Strawberry Mansion High School: is this success? Would you send your kids there?

[calitennis127]

On another thread, Tented (banally and predictably) invoked the Civil Rights Movement as a precursor to the contemporary gay rights movement. There are about 100 problems with that comparison, but I'll just focus on one: the notion that America is now a splendid racial utopia as a result of the Civil Rights Movement.

As food for thought, I encourage everyone here to watch the 7-minute video below from ABC News about an African-American inner city school called Strawberry Mansion in Philadelphia. For those of you who don't reside in the States, it should be even more informative.

To everyone on this board who is non-American, let me sum it up this way: the reality that you see in this video is pervasive in urban America, and it is denied, rationalized, and covered up by the white leftist media and education establishment; actually - as tented just showed - it is actually invoked as a success story.

Yes, you read that right - kids from drug-ridden, welfare-dependent homes getting suspended in school constantly and often being incarcerated before they reach age 18 is spun off as one of humanity's great success stories.

Go figure. I just wonder if tented would feel comfortable sending his children to Strawberry Mansion!

Also - to Murat - I would say that this environment at Strawberry Mansion is directly the product of the de-Christianization of American schools and American public life in the last 50 years. You want to know what negative effects atheism and atheist-inspired policy can have? Look at this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BsRw8wFjyI

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Cali, %95 of those kids going to that school and their parents will identify themselves as religious and %50 of those believe in the young earth theory.

 

[calitennis127]

Cali, %95 of those kids going to that school and their parents will identify themselves as religious and %50 of those believe in the young earth theory.

:laydownlaughing:lolz:

Identifying as "religious" in some kind of national poll means nothing more than that you "believe" in God. Believing in a distant divine power and actually being influenced by serious Christianity are not even close to being one and the same. This is like people saying that Obama was a Christian because he was a member of the United Church of Christ - a church whose teachings contradict everything in historic Christianity.

As for the Young Earth Theory, that is prominent among a segment of white Southern Evangelicals. Evolution is hardly discussed at all in black communities. They simply do not care.

I don't think there are too many debates in Strawberry Mansion over Darwin's theories. The debates tend to be a bit more personally inclined, so these are just silly comments from you.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Cali, %95 of those kids going to that school and their parents will identify themselves as religious and %50 of those believe in the young earth theory.

:laydownlaughing:lolz:

Identifying as "religious" in some kind of national poll means nothing more than that you "believe" in God. Believing in a distant divine power and actually being influenced by serious Christianity are not even close to being one and the same. This is like people saying that Obama was a Christian because he was a member of the United Church of Christ - a church whose teachings contradict everything in historic Christianity.

As for the Young Earth Theory, that is prominent among a segment of white Southern Evangelicals. Evolution is hardly discussed at all in black communities. They simply do not care.

I don't think there are too many debates in Strawberry Mansion over Darwin's theories. The debates tend to be a bit more personally inclined, so these are just silly comments from you.

Nope, just reality from me. Numbers are what they are. A good half of the US population believes the earth is 6000 years old. That school is not going to be any different. Those people might not be YOUR kind of religious, but to them, they are religious enough. I don't differentiate, I disagree with them and you equally.

You tend to think YOUR brand of religion is the ONLY right one. Others disagree. That's why millions of people have been killed. "My god beats your god" thing...like a 5 year old kid. I wish growing up was a part of religion.

 

[calitennis127]

Nope, just reality from me. Numbers are what they are. A good half of the US population believes the earth is 6000 years old.

In the 1960s (and before that, the "Enlightenment"), there was a conscious revolt against Western civilization from within. Christian morality and Western educational standards were repudiated.

The chaos you see in schools is a result of that, not of a belief in Genesis that the vast majority of human beings do not care about at all in their day-to-day lives.

Severing from our classical and Christian roots has caused serious decline in our civilization. This kind of video is one of a million pieces of evidence.

That school is not going to be any different. Those people might not be YOUR kind of religious, but to them, they are religious enough.

Not even Christopher Hitchens would say that spitting on each other and cutting each other with glass was the typical environment of a Catholic high school.

I don't differentiate, I disagree with them and you equally.

That is your failing. Maybe you should read one of Ratzinger's 66 books. You're still on number 0.

You tend to think YOUR brand of religion is the ONLY right one. Others disagree. That's why millions of people have been killed.

