Off Topic Messages

Offended Muslim threatens "jihad" at Burger King

Wed Sep 21, 2005 5:17 pm

I swear to Allah.... what is this world coming to?


The Scotsman: Burger King recalls 'sacrilegious' desserts

JOHN INNES


THE fast-food chain, Burger King, is withdrawing its ice-cream cones after the lid of the dessert offended a Muslim.

The man claimed the design resembled the Arabic inscription for Allah, and branded it sacrilegious, threatening a "jihad".


The chain is being forced to spend thousands of pounds redesigning the lid with backing from The Muslim Council of Britain. It apologised and said: "The design simply represents a spinning ice-cream cone."

The offending lid was spotted in a branch in Park Royal last week by business development manager Rashad Akhtar, 27, of High Wycombe.

He was not satisfied by the decision to withdraw the cones and has called on Muslims to boycott Burger King. He said: "This is my jihad. How can you say it is a spinning swirl? If you spin it one way to the right you are offending Muslims."

A Muslim Council spokesman said: "We commend the sensitive and prompt action that Burger King has taken."

Wed Sep 21, 2005 6:56 pm

The only other main source I could find on this was the right-leaning CNS:

'Jihad' Threat Forces Burger King to Change Ice Cream Logo

This article was written by Patrick Goodenough, CNSNews.com International Editor


In the latest example of Western business interests giving in to pressure by offended Muslims, Burger King reportedly has withdrawn an ice cream product after complaints that a label design looks like the Arabic script for "Allah."

British media reported at the weekend that the fast-food restaurant chain pulled the "BK Cone" and pledged to redesign the label after Muslim customers complained.

The product label bears a pattern representing a stylized swirl of soft serve ice cream. But some customers looked at it sideways and thought they could see something else.

A London tabloid, The Sun, said Burger King fielded "dozens of complaints."

Another paper, the Scotsman, said Burger King "is being forced to spend thousands of pounds redesigning the lid." It quoted a Muslim Council of Britain spokesman as commending the company for "sensitive and prompt action."

Other business interests that have run afoul of Muslim sensibilities in similar circumstances include sportswear giant Nike, Chanel designer Karl Lagerfeld and food and homecare manufacturer Unilever.

In 1997, Nike pulled tens of thousands of basketball shoes after it was told that the logo - the word "air" in flame-like letters - looked like "Allah" in Arabic when viewed from a certain angle.

Newsweek reported in July of that year that Nike had launched a program of "sensitivity training on Islam" and gave a donation to an Islamic school.

A year later, Unilever scrapped a new logo it had begun to use on Walls ice creams in the Middle East - again after Muslims said the intertwining red and yellow hearts looked like "Allah" in Arabic, when viewed upside down and backwards.

In 1994, Lagerfeld designed a dress incorporating a pattern he had copied from Arabic lettering on India's Taj Mahal monument. The lettering included the phrase "They are the ones who found guidance," used a number of times in the Koran.

German supermodel Claudia Schiffer received death threats after wearing the dress, prompting her mother to make a public plea for her safety. The designer apologized and burned the garments. He also destroyed photographs and negatives of the dress.

Coca Cola has for years struggled to dispel the rumor that the soft drink's trademark swirly-writing logo, when seen at a particular angle, looked like the Arabic script for "No Mohammed, No Mecca."

The company's website has a "myths and rumors" section where it contests the charge, arguing that "the trademark was created in 1886 in Atlanta, Georgia, at a time and place where there was little knowledge of Arabic."

"The allegation has been brought before a number of senior Muslim clerics in the Middle East who researched it in detail and refuted the rumor outright," it says.


Corporations and their politician/tools will sell us down the river every time
for a buck.

Now I'm "offended."

