Would you have voted for the Oregon Compulsory Education Act?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Compulsory_Education_Act

Absolutely. This is easily one of the best pieces of legislation ever passed by a state in US history, even if the courts struck it down. I'm actually amazed any state actually did ever propose to completely abolish private schools, I always assumed that was just a far out dream of mine.

Ironic that such a great law was authored by the Masons (who I am known for being strongly opposed to) and supported by the KKK.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No, given that it was just a veiled effort to destroy Catholics schools.

And...that's a bad thing how?

Probably not, on the principle that it was a KKK-backed piece of anti-Catholic legislation.

Well considering how you are pretty anti-Catholic (see comments about sex abuse scandals and contraception), I don't see how that'd be a problem, unless you're basically just saying anything the KKK supports should be opposed.

No, given that it was just a veiled effort to destroy Catholics schools.

This pretty much.

lol at BRTD wondering why the KKK was on what he would see to be the "right side".  Then again, I'm not entirely sure BRTD would've been that outraged at the 1920's KKK.  Actually, I see him being a moderate hero on the 1920's KKK.

Not at all, I probably would like Irish immigrants in the 20s actually since they were the biggest opponents of Prohibition and responsible for providing me with a lot of my alcohol, and the KKK were in favor of it. I would've voted for Al Smith in 1928 because of that.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No, given that it was just a veiled effort to destroy Catholics schools.

And...that's a bad thing how?

Probably not, on the principle that it was a KKK-backed piece of anti-Catholic legislation.

Well considering how you are pretty anti-Catholic (see comments about sex abuse scandals and contraception), I don't see how that'd be a problem, unless you're basically just saying anything the KKK supports should be opposed.

No, given that it was just a veiled effort to destroy Catholics schools.

This pretty much.

lol at BRTD wondering why the KKK was on what he would see to be the "right side".  Then again, I'm not entirely sure BRTD would've been that outraged at the 1920's KKK.  Actually, I see him being a moderate hero on the 1920's KKK.

Not at all, I probably would like Irish immigrants in the 20s actually since they were the biggest opponents of Prohibition and responsible for providing me with a lot of my alcohol, and the KKK were in favor of it. I would've voted for Al Smith in 1928 because of that.

I wasn't calling you anti-Irish, I was calling you anti-Catholic.

Get the terms right.

Good to know at least you hate the 1920's KKK for some rational reason at least.

Can you really name anything about the KKK I'd support? I'm actually just surprised they were even active in Oregon, considering how many blacks live there, I was always under the impression that the Klan outside the south was just in border territories like Indiana.

I should point out that while anti-Catholic immigrant sentiment (and yeah this basically means "Irish" at the time, though I suppose there were some Italians too, still same thing in regards to Prohibition) was pretty loony and based on hilariously dumb premises (see what the Know Nothings were worried about.) However one should ask if the Catholics were really any better, imagine someone from a Catholic family at that time getting married in a Protestant church and how their family would react and how many's families would just flat out refuse to attend. Or that just about anyone from a Catholic family would likely be ostracized for doing an out and out conversion. It reminds me of the Irish Catholic churches in the 19th century condemning the "soupers", people who renounced Catholicism to get soup and food from Anglican charities and condemning them in sermons and I thought it was inane, imagine how someone would be viewed today refusing to attend their kid's wedding because it wasn't in a Catholic church or if Catholic churches were condemning converts. Even most Catholics today would be disgusted by it, and with good reason.

FYI, the woman who just gave the sermon at my church this morning is a professor at a Catholic university. (Albeit a very liberal one and it wouldn't surprise me if the majority of professors at it are not Catholic.)

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Now, I agree, denouncing converts and saying they should be damned isn't something to be praised.  However, what can you really say about Anglican charities that forced the Irish to give up their religion to get food?  Why didn't you complain about that BRTD but instead focused on what the Catholics did?  I mean, are they really any damn better for requiring a sacrifice of religion in order to avoid starving to death?  Arguably, this is an evil that shows how corrupt institutions, both Anglican and Catholic, were back then to demand obedience to one hierarchy over the other or suffer extreme consequences.

