Why don't we (or can't we?) use these types of stories to discredit and undermine support for Public Education.

As rosy as things look at the outer surface, I'm convinced that the rebuplic cannot survive another generation of "public education".

My daughter sings in the high school choir. We have a Christmas concert every year, there is no controversy about it. Being athiest doesn't mean you must be protected from the religious influences of the culture around you. The more secularists try to protect atheists, the more hated we become.

Ah, progress...

Strike a deal:

Secularists stop objecting to singing the 'Messiah' in public (well, draw the line at 'Everybody Sings the Messiah' because they're never in time).

And Christians stop objecting to Halloween etc.

Why should we cut a deal about how our society is run?

Harry:

I say it's a deal. Of course, I hope you won't mind if we all dress up as the Apostles and spread the Word as we grab all your candy. Or maybe we'll just use the event to sharpen up our exorcism skills.

Works for me, Harry. But then I'm one of those heretical libertarians.

OJ, any group of two or more people requires some compromise. Do you object to Halloween as pagan witchery and a bad social influence?

Can one object to Christmas (as practiced today ) as a "bad social influence"?

Is this breaking news or South Park? I can't tell anymore.

Because this same thing happened in South Park's first Christmas show (the one where nobody killed Kenny).

Kyle's Mom (the concerned/compassionate perpetual activist gets wind of the elementary school having a "Christmas/Holiday Paegant". As Spokesperson for South Park's Entire Jewish Community (i.e. her family), she sues and gets all references to Christmas removed as Offensive to The Jewish Community (TM). This sparks a feeding frenzy where every "community" in town does the same until eventually any reference to anything is banned as offensive.

The school's "holiday paegant" ends up as a New York Trendoid Performance Ahrt piece, which in turn offends the townspeople (everybody except Kyle's Mom) to the point of sparking a riot.

Peter:

Wouldn't it be more fun to dress as Elijah and chase down those followers of Ba'al?

Abolish Earth Day.

Jim:

Masterful. I say let's put the Judeo back into Judeo-Christian.

Papaya:

No.

We Catholics were taught that Pride is the most deadly sin, Orrin.

Harry:

Exactly. The elevation of self over society is a horrid symptom of pride.

oj:

With no disrespect intended, I hope that you recognize that you are describing yourself, at least as you let yourself be known here.

Michael:

How?

Pithiness does not equate to pride. Otherwise, Calvin Coolidge really would be guilty of all the invective Harry throws at him.

oj:

You like to exclude great swaths of society:

Gays are uniformly evil and self-hating, based on no evidence whatsoever, you just don't like 'em.

Slavery is good as long as it's not necessarily permanent.

Women don't vote the way that you like, so they shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Same for the youth.

In fact, you don't trust the American public at all, and would remove almost everyone's ability to vote, despite the fact that we've managed to keep staggering on for over 220 years without the monarch you desire.

People who want to live longer are selfish, and will only create problems.

Bio-engineered or cyborg people aren't human, and won't possess souls.

In every case, your desire is simply for greater control, based solely on your own likes and dislikes, with no objective rational reason, even though society disagrees with you overwhelmingly in every instance but that of homosexuals.
Even there, I doubt that you could get 50+% of Americans to claim that all gays are self-loathing.

Again, this is based only on your writings, which in some cases are clearly designed to provoke, and I don't know your secret heart.

There's nothing wrong with thinking that you're right, and everyone else is wrong, but to do so with no objective evidence is necessarily placing one's self over society, and is an expression of pride.

Michael:

Those are all traditional societal norms and God given moralities. The restrictions on enfranchisement aren't because those people are wrong but because they vote for a different kind of society than our Constitution aims at. There's nothing wrong with preferring security to freedom, it just isn't the basis of the American system.

70% of Americans are repulsed by homosexuality, just look at the marriage ban. If we decided social issues by direct democracy we'd be as repressive as the Taliban.

If we decided social issues by direct democracy there would be more variation between the states, but few would be anything like the Taliban.

It's funny how often your solutions for promoting freedom include statist coercion. The average individual American isn't that bright, well educated, or moral, but collectively we've managed quite well, without being forced. (Much).

The thought that the genetically engineered people of the future won't be human or communicate with God seems like a rather personal idea; what Biblical verses or expressions of traditional morality support it ?

Michael:

I believe in state coercion on moral issues--without it there would be anarchy.

OJ:

Correction. You believe the state should exercise coercion to implement your moral values, because any moral value disagreeing with yours is de facto wrong.

Sounds rather prideful to me.

Jeff:

No, societal values. If allowed to do so we'd have very restrictive social strictures again in all but a few places in America. The citizenry is moralistic, only the secular elites--who sadly control the courts these past couple decades--are not. Put gay rights and the like before the people and the outcome is not in question.

The problem is, you routinely get your values and societal values confused.

When?

The notion that, under your regime, we'd be like the Taliban is, I think, correct.

The good sense of America will prevent it from happening, though.

Societal values used to oblige young women who had been seduced and abandoned to throw themselves in the river.

Nothing wrong with that, I suppose, if 100% agree, but as with suttee, not all the votes get counted, do they?

Societal values change, sometimes even for the better. The people who define them are everybody, and that's where Orrin's sin of Pride comes in.

He wants to be the voice of Society, instead of just one-300 millionth of a voice.

Harry:

No, I don't. I want to let people decide, because, at least in America, they're quite moralistic still.