To think I briefly thought multiculturalism was a benign, enlightened
force for "good" and "progress." :roll:

Wed Sep 21, 2005 7:20 pm

Religion always stood and still stands in the way of intelligence.
Without the religious terror on intelligent people, we would have been so much more advanced in our development. But people like Leornardo da Vinci were threatened when they exposed their inventions and discoveries. Women who discovered herbal medicine were burned as witches.
Elvis and rock and roll music were forbidden by the church in 1956.
These days in exchange for oil to drive our cars we have to accept the terror of muslims. If something resembles one of their religious signs it had to be forbidden and they threat to use terror.
Wouldn't it be nice if all religion would vanish and the world ruled by intelligent people instead of religious idiots?!

Wed Sep 21, 2005 7:42 pm

Luuk wrote:Wouldn't it be nice if all religion would vanish and the world ruled by intelligent people instead of religious idiots?!


In a word, yes!

Wed Sep 21, 2005 8:51 pm

Not to get into a whole religious debate, but I think anti-religious
fanaticism (Nazism, Communism) has a pretty disgusting death toll in the 20th-century alone so an ideal society would respect freedom of religion -or no religion, to a large degree. Not to stomp on your "what if?,"
but religion is not going away anytime soon. To propose its abolishment in
any serious way would be itself extremism, not a utopian vision.

How we manage religion and how we accept the differing faiths in secular
democratic republics is a more fundamental -and realistic- question.

The discussion here on this thread is about radical Islam and how much we
(or corporations) are willing to bend to it in the name of "fairness"
and " tolerance." While there are Christian extremists (bombing abortion
clinics) or Jewish Extremists (arguably some of the Israeli settlers),
none seem to compare to spectre of Muslim extremism on the world
today. Bending over backward to appeal to it seems silly, if not
suicidal. Let it get too comfortable in our secular societies and we're
going to see a lot more burkas on women in the west... :shock:

Wed Sep 21, 2005 9:09 pm

The muslim faith is about 600 years behind on Christian faith.
400-600 years ago the Christians were as bad as muslims today. People had to become a Christian or they would be executed! And only some 40-50 years ago we got rid of the straight grip religion had on people thanks to Elvis and The Beatles and hippies.
Luckily these days we can stop sponsoring muslim terrorists: let's all stop driving our car!

Wed Sep 21, 2005 9:27 pm

In the 18th Century, however, the Muslims were apparently quite
tolerant, such that the likes of Edward Gibbon were quite fond of
their enlightened treatment of minority religions.

Today, Christianity and Judaism (etc.) are model members as a rule
of secular democracies. I think it's beside the point to raise hackles
over either one in the past. It's radical Islam that has to be turned around.

Both Christianity and Judiasm actually contributed to rise of western
civilization that we cherish today, whether one believes in it or not.
But our civil institutions were influenced highly by them.

Islam, some say, does not and will not breed such openess. There's no given that progress for it will follow the same straight line. It's already
reverted backward against modernity.

And as much as I enjoy Elvis -and the Beatles, and the whole cultural revolution, I hardly think it's been a smashing success.

In the US at least, we are far more course culturally. Some rightly blame
the generally-agreed upon parameters of morality that kept civil
society together. I'm not so sure that secularism accomplishes that.

Thu Sep 22, 2005 4:56 am

I couldn't disagree with that last point more. The idea that human beings need a higher power to behave in some sort of civilized manner is extremely disrespectful of human intelligence. Empathy and self-preservation should be enough to get by. I also think sometimes we get caught up in this idea of a fantasy land that never existed. We weren't any moral in 1950 than we are now. Elvis and the Beatles (and the beats etc.) did push a lot of things out into the open and made society more tolerant as a whole. Were some very good things lost? I would say so. But I think on a whole we are better off.

I wouldn't say McDonald's decision was based on any effort to be tolerant of the Muslim religion. They want Muslims eating their ice cream. If there were say 10 people in the Muslim religion instead of billions they would have told the guy to take a walk.

That being said the hardcore Muslims need to realize that tolerance swings both ways. They really take offense (as do some hardcore Christians) to too much. I'm not being flippant but I seriously think the world would be a 100 times better off if more people- from hardcore aetheists to hardcore Muslims to Christians to Jews- would just LIGHTEN UP. It seems to me there is a large group of people spread across political and religious spectrums that just go around looking for things to offend them. I guess if you're complaining you know you're alive.

