Thursday, November 23, 2006

And who were they thanking?

This is an article from the Arizona Republic. Apparently schools today are supposed to portray Thanksgiving in a historically accurate way. But you'll notice that the article says nary a word about who the Pilgrims were thanking. If anything, it looks like they were thanking the Indians. In fact, I've seen a fifth grade textbook that says exactly that. I'm afraid this is political correctness run amok. If we want accuracy, then we should at the very least tell the kids that the Pilgrims were devout Christians who were thanking, um, um, you know....God.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hilarious! And I quite agree too.

Steven Carr said...

If I understand correctly, Victori is quite right, the Pilgrims were indeed devout Christians and so did not thank the people who had helped them, but thanked God instead.

But, of course, it is politically correct not to paint Christians in a bad light, so they are depicted thanking the people who had helped them.

Don Jr. said...

If I understand correctly, Victor should have banned Steven Carr from posting his ridiculously laughable, never-making-sense comments on this blog a long time ago.

But, of course, it is christianly to suffer fools gladly, so he allows Carr to post.

Victor Reppert said...

I am very close to doing banning Steven, in fact. He makes no attempt to do anything except ridicule Christianity. There's no attempt to see what good points might be made by Christians, we are all fools pure and simple, even those of us who have advanced degrees from secular universities.
The people who should be most bothered by Steven should be, in my view, his fellow atheists. I was particularly offended by his character assassination against Montgomery (who is not by any means a personal favorite) and his incredibly twisted reading of "Man or Rabbit," an essay which, even though written by Lewis, he should have pretty much agreed with knowing his views.

Everyone makes mistakes, and loses their temper, or is too long-winded, etc. And if I ban one person, where to I draw the line? I don't want to go Vallicella's way, although I respect his for doing things the way he does them. It's his blog, and this is mine. And that's just the point. I think I have shown that I am capable of seeing the perspectives of others. Not everyone seems capable of doing that.

So I will give him a last warning. Make a serious contribution to the discussion that goes beyond ridicule and contributes to the pursuit of the truth. If this Carr can't be repaired, it will be junked.

Steven Carr said...

I think Victor is claiming that it ridicules Christians by pointing out how wrong it is to portray them as thanking the people who helped them, rather than God.

I was agreeing with his claim that it is revisionism to depict the Pilgrims as thanking the Indians, rather than God.

Steven Carr said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Steven Carr said...

When did I call Christians 'fools', let alone 'fools, pure and simple'?

I hope Victor will back up his claim.

Perhaps Victor will stand by Christian claims on this forum that apologists like Montgomery are 'ignorant'.

I quote a Christian commentator 'Bilbo' - 'Indeed, its pretty obvious that Montgomery was ignorant of the facts concerning Pilate here'.

What rebuke does Victor give to Christians who call speakers at apologetics conferences 'ignorant'?

I assume that such discourse is reasonable comment and does not come under the category of the 'character assasination' of Montgomery that Victor so deplored?

Don Jr. said...

Calling someone ignorant of something isn't the same as calling them ignorant. If Steven does not understand the difference, then it seems he is simply ignorant of the idiosyncrasies of the English language.

Personally, on the matter of banning Steven, though the act would surely be justified, I see no reason to do it now as very few (not even Steven himself) take him seriously anymore. Moreover, his comments, in my opinion, provide great entertainment, and I would miss them. For instance, I love that instead of arguing that he did not character assassinate Montgomery, Steven points to another instance of (supposed) character assassination and says, in essence, "Him too! Him too!" What is entertaining, but also sad, is that he thinks this is some sort of defense of himself. I am glad, though, to know that Steven does not consider Christians to be fools.

(As an aside, Victor does not need to "back up his claim," as Steven will do that for him.)

Victor Reppert said...

Steven: That's enough. I'm banning you from my blog. There are plenty of atheists already commenting here who represent atheism far more competently than you do here. You have your own blog where you can say whatever you want.

I do not have to defend this, and will not.