You're right, it obviously wasn't right either. My thing though is that since I know people who quit the Catholic church WITHOUT societal benefit, I know they clearly would with it. I know I would too, I mean you all know with the way I talk I wouldn't renounce Jesus to get food, but if I was raised Catholic would I renounce the Pope to do so? Of course, because I wouldn't care too much about the Pope in the first place.

However, I take issue with this idea that staunchly religious protestants aren't as bad as religious Catholics when it comes to the subject of condemnation.  I happen to come from the Religious Southland, where protestant bigotry towards all sorts of people isn't anything that's rare.  It was here, in barely Catholic at all Oklahoma, where a voter supported ban on Sharia Law was passed in 2010.  Yes, it is on it's way to history by now thanks to judges loyal to the Freedom of Religion, but it still happened.

Well yeah this is clearly a case of different perspectives, you being in Oklahoma after all. But I will note that as stupid as the Sharia ban was, the vast majority of people think of Sharia Law as what's used in Saudi Arabia and Iran to execute homosexuals and rape victims. We all know that's not coming anytime soon to anywhere in the US regardless of the passage of stupid measures like that, but it's why they are so easy to pass, it's more ignorance than bigotry.

And if you'll note, I did state above that I'm sure the vast majority of Catholics today would be disgusted by that type of thing I'm railing against.

And I call 'BULLF***INGSH*T" on the idea that damnation of converts is something that is only common in Catholic Christianity.  Many Mainstream Protestants that I know would flip half a sh*t if their kid came out as a Muslim, an atheist, or *gasp* a Catholic.  SO you can keep on acting like the great evils of prejudice are only in the communities in which you are naturally predisposed to hate (yes I used the h word) or you can admit that this is a problem brought on by the greed of American culture to divide people.

Once again you're in Oklahoma, so your definition of "mainstream Protestant" is clearly going to differ from mine. I do know plenty who also would flip if their kid became a Catholic, but because that meant that they'd be joining something ran by a reactionary, sexist and homophobic hierarchy, not because of it being the Whore of Babylon or whatever. But from personal experience, my family was not bothered by me being baptized again in a neocharismatic church, or my youngest brother who still lives at home identifying as agnostic. But as I stated above even most Catholics here wouldn't care too much about their kid converting or getting married outside a Catholic church, which is why I'm condemning the attitudes of 1920s Catholics or 19th century Irish which clearly aren't as common today.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Which is why you would support legislation that was, in spirit, designed to be anti-religious and to soothe bigots?  Which was incidentally supported by the Ku Klux Klan.

Well as noted I'm against any private schools and homeschooling. I wouldn't support it if it just banned Catholic schools, though the constitutionality of that would never be in question.

Again, I'm surprised you wouldn't be soulmates with the 1920's KKK (outside of the alcohol issue).

So you think I'm a racist, fundamentalist segregationist who'd love to go around lynching blacks and harassing people in interracial marriages?

But before you think I'm painting you as little more than a reactionary, but I don't think it's fair to judge an organization wholly by it's hierarchy.  Yet you seem to do this all the time when it comes to the Catholics but not when it comes to Protestants.

Inconsistency much?

The difference is that the Catholic Church is one consistent organization, Protestants aren't, and even individual Protestant churches aren't as tied to the hierarchy and dissent isn't as cracked down upon. That's the big difference between saying the Pope speaks for all Catholics and saying Pat Robertson speaks for all Protestants.

Obviously there are Catholics that don't agree with the Pope, but then I have to wonder why they are still Catholic. Like literally wonder because I just can't comprehend it.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'm on homeschooling.
And do you know what I'm gonna say?
F**k you guys.

Here's the best argument against homeschooling I've encountered yet.