Thu Sep 22, 2005 8:58 am

likethebike wrote:I wouldn't say McDonald's decision was based on any effort to be tolerant of the Muslim religion. They want Muslims eating their ice cream. If there were say 10 people in the Muslim religion instead of billions they would have told the guy to take a walk.

Precisely! The Muslim Council of Britain should take no satisfaction from Burger King's 'gesture'. This is about profits. High Wycombe (where the incident took place) has a high Muslim population.

likethebike wrote:That being said the hardcore Muslims need to realize that tolerance swings both ways. They really take offense (as do some hardcore Christians) to too much. I'm not being flippant but I seriously think the world would be a 100 times better off if more people- from hardcore aetheists to hardcore Muslims to Christians to Jews- would just LIGHTEN UP. It seems to me there is a large group of people spread across political and religious spectrums that just go around looking for things to offend them. I guess if you're complaining you know you're alive.

Amen to that! Fortunately though common sense does often prevail but doesn't make the news. This is in interesting story about complaints made to the Advertising Standards Commission in the UK about a poster promoting a Spearmint Rhino club in the same town....

Complaint:

Objections to a poster, for a lap-dancing club, that showed a woman wearing only underwear, lying down and facing forward with her head and shoulders raised. An American flag was visible in the background. The poster stated "THE WORLD FAMOUS ... SPEARMINT RHINO GENTLEMEN''S CLUBS THE NATURAL CHOICE FOR ELEGANCE & EXCELLENCE NOW OPEN". The complainants objected that:

1. the poster was unsuitable for display outside a mosque and

2. the poster was offensive and unsuitable for public display, particularly in an area with a large Muslim population.


Codes Section: 5.1 (Ed 11)


Adjudication:


The advertisers stated that they had been using the image in the poster for four years and had not received any complaints. They asserted that they were unaware of any changes in standards of decency and believed the complaints were a result of changes in sensitivity. The advertisers said they wished to be socially responsible and would withdraw the poster and be more careful with the placing of similar posters in future.

1. Complaints not upheld
The Authority noted the advertisers'' decision to withdraw the poster but considered that, because the poster was not explicit, it was unlikely to cause serious offence among Muslims if placed outside a mosque. It did not object.

2. Complaints not upheld
The Authority noted the poster had been placed in an area with a large Muslim population. Although it recognised the poster would cause offence to some Muslims, the Authority considered that merely placing the poster in an area with a large Muslim population did not automatically mean that it would cause serious or widespread offence. It considered that the poster was unlikely to cause serious offence in general and concluded that it was not unsuitable for public display.

Thu Sep 22, 2005 4:43 pm

likethebike wrote
Icouldn't disagree with that last point more. The idea that human beings need a higher power to behave in some sort of civilized manner is extremely disrespectful of human intelligence. Empathy and self-preservation should be enough to get by. I also think sometimes we get caught up in this idea of a fantasy land that never existed. We weren't any moral in 1950 than we are now. Elvis and the Beatles (and the beats etc.) did push a lot of things out into the open and made society more tolerant as a whole. Were some very good things lost? I would say so. But I think on a whole we are better off...


It's funny how just the mere acknowledgement of religion's positive
and even key "glue" effect on U.S. society since 1776 sets off those
who fear we're going to see the second coming of Cotton Mather.
The U.S. has an equally counterpoint tradition of respecting independent
thought. But to listen to some, we're always on the tipping point
of imposing "Higher Powers" on people. I really don't think we're
hurt by having kids cite the pledge (with a mention of God) nor does
it hurt things for it to be on our currency.

I just think as someone who once was more liberal than I am today
that civility alone isn't what it used to be. Take a look at public schools
in the U.S.

Yes, I know that funding isn't fair (rich districts vs. poor) teaching is underpaid, etc. but talk to people who teach in urban districts today.