Religion has certainly caused war, but so have territorial disputes, personal vendettas and personal ambitions of great leaders, economic motivations (think American Civil War), political ideologies, and many other factors. Why single out "religion"?

And, by the way, when it comes to Christianity in particular, far fewer lives have been lost in the West because of people fighting in the name of Christianity than in opposition to it or in defiance of it. The totals are not even close.

"My god beats your god" thing...like a 5 year old kid. I wish growing up was a part of religion.

Go read about the behavior of Lenin in the the 19-teens and 1920s, or Robespierre in the 1790s, or Stalin in the 1930s. And you tell me whether these areligious men behaved like grown-ups.

 

[britbox]

The Civil Rights movement was a no-brainer. I'm not sure how you can join the dots the way you have done.

The breakdown in society and lowering of moral values isn't a result of the civil rights movement. It's a combination of a number of things but I don't see how that's one of them.

 

[calitennis127]

The Civil Rights movement was a no-brainer. I'm not sure how you can join the dots the way you have done.

The breakdown in society and lowering of moral values isn't a result of the civil rights movement. It's a combination of a number of things but I don't see how that's one of them.

Well, as a non-American, this may not be very clear to you. The issue is not whether many people in the Civil Rights Movement had good intentions. They certainly did. The question is whether all aspects of the worldview that inspired the greatest radicals of the Civil Rights Movement were valid.

Those people did not merely concern themselves with white people and black people eating hot dogs together in the state of Alabama. They wanted a widespread global revolution in values. Dr. Michael Eric Dyson has been very clear in explaining this.

The other issue is the self-righteous pride about about the CRM, in that it is deemed such a success story, even when urban centers in America are an utter disaster on so many fronts. The Strawberry Mansion realities are not confronted because white leftists do not want to be embarrassed and do not want to have to face reality.

 

[britbox]

As an American it might not be clear to you that social problems are not the preserve of the United States. You might want to start watching videos of the barios in Mexico and Central America, some of the sprawling slums in Brazil... even inner city riots and social breakdown in western countries like the UK... yeah, that country where many americans assume everyone wears a bowler hat, drink tea all day and spend their day figuring out how to improve their manners.

Now, let me state first, I agree with some of your opinions about a welfare system that in the long term can contribute to a never ending perpetual cycle of dependence and subsequent social issues. But it isn't the root problem.

There is an old saying you might be familiar with... "Idle hands are the devil's workshop"

Often, it's hard to recover a community where welfare has become the "norm", not the exception, but you need to look more closely at how a community became welfare-dependent in the first place. That's your root cause.

I was born in South Wales where coal mining was the major industry and by far the biggest employer.

My grandfather was a miner, my great-grandfather, his father before him.... it went back generations. South Wales produced one third of the world's coal exports. At one stage, 250,000 people were employed down the mines in South Wales. To put this in perspective, it's 2.5 times the number of people employed in Michigan making cars (GM, Ford, Chrysler ...combined) at it's peak.

Pit towns were great communities - everybody knew everybody, people loooked out for each other. Nobody was wealthy (financially) but they were sure wealthy in many other ways.

The mines ended up getting closed by the Coal Board (run by the UK Government), the last 70,000 miners in the South Wales valleys getting canned in the 70s and 80s. They said The mines either weren't profitable or not profitable enough... It became cheaper to import coal than mine it yourself.

"They were no longer cost-effective"

My argument is that the alternative was even less cost-effective. You had a thousands of miners going onto welfare. The government is paying out something for nothing. Sure, the bottom line of the balance sheet might indicate they are saving money... but then let's weigh in the social implications...

- Crime increases.
- Drug Use becomes rampant and endemic
- Thousands of families living off state welfare

and the subsequent implications for future generations:

- Claiming welfare becomes the norm, not only "acceptable" but a "right" not a "privilege"
- Social standards decline
- Drug use becomes normalalised
- No work ethic
- Further Increase in crime
- Reduced moral standards

..and that's only taking into account the miners. Don't forget all the peripheral people who made a living out of the inertia - the sandwich shops, the pubs, the convenience stores in the community... the firms supplying parts and machinery.... The knock on effect is monstrous.

I'd have doubts that even if you re-opened a bunch of mines in South Wales, you'd be able to get many from the current populace to actually work them. This is where welfare and left wing policies fail. But never forget it was right wing policies and capitalism that triggered the whole spiral of decline in the first place.

