Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Rhea · 11-12-2002, 04:31 AM

Sigh, had to reply to this one.

Tell, me. What's the opinion here. Reply-All or just reply??? Since it's sent by people following the spam's urging to "send to all you know", I'm tempted to send this back to all, including the residual "forwarded from" addys of the people who sent it to the people who sent it...

Dumb idea?

The Spam:

Quote:

> Subject: Columbine update -- lenthy but powerful
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Guess our national leaders didn't expect this, hmm? On Thursday, Darrell
> Scott, the father of Rachel Scott, a victim of the Columbine High School
> shootings in Littleton, Colorado, was invited to address the House
Judiciary
> Committee's subcommittee. What he said to our national leaders during this
> special session of Congress was painfully truthful. They were not prepared
> for what he was to say, nor was it received well. It needs to be heard by
> every parent, every teacher, every politician, every sociologist, every
> psychologist, and every so-called expert! These courageous words spoken by
> Darrell Scott are powerful, penetrating, and deeply personal. There is no
> doubt that God sent this man as a voice crying in the wilderness. The
> following is a portion of the transcript:
>
> "Since the dawn of creation there has been both good & evil in the hearts
of
> men and women. We all contain the seeds of kindness or the seeds of
> violence. The death of my wonderful daughter, Rachel Joy Scott, and the
> deaths of that heroic teacher, and the other eleven children who died must
> not be in vain. Their blood cries out for answers."
>
> "The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel
out
> in the field. The villain was not the club he used. Neither was it the
NCA,
> the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and the reason
for
> the murder could only be found in Cain's heart."
>
> "In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how
> quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA. I am not a
> member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun. I am not
here
> to represent or defend the NRA - because I don't believe that they are
> responsible for my daughter's death. Therefore I do not believe that they
> need to be defended. If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel's
> murder I would be their strongest opponent."
>
> "I am here today to declare that Columbine was not just a tragedy-it was a
> spiritual event that should be forcing us to look at where the real blame
> lies! Much of the blame lies here n this room. Much of the blame lies
behind
> the pointing fingers of the accusers themselves. I wrote a poem just four
> nights ago that expresses my feelings best. This was written way before I
> knew I would be speaking here today":
>
> Your laws ignore our deepest needs,
> Your words are empty air.
> You've stripped away our heritage,
> You've outlawed simple prayer.
> Now gunshots fill our classrooms,
> And precious children die.
> You seek for answers everywhere,
> And ask the question "Why?"
>
> You regulate restrictive laws,
> Through legislative creed.
> And yet you fail to understand,
> That God is what we need!
>
> "Men and women are three-part beings. We all consist of body, soul, and
> spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we
create
> a void that allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush in and wreak havoc.
> Spiritual presences were present within our educational
> systems for most of our nation's history. Many of our major colleges began
> as theological seminaries. This is a historical fact."
>
> "What has happened to us as a nation? We have refused to honor God, and in
> so doing, we open the doors to hatred and violence. And when something as
> terrible as Columbine's tragedy occurs -- politicians immediately look for
a
> scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive
> laws that contribute to erode away our personal and private liberties. We
do
> not need more restrictive laws."
>
> "Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount
of
> gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of
massacre.
> The real villain lies within our own hearts. Political posturing and
> restrictive legislation are not the answers. The young people of our
nation
> hold the key. There is a spiritual awakening taking place that will not be
> squelched! We do not need more religion. We do not need more gaudy
> television evangelists spewing out verbal religious garbage. We do not
need
> more million dollar church buildings built while people with basic needs
are
> being ignored. We do need a change of heart and a humble acknowledgment
that
> this nation was founded on the principle of simple trust in God!"
>
> "As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his
two
> friends murdered before his very eyes -- He did not hesitate to pray in
> school. I defy any law or politician to deny him that right! I challenge
> every young person in America, and around the world, to realize that on
> April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School prayer was brought back to our
> schools. Do not let the many prayers offered by those students be in vain.
> Dare to move into the new millennium with a sacred disregard for
legislation
> that violates your God-given right to communicate with Him. To those of
you
> who would point your finger at the NRA -- I give to you a sincere
> challenge."
>
> "Dare to examine your own heart before casting the first stone! My
> daughter's death will not be in vain! The young people of this country
will
> not allow that to happen!"
>
> Do what the media did not -- let the nation hear this man's speech. Please
> send this out to everyone you can!!!
>
>

My reply (not yet sent...)

Quote:

Powerful, but flawed in a frightening way.

Prayer is not now, nor has ever been in America, outlawed in schools.
Prayer is legal in schools and always has been.
(that's an im portant truth, so I'll emphasize it,)
INDIVIDUAL PRAYER IS LEGAL IN SCHOOLS AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN.
This writer needs a lesson in US history and current legal code.