Maybe it's a cultural thing, too. Our public schools are full of kids
who are disrespectful and vulgar. I'm no prude, but much of our popular
culture celebrates that and has for decades, except now, nothing is out of
bounds. Couple this with a more secular society ,and you have what we have. By that I mean that morality and civility were at least a goal
of society then and it did act as a brake on our worst urges, whether one
wants a higher power or not.

Yes we were more racist and probably beat women and kids more but
I'm telling you that the '40s and '50s had a class that we lack today.

I'm not even going off on a religious tear. For the record I was
raised Catholic and am a nominal one today with agnostic
streaks.

I just think religion in the US did have a "civilizing" effect.
Secularism (especially one imbued
with a "if it feels good, do it"/ "don't judge anyone" sentiment isn't working so well. It's not just economics, which I agree also
effects the public square. (We've shipped our manufacturing and other jobs to Asia, etc.)

You don't have to be a religious nut to think our culture is polluted.
And we've always had the poor. Have we ever seen of a basket-case
form of dysfunction as we see in the U.S.' brand of poverty? I cringe to
say that, but it's true, as witnessed by some of the looters (stealing
electronics while in flood waters!)in New Orleans. I saw one
guy rapping while looting. :roll:

I hope I'm wrong, but I do think the right has a point about what
Hollywood and the "two coasts" (NY & LA) foist on the public at large.
As long as Democrats sneer at moral values or whatever one might
call it, we're never going to achieve the economic goals we want
fellow citizens to have in terms of good jobs, good schools, health care, etc.

As for Muslims and McDonalds, of course, they did it for economic
reasons, but don't tell me they don't want to be accused of "offending
someone." PC-ism has affected even corporations, if not especially.

Our biggest problem is almost that you can't say some of what
I said above without being labeled as "insensitive." It'll be
the death knell of our once great country.

Thu Sep 22, 2005 6:44 pm

Luuk wrote: And only some 40-50 years ago we got rid of the straight grip religion had on people thanks to Elvis and The Beatles and hippies.


err....

Thank Elvis for singing Gospel music in public and private, and quoting Scripture in public and private, reading the Bible, and praying.


Are you sure you want him on that anti-religion list, Luuk?

====

Hippies?!?!
That vile lot of dope-addicts, drop-outs, draftdodgers, ex-cons, and teenage runaways.

Sure, let's thank them.

The world certainly needed alot more narcotics and tie-dye.

Wah-wah pedals is the only good thing to come out of that 60s mess.

Thu Sep 22, 2005 6:51 pm

Hey now...that is enough harping about my tie-dye shirt that I won as a booby prize for a "job well done". I wore it around the house and my girlfriend hid it from me! :lol:

Considering my views..it was a joke that ran its course. :lol:

Thu Sep 22, 2005 6:55 pm

it's ok Gene, just as long as you don't stare too long at the shirt design...

and try to find...God.

Far out, man....the mysteries of the universe are hidden...

in the fibers....man

:wink:

Thu Sep 22, 2005 6:59 pm

Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:likethebike wrote
Icouldn't disagree with that last point more. The idea that human beings need a higher power to behave in some sort of civilized manner is extremely disrespectful of human intelligence. Empathy and self-preservation should be enough to get by. I also think sometimes we get caught up in this idea of a fantasy land that never existed. We weren't any moral in 1950 than we are now. Elvis and the Beatles (and the beats etc.) did push a lot of things out into the open and made society more tolerant as a whole. Were some very good things lost? I would say so. But I think on a whole we are better off...


It's funny how just the mere acknowledgement of religion's positive
and even key "glue" effect on U.S. society since 1776 sets off those
who fear we're going to see the second coming of Cotton Mather.
The U.S. has an equally counterpoint tradition of respecting independent
thought. But to listen to some, we're always on the tipping point
of imposing "Higher Powers" on people. I really don't think we're
hurt by having kids cite the pledge (with a mention of God) nor does
it hurt things for it to be on our currency.

I just think as someone who once was more liberal than I am today
that civility alone isn't what it used to be. Take a look at public schools
in the U.S.