Whether you can reverse this situation is doubtful. Populations are increasing... the available work on offer is decreasing. Politicians are unable to make necessary unpopular decisions. That's one of the major drawbacks of democracy. Every politician has a shelf life and they'd rather kick the can down the road for somebody else. Look at the American National Debt... NO politician or political party has the resolve to address it. Because it's a popularity contest and they are beholden to voters and also to the corporates who put them there.

The cream will always rise to the top and any individual can get out of the ghetto given the right mindset. Social mobility is never impossible... but if we are talking generally... The genie is already out of the bottle.

Maintaining the status quo will never solve the problem.

I'm personally more interested in how the problem is solved (or reduced) rather than moaning about it and/or throwing blame about... we'll leave that to the politicians. I'd rather hear your own views on solutions rather than listening to another post blasting all and sundry for the current predicament.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Nope, just reality from me. Numbers are what they are. A good half of the US population believes the earth is 6000 years old.

In the 1960s (and before that, the "Enlightenment"), there was a conscious revolt against Western civilization from within. Christian morality and Western educational standards were repudiated.

The chaos you see in schools is a result of that, not of a belief in Genesis that the vast majority of human beings do not care about at all in their day-to-day lives.

Severing from our classical and Christian roots has caused serious decline in our civilization. This kind of video is one of a million pieces of evidence.

That school is not going to be any different. Those people might not be YOUR kind of religious, but to them, they are religious enough.

Not even Christopher Hitchens would say that spitting on each other and cutting each other with glass was the typical environment of a Catholic high school.

I don't differentiate, I disagree with them and you equally.

That is your failing. Maybe you should read one of Ratzinger's 66 books. You're still on number 0.

You tend to think YOUR brand of religion is the ONLY right one. Others disagree. That's why millions of people have been killed.

Religion has certainly caused war, but so have territorial disputes, personal vendettas and personal ambitions of great leaders, economic motivations (think American Civil War), political ideologies, and many other factors. Why single out "religion"?

And, by the way, when it comes to Christianity in particular, far fewer lives have been lost in the West because of people fighting in the name of Christianity than in opposition to it or in defiance of it. The totals are not even close.

"My god beats your god" thing...like a 5 year old kid. I wish growing up was a part of religion.

Go read about the behavior of Lenin in the the 19-teens and 1920s, or Robespierre in the 1790s, or Stalin in the 1930s. And you tell me whether these areligious men behaved like grown-ups.

*Hitchens says a lot worse things about Christianity. If you read , you would have known. Cutting each other with glasses? That is not even close to the violence in the old testament. That's like a boo boo. One important thing that is mandatory about being an atheist like myself is reading all the "holy" books many times, in multiple languages, so you don't buy into crap.


*I don't see Ratzinger as mandatory reading. I do however believe every person that claims to have a brain should read Hawking and Paine."Age of Reason" and "Common Sense" should be good starts for you Cali.


*I agree with you that regional issues, personal vendettas, economics and politics always were causes of war. BUT I bet you anything that in %90 of them, religion was the MOTIVATOR to start the war, get people going. It is very difficult to motivate people for war just by saying "Let's go get this piece of land" . When you say "This is our holy land, they are converting our people by force to so and so religion" though, life becomes a lot easier to motivate people. In the history of mankind, 2 things have always worked to get people to go to war: You tell them, their religion is under attack, or you question their patriotism when they are reluctant to go to war. No matter what the real reason might be. I know you agree with me on this because I know how you feel about Bushes wars.


*Never was a fan of Lenin or Stalin brother. They were waste of oxygen in this world. I am sure you can name a couple of Christians that you feel the same way about. Bad apples exist.

 

[calitennis127]

Murat, I have to be brief for now (unfortunately), but in the case of Iraq, it was Hitchens who was bloodthirsty and supported the mission from the start. Pope John Paul II warned against it.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Murat, I have to be brief for now (unfortunately), but in the case of Iraq, it was Hitchens who was bloodthirsty and supported the mission from the start. Pope John Paul II warned against it.

Hitchens is what you would call a militant atheist. He hates Islam in particular (also Mother Teresa , mind you). I agree with why he hates religion, but I don't agree with his solutions. Great thing about having a free mind is that you can come up with your own ideas and solutions to problems.

Good for John Paul. Of course his motives were totally selfish, which is fine. He was trying to protect his own institution against the inevitable backlash.