To say that "prayer has been outlawed" or that "prayer was finally allowed back" is inaccurate. The only thing that law addresses is government-led prayer to a captive audience.

I think any freedom-loving patriotic American will rejoice in this distinction.
No one can force their religion on your children, yet your children are guaranteed the right to practice their _own_ religion.

Hallelujah.

I have to say I get very worried about people like this man who will take a falsehood and preach against it in order to make legislative change. I'm not sure exactly what he's lobbying to have happen. Mandated, school led prayers in public schools? Is that what he's asking for? Whose prayers? The majority of the locality? Is he asking that Muslim teachers be required to lead Christian prayers in school? Is he seeking to legislate that Christian teachers lead children in reciting Hindu Sutras?

I'm not really sure what he's trying to ask congress to do. But to me it smells very risky. Better to keep religion in churches and religious instruction in the hands of religious scholars, in my opinion. I think they're better qualified than public school teachers to instruct correctly in the appropriate denomination.

Cheers!

Celsus · 11-12-2002, 04:35 AM

I don't know anything about the person who supposedly wrote that, but the first thing that struck me was "Ghostwriter!"

dangin · 11-12-2002, 05:15 AM

No, bad ghostwriter.

Not that the writing itself is bad, just the message, and the idiocy that the christian god is one of mercy.

Peregrine · 11-12-2002, 05:21 AM

Check out <a href="http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/scott.htm" target="_blank">Snopes</a>. In short, he did give the testimony, it was to a subcommittee reviewing gun control policies, he was one of many to testify, and what he said was of little import or significance.

Stephen Maturin · 11-12-2002, 05:30 AM

This particular puddle of dog vomit has been making the rounds since mid-1999. I don't know who wrote it, but Darrell Scott did in fact recite the quoted words to a House subcommittee. The testimony was part of a plan by the National Rifle Association and its Republican lap dogs to torpedo federal gun control legislation that was floating around Congress at the time.

As for the substance, it's standard NRA damage control drivel: "The problem isn't too many guns; the real problem is not enough Jebus."

gravitybow · 11-12-2002, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Rhea:
Tell, me. What's the opinion here. Reply-All or just reply???

Good response, Rhea. I would "Reply all".
Falsehood should always be challenged. I don't wish to impugn the honesty or motives of any of the specific senders on the list, but each one that hit "send" perpetuated a falsehood. Perhaps it simply made some feel good that someone spoke up publicly for God, and the particular subject was incidental. Perhaps some sent it automatically because they're on some church list. Who knows?

In our family, e-mail is generally read by more than one set of eyes. You may be doing someone else a favor who can't quite put their finger on why this e-mail that [family member] forwarded just doesn't add up.

Bumble Bee Tuna · 11-12-2002, 10:48 AM

I would always respond to an email with blatant falsehoods by correcting them to every single person I possibly could. Reply to All, reply to any of the people whose addresses you can find. It's vitally important that we end false teachings like this.
Unfortunately and fortunately for me, I don't have any fundy pals sending me godspam.

-B

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-12-2002, 04:35 AM	#2
Celsus Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Singapore Posts: 2,875	I don't know anything about the person who supposedly wrote that, but the first thing that struck me was "Ghostwriter!"

11-12-2002, 05:15 AM	#3
dangin Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: The Middle, Kansas Posts: 2,637	No, bad ghostwriter. Not that the writing itself is bad, just the message, and the idiocy that the christian god is one of mercy.

11-12-2002, 05:21 AM	#4
Peregrine Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Orlando, FL Posts: 385	Check out <a href="http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/scott.htm" target="_blank">Snopes</a>. In short, he did give the testimony, it was to a subcommittee reviewing gun control policies, he was one of many to testify, and what he said was of little import or significance.

11-12-2002, 05:30 AM	#5
Stephen Maturin Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Broomfield, Colorado, USA Posts: 1,295	This particular puddle of dog vomit has been making the rounds since mid-1999. I don't know who wrote it, but Darrell Scott did in fact recite the quoted words to a House subcommittee. The testimony was part of a plan by the National Rifle Association and its Republican lap dogs to torpedo federal gun control legislation that was floating around Congress at the time. As for the substance, it's standard NRA damage control drivel: "The problem isn't too many guns; the real problem is not enough Jebus."

11-12-2002, 10:48 AM	#7
Bumble Bee Tuna Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Middletown, CT Posts: 7,333	I would always respond to an email with blatant falsehoods by correcting them to every single person I possibly could. Reply to All, reply to any of the people whose addresses you can find. It's vitally important that we end false teachings like this. Unfortunately and fortunately for me, I don't have any fundy pals sending me godspam. -B

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.