Yes, I know that funding isn't fair (rich districts vs. poor) teaching is underpaid, etc. but talk to people who teach in urban districts today.

Maybe it's a cultural thing, too. Our public schools are full of kids
who are disrespectful and vulgar. I'm no prude, but much of our popular
culture celebrates that and has for decades, except now, nothing is out of
bounds. Couple this with a more secular society ,and you have what we have. By that I mean that morality and civility were at least a goal
of society then and it did act as a brake on our worst urges, whether one
wants a higher power or not.

Yes we were more racist and probably beat women and kids more but
I'm telling you that the '40s and '50s had a class that we lack today.

I'm not even going off on a religious tear. For the record I was
raised Catholic and am a nominal one today with agnostic
streaks.

I just think religion in the US did have a "civilizing" effect.
Secularism (especially one imbued
with a "if it feels good, do it"/ "don't judge anyone" sentiment isn't working so well. It's not just economics, which I agree also
effects the public square. (We've shipped our manufacturing and other jobs to Asia, etc.)

You don't have to be a religious nut to think our culture is polluted.
And we've always had the poor. Have we ever seen of a basket-case
form of dysfunction as we see in the U.S.' brand of poverty? I cringe to
say that, but it's true, as witnessed by some of the looters (stealing
electronics while in flood waters!)in New Orleans. I saw one
guy rapping while looting. :roll:

I hope I'm wrong, but I do think the right has a point about what
Hollywood and the "two coasts" (NY & LA) foist on the public at large.
As long as Democrats sneer at moral values or whatever one might
call it, we're never going to achieve the economic goals we want
fellow citizens to have in terms of good jobs, good schools, health care, etc.

As for Muslims and McDonalds, of course, they did it for economic
reasons, but don't tell me they don't want to be accused of "offending
someone." PC-ism has affected even corporations, if not especially.

Our biggest problem is almost that you can't say some of what
I said above without being labeled as "insensitive." It'll be
the death knell of our once great country.


Excellent post Greg!

Thu Sep 22, 2005 7:07 pm

Greg -

You wrote:
I just think religion in the US did have a "civilizing" effect.


You don't need to be religious to be 'civil', you know !

I agree that there has been a decline in youngsters behaviour, this fact is bourne out in the UK also.

But it isn't down to the decline in 'religious' belief.

I reckon it's a parental thing.

If we got clipped round the ear at school, we kept quiet lest we got another from dad !

Nowadays, 'dad' would rush to sue the teacher !

I don't support corporal punishment, but its demise has left a vacuum in which [some] youngsters feel they are 'untouchable'.

Thu Sep 22, 2005 7:08 pm

genesim wrote:Hey now...that is enough harping about my tie-dye shirt .....


Hey, I still wear my tie-dyed shirts.

Image

Tom

Thu Sep 22, 2005 7:26 pm

Pete, thanks for the compliment. I actually think there is some middle
ground on this issue. Unfortunately, we are increasingly so polarized
(in the US anyway) that both camps see, well, their "Devil," at every turn.

Colin, thanks for your points. I actually know and respect plenty of
"moral" secular types who manage to make raise intelligent, respectful
citzens and human beings. So I hedge at making any generalizations.

Many religious folks would bristle at merely having a utilitarian positive
influence (they want souls to be saved, after all) but I'm not sure
if the U.S. has replaced the role of religion in everyday life in terms
as being a clearinghouse for instructing youth, creating a sense of right
and wrong, etc.

Maybe merry old England does have a better "post-God" experience , but one
wonders, especially given the huge influx of Muslims who are coming
to Europe to fill the vacuum. That said, after what that continent
went through in both world wars, I'm not surprised that secularism
has resulted. I can only imagine the number of prayers that apparently
went unanswered and the cynicism such wars created. The empty pews
there are a testament to that.

It is a bit sad in my view that Mosques are going up while Churchs
rot or are turned into museums. This can't be a good thing...
can it?