Cannot say I approve of the "silent participation" of the catholic church during the Second World War though.

 

[Kieran]

Good for John Paul. Of course his motives were totally selfish, which is fine. He was trying to protect his own institution against the inevitable backlash.

In Iraq? :s

Couldn't he just have been a great man of peace who had convictions and lived them?

I recommend you Rabbi David Dalin for an unbiased view of the Church during WW2...

 

[calitennis127]

Murat, I have to be brief for now (unfortunately), but in the case of Iraq, it was Hitchens who was bloodthirsty and supported the mission from the start. Pope John Paul II warned against it.

Hitchens is what you would call a militant atheist. He hates Islam in particular (also Mother Teresa , mind you). I agree with why he hates religion, but I don't agree with his solutions. Great thing about having a free mind is that you can come up with your own ideas and solutions to problems.

Good for John Paul. Of course his motives were totally selfish, which is fine. He was trying to protect his own institution against the inevitable backlash.

Cannot say I approve of the "silent participation" of the catholic church during the Second World War though.

Murat, your problem is that pretty much everything you believe about history is nonsense.

No one did more to save Europe's Jews than Pope Pius XII.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Murat, I have to be brief for now (unfortunately), but in the case of Iraq, it was Hitchens who was bloodthirsty and supported the mission from the start. Pope John Paul II warned against it.

Hitchens is what you would call a militant atheist. He hates Islam in particular (also Mother Teresa , mind you). I agree with why he hates religion, but I don't agree with his solutions. Great thing about having a free mind is that you can come up with your own ideas and solutions to problems.

Good for John Paul. Of course his motives were totally selfish, which is fine. He was trying to protect his own institution against the inevitable backlash.

Cannot say I approve of the "silent participation" of the catholic church during the Second World War though.

Murat, your problem is that pretty much everything you believe about history is nonsense.

No one did more to save Europe's Jews than Pope Pius XII.

Funny, I was thinking the same about you. I guess we are even...

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Good for John Paul. Of course his motives were totally selfish, which is fine. He was trying to protect his own institution against the inevitable backlash.

In Iraq? :s

Couldn't he just have been a great man of peace who had convictions and lived them?

I recommend you Rabbi David Dalin for an unbiased view of the Church during WW2...

Kieran, I actually believe he was a man of peace. But he was also still a clever enough man to know any war against Iraq was going to be portrayed as a war against Islam, and he wanted no part of it. He was clever, in addition to being a man of peace, at least in this case.

My friend, there is absolutely no "unbiased view" of history about any time, any place, anywhere. Everyone looks at things through their own lens and people choose the one closest to their opinion, and actively avoid the other point of view because it makes them uncomfortable.

I am an atheist BECAUSE I have read all the books multiple times. When an atheist comes to me and says he never read the Koran, I tell him to F off...

 

[Kieran]

Good for John Paul. Of course his motives were totally selfish, which is fine. He was trying to protect his own institution against the inevitable backlash.

In Iraq? :s

Couldn't he just have been a great man of peace who had convictions and lived them?

I recommend you Rabbi David Dalin for an unbiased view of the Church during WW2...

Kieran, I actually believe he was a man of peace. But he was also still a clever enough man to know any war against Iraq was going to be portrayed as a war against Islam, and he wanted no part of it. He was clever, in addition to being a man of peace, at least in this case.

My friend, there is absolutely no "unbiased view" of history about any time, any place, anywhere. Everyone looks at things through their own lens and people choose the one closest to their opinion, and actively avoid the other point of view because it makes them uncomfortable.

I am an atheist BECAUSE I have read all the books multiple times. When an atheist comes to me and says he never read the Koran, I tell him to F off...

Okay, so read and re-read Rabbi Dalin's book on the Catholic Church and Pius XII during WW2, and get yourself a broader view of things. The Rabbi isn't the only one to share this view, but since he's a rabbi, maybe it'll come better from him. I linked an article by him above.

You have no evidence that JPII was anything other than a committed man of peace. To suggest he was playing politics with this issue is unfair, to say the very least...

 

[calitennis127]

Good for John Paul. Of course his motives were totally selfish, which is fine. He was trying to protect his own institution against the inevitable backlash.

In Iraq? :s

Couldn't he just have been a great man of peace who had convictions and lived them?

I recommend you Rabbi David Dalin for an unbiased view of the Church during WW2...

