left-wing" forces. They will be
stopped dead in their tracks upon direct
orders from the Fuhrer.

Absolutely, Foxy!

Dahling, I'm just dead-heading me dahlias....another nasty lefty habit. In fact I'm thinking of putting that activity on Mr13's syllabus next year - as well as knitting red flags.

Dear Poirot,

Ah nevah, would have guessed.

Bless your little ol heart!

Geez guys, I get back from a tough day on the job, only to find this secularism thread has been hijacked by poems no less!

The last 2 posts made me smile :)
If you guys are supposed to be 'lefties' then maybe I am too?

i have thought about it and decided that I would rather lean to the left than to the insane 'Tea Party' far right any day!

And remember, the heart is situated on the left side of the body......

[Deleted for abuse.]

Dear Suse,

Good points!

We also need to remember that -
in Australia we all stay on the left,
the left-side of the road. From an early
age we're taught to stay on the left.
And when we march we go - "Left, Left,
Left, Right Left!" So we are more Left
than Right. (smile).

Happy New Year!

Paul,

Oh, that's where he's gone...I noticed the lack of weight attached to my hem. It gets a bit trying dragging him around still slavering away.

Constance, on the other hand, made a beeline over to the Singer thread in articles in order to troll Suse.

They're a pair of OLO desperados...desperate, that is, to troll as many "progressives" as they can.

Good morning Poirot, yes I noticed dear Constance trying to annoy me on the other thread. Maybe Con and OTB are actually one person? I just couldn't be bothered actually.

I like that word 'progressive' too.
I sure would prefer to be progressive rather than regressive any day, so I consider being constantly referred to as progressive (ad nauseum) as a compliment :)

Happy New Year to all the progressive people!

[Deleted for abuse.]

[Deleted for abuse.]