European society on the whole
minimizes poverty (however imperfectly) with its more regulated
economy, while the US, more religious (waiting for heaven?), has more of a dog-eat-dog, individualistic form of capitalism, albeit with some mininum social protections (unemployment
insurance, some labor rights, social security for the elderly, etc.).

How religion reflects and impacts what we demand on earth is interesting,
to me, I guess. Thoughts, FECCers?

Thu Sep 22, 2005 8:14 pm

The world has bent over backwards for these religious beliefs. My son who attends high school is not allowed to wear a baseball cap in his class, yet muslims or certain groups are allowed to wear turbans in class. There is a city swimming pool where I live that everybody must wear bathing trunks with the exception of the muslims and other groups, who are allowed to go into the water fully clothed!

Thu Sep 22, 2005 8:32 pm

Graceland Gardener wrote:
Luuk wrote: And only some 40-50 years ago we got rid of the straight grip religion had on people thanks to Elvis and The Beatles and hippies.


err....

Thank Elvis for singing Gospel music in public and private, and quoting Scripture in public and private, reading the Bible, and praying.


Are you sure you want him on that anti-religion list, Luuk?

====



When Elvis started, kids started to rebel against society (i.e. church).
Until then the wildest music was Perry Como, Dean Martin and such.
When Elvis did a show in Canada, girls from a catholic school were expelled because they attended an Elvis (= the devil) concert.
DJ"s broke Elvis and other rock and roll discs because "rock and roll has got to go".
It was very wise of The Colonel to have Elvis sing a gospel on national TV. That way "the rebel" was acceptable by the parents and the parents also started to buy Elvis' discs.
But in 1956 rock and roll was "the devil's music" and Elvis with his (their words, not mine) deleted - see guidelines #2 music was the worst of all.

Thu Sep 22, 2005 8:54 pm

I'm not saying that there hasn't been some positive impact of religion on the culture but I just get upset when people say that it is impossible to live a moral life without religion. That's an insult to my intelligence and an insult to the intelligence of human kind.

You talk about PC but as we have seen PC only matters to a place like McDonald's when the bottom line is there. I'm sure the nutty wing of the atheists gets upset about Christmas displays. However, there are not enough of them to make doing anything about it worthwhile. Plus, there's a sizable minority of lunatic Christians who go on and on about Harry Potter being an instrument of the devil. Yet family friendly Wal-Mart sells the books because the amount of people who enjoy or tolerate these books outnumbers the objectors.

The class of the early part of the century was largely an illusion. To quote Charles Bronson in "Kid Galahad"- "We were stinkers then same as now." This was a world where an atomic drop was dropped, that saw the bloodiest two wars in history, lynchings, a brutal economic depression that saw people sell themselves for a few dollars. It was a world where freak shows were common place, where the FBI pursued small-time criminals while letting the Mafia run wild. Just way too much romanticism here. Let's not forget the lives that were ruined by just a passing association with the communist party in the late '40s and '50s.

Thu Sep 22, 2005 10:06 pm

"Luuk" wrote:
When Elvis started, kids started to rebel against society (i.e. church).
Until then the wildest music was Perry Como, Dean Martin and such.
When Elvis did a show in Canada, girls from a catholic school were expelled because they attended an Elvis (= the devil) concert.
DJ"s broke Elvis and other rock and roll discs because "rock and roll has got to go".
It was very wise of The Colonel to have Elvis sing a gospel on national TV. That way "the rebel" was acceptable by the parents and the parents also started to buy Elvis' discs.
But in 1956 rock and roll was "the devil's music" and Elvis with his (their words, not mine) deleted - see guidelines #2 music was the worst of all.


Well, sure. The staid Eisenhower era needed Elvis to shake things up -and we probably needed the '60s cultural revolution as well. Still, it's interesting to examine what actually lasted and what petered out.
I also think we threw some of the baby out with the bathwater.

As for Elvis, it's not like he wasn't traditional all along in his own funky way, both personally and in some of his song choices. And there was some "cool" culture before Elvis: Frank Sinatra had a swagger that Perry Como did not. (It's funny that Como is mentioned
more often. It's more dramatic that way.) Which is to say nothing of all
the terrific R&B, which, because of segregation, was largely unheard.
Certainly in cinema, a guy like Bogie was not to be mistaken as a square.