Kieran, I actually believe he was a man of peace. But he was also still a clever enough man to know any war against Iraq was going to be portrayed as a war against Islam, and he wanted no part of it. He was clever, in addition to being a man of peace, at least in this case.

My friend, there is absolutely no "unbiased view" of history about any time, any place, anywhere. Everyone looks at things through their own lens and people choose the one closest to their opinion, and actively avoid the other point of view because it makes them uncomfortable.

I am an atheist BECAUSE I have read all the books multiple times. When an atheist comes to me and says he never read the Koran, I tell him to F off...

Unfortunately for you - whatever one's biases may be - the evidence in defense of Pope Pius XII is so immense that whether one is atheist, Christian, Muslim, or anything else, there can be little doubt where he stood.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Good for John Paul. Of course his motives were totally selfish, which is fine. He was trying to protect his own institution against the inevitable backlash.

In Iraq? :s

Couldn't he just have been a great man of peace who had convictions and lived them?

I recommend you Rabbi David Dalin for an unbiased view of the Church during WW2...

Kieran, I actually believe he was a man of peace. But he was also still a clever enough man to know any war against Iraq was going to be portrayed as a war against Islam, and he wanted no part of it. He was clever, in addition to being a man of peace, at least in this case.

My friend, there is absolutely no "unbiased view" of history about any time, any place, anywhere. Everyone looks at things through their own lens and people choose the one closest to their opinion, and actively avoid the other point of view because it makes them uncomfortable.

I am an atheist BECAUSE I have read all the books multiple times. When an atheist comes to me and says he never read the Koran, I tell him to F off...

Unfortunately for you - whatever one's biases may be - the evidence in defense of Pope Pius XII is so immense that whether one is atheist, Christian, Muslim, or anything else, there can be little doubt where he stood.

Cali, I LOVE it when you use the word "evidence" .


Thank you both for a nice discussion.

 

[calitennis127]

Good for John Paul. Of course his motives were totally selfish, which is fine. He was trying to protect his own institution against the inevitable backlash.

In Iraq? :s

Couldn't he just have been a great man of peace who had convictions and lived them?

I recommend you Rabbi David Dalin for an unbiased view of the Church during WW2...

Kieran, I actually believe he was a man of peace. But he was also still a clever enough man to know any war against Iraq was going to be portrayed as a war against Islam, and he wanted no part of it. He was clever, in addition to being a man of peace, at least in this case.

My friend, there is absolutely no "unbiased view" of history about any time, any place, anywhere. Everyone looks at things through their own lens and people choose the one closest to their opinion, and actively avoid the other point of view because it makes them uncomfortable.

I am an atheist BECAUSE I have read all the books multiple times. When an atheist comes to me and says he never read the Koran, I tell him to F off...

Unfortunately for you - whatever one's biases may be - the evidence in defense of Pope Pius XII is so immense that whether one is atheist, Christian, Muslim, or anything else, there can be little doubt where he stood.

Cali, I LOVE it when you use the word "evidence" .


Thank you both for a nice discussion.

The clearly documented event of Pope Pius XII sheltering 3,000 of Rome's Jews at the papal residence of Castel Gandolfo during the Nazi occupation of Rome counts as "evidence", something Hitchens' books are often sorely lacking in.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Please read the link and tell me why an apology was necessary.


http://tech.mit.edu/V118/N13/bvatican.13w.html


Also, why did Pius sign the Concordat with Nazi Germany? What was the result of it/ Blind eye was the result of it. The Catholic Church, as an organisation, did not protest against any of the anti-Jewish policies of the Nazi state. Individuals might have. Vatican new the murder of the of the Jews very early, and some individuals DID try to help, but the official policy did not help anyone. Concordat stopped that.

Pius never spoke openly and explicitly against Hitler, except one time, a month after the war was over, when he was addressing the college of cardinals. Not good enough for me.

There was a panel put together in the late 90s...Couple of Jewish scholars, Catholics were in it. I don't remember what they called themselves but from what I read, their job was to understand the the position of Pius and the church during the Holocaust. They found out the church knew about what was going on very early, but they could not find any official responses. When asked to access the archives for some answers, they were told they could not because of some technical difficulty or the other. The panel could not complete their job.


Either way, all this shows that there are more than a couple different ways to skin a cat as they say, and people will believe what they want to believe.

Once again, I am out. For good this time. Roger beat Nole today. That is more exciting.