Which brings me to LiketheBike's comments. I'd never impose religion on others,and certainly respect atheistic or the agnostic or the non-devout. I've been there and never stopped respecting it. I just wanted to point out that there's a vocal minority that is overly concerned by the "designs" of the religious. Most of it you can shake off if you like, save for some policy issues, where it can be formidable. There are a few issuesin which folks will be at loggerheads for some time to come.

The nutty wing of the Leftunfortunately wastes a lot of the energy so any Democrat has to be put on the defense about some
atheist lawyer who attacks the Pledge. Four more years, indeed.

As someone steeped in history as an interest and for a time as a vocation, I'm also the first to recognize the horrors of the 20th century, from racism to depression to world war to genocide, etc. But the notion that we are always going "forward" an illusion. We've dispensed with even social niceties to the point that kids and society are getting more raunchy and animalistic in mores. That's the "class" I"m talking about.
There's an interesting new book by Ariel Levy, critizing the rise of "raunch culture" among women that plays on some of the themes of how
women have bought into the notion of being a tramp as some kind
of "feminist liberation." Please. And tell me about it: all that is missing
is the pole.

There was always a yin
and yang with sexuality (not everyone was a prude back then) but
we had a certain way of dealing with it. Elvis himself played with the
boundaries, and I'm glad he did. Were the '60s that followed an unmitgated success culturally? Absolutely not.

To put on cable or network TV today is to expose
one's family to a lot of cultural sewerage. Sure, I watch it. Hell,
as an adult, I enjoy some of it, too, such as on HBO FX, etc. But you
can rest assured I'm thinking long and hard about how much I
want to expose my kid to the now-junky American culture, where
"everything goes." Time was that 8pm was "family hour on TV.
We snicker at how "corny" families were back then. And now what
are they?

Sometimes "the good old days" actually were better. That goes
against the grain in the U.S. but on some levels, there's some truth
to it. I'm speaking only on a hard to quantify social level so if
my point is missed, so be it.
Last edited by Gregory Nolan Jr. on Thu Sep 22, 2005 10:17 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Thu Sep 22, 2005 10:08 pm

Hey, I just heard on the news that US religious groups are claiming that a cinema documentary on penguins [of all things] is proof of the existence of God !

You couldn't make it up, could you ?

Thu Sep 22, 2005 10:20 pm

The conservative right has latched onto that film ("March of the Penguins, I think) as a movie that quietly showed family values even among penguins. I'm a skeptic but again, we haven't exactly celebrated families in the US recently in terms of culture. It's gotten to the point
where there's a group promoting the "family dinner" because it's gotten so out of style, because mother and father and kids each retire to separate rooms to stare at the blue orb separately.

New evidence suggests the positive communication effects of eating
together, warding off later drug use and other anti-social behavoirs..

"Everything Old Is New Again." :wink:

Fri Sep 23, 2005 12:27 am

I hear you Greg. Back in the 50's, a promiscuous high-school age girl was the exception. Now it's the rule!

LTB: Of course there are moral atheists. And there are so-called Christians who are scoundrels. But where does the atheist and the Christian derive his/her moral priciples from? Ultimately, it's the judeo-Christian moral precepts as contained in the Bible that has been the foundation of the laws of western civilization. That's where America and western Europe got our notions about not murdering, stealing, lying, coveting, respecting the aged, condemning adultary.

Fri Sep 23, 2005 12:34 am

Pete -

You wrote:
That's where America and western Europe got our notions about not murdering, stealing, lying, coveting, respecting the aged, condemning adultary.



There's a chicken & egg thing going on here.

I reckon it was when we got 'civilised' that the notions you list got started.

We can't live together in a civilised society if we are murdering, and stealing from each other etc.

So certain rules had to be worked out.

These were later incorporated into religious books, like the Bible.