Home « Forum « Story Ideas

Forum: Story Ideas

Drill Teams

richardshagrin

Larger schools not only have cheerleaders and yell leaders and marching bands, but they also have drill teams. Sometimes because they had ROTC programs. The Catholic schools had an advantage drilling. Most drill teams could form line or columns of fours, or columns of twos, or even single file columns (a column of ones). But only the Catholics could have a column of Nuns.

This may be difficult to make into a story, a lot of characters, maybe a student marching director is looking for something special to do for his drill team in a competition. Maybe he can borrow some clothing from the local convent and dress the team as Nuns?

Replies:   Ernest Bywater  madnige
Ernest Bywater

@richardshagrin

Maybe he can borrow some clothing from the local convent and dress the team as Nuns?


Would work if the school mascot was a penguin!

richardshagrin

@Ernest Bywater

Hampton (Virginia) high school had a crab as a mascot. Teams were named the Crabbers, as that was, at one time, a major industry for the community, located just outside of Fort Monroe, on Hampton Roads (at watercourse).

Any school with a penguin mascot would need to be a lot further south, closer to the Antarctic where most of the penguins live. I wouldn't chose penguins as a mascot. A group of penguins, at least in the Antarctic summer, smell bad. Penguin shit is at least as bad as chicken excrement.

sejintenej

@Ernest Bywater

Would work if the school mascot was a penguin!

My school uniform made us look like penguins- almost black ankle length coat and white bands below the collar. And we had to march in columns of fours (except when we had to turn that into twos)

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@sejintenej

And we had to march in columns of fours (except when we had to turn that into twos)


My mother used to go to a church run girls' school that was very posh and near where we lived. What I found funny about it was the girls had to form up and march in a column of two when outside the school grounds on their way to a school activity. Mum said they used to be in fours until the council got on to the school management about blocking the footpath. Anyway, with the exception of those in the younger years (ie under 8 years old) they formed up and marched better than many military formation I saw around the area. I guess discipline at the school was a tad tight.

When in school uniform and outside of the school buildings gloves had to be worn and hats had to be worn in the approved way, or else. I never di find out what the else was, none of the girls would say.

madnige
Updated:

@richardshagrin


only the Catholics could have a column of Nuns


Anyone noticed the similarity between a Wimple and a Hijab? Wimples were commonly worn 500+yr ago, contemporaneous with the Crusades. Islam is (as I understand) about that much younger than Christianity, so are today's problems akin to Muslim Crusades?

This thought passed on to you through me from my mother.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@madnige

Islam is (as I understand) about that much younger than Christianity, so are today's problems akin to Muslim Crusades?


I raised that in a few forums about five years ago and got jumped on about it. Mind you, the Crusades was all about control of the Silk Trade Route and what we're seeing in the middle east for the last few decades is all about control of the oil fields and sea ports. Still all about grabs for power by a few who can talk others into dying for them.

Replies:   richardshagrin
richardshagrin
Updated:

@Ernest Bywater

Being willing to die for a cause is not limited to Muslims, although their version of Paradise is different than most religions. A honeydo list for 72 virgins is likely to be longer than most. They do allow for four wives so they may be inured to the issue.

Crusaders were promised heaven if they died on a Crusade, if I remember history correctly. Japan had Kamikaze flyers in WW2. Not sure what bushido promised, but the "duty heavier than a mountain, death lighter than a feather" sounds belief based to me. Fanaticism seems to be one of the human traits we have to live with, or maybe die with.

Ernest Bywater

@richardshagrin

Crusaders were promised heaven if they died on a Crusade, if I remember history correctly.


What they get promised, what they get delivered to them are two very different things. What they get told as to why they're going, and the reason why the people behind them are sending them, are also two very different things.

Replies:   Capt Zapp
Capt Zapp

@Ernest Bywater

What they get promised, what they get delivered to them are two very different things.


I don't know of ANY report which supports this statement. Just who provided the information for this? Which crusader came back and said they didn't receive what was promised? For all we know, they got did get it.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@Capt Zapp

I don't know of ANY report which supports this statement.


When you provide evidence they got what was promised, call me.

Only God can deliver you to heaven, but it wasn't God who promised it. In the Bible they're told not to murder people, but they went out and murdered people. Probability factor of going to heaven after disobeying God's commandments are vanishing small.

Capt Zapp

@Ernest Bywater

I don't know of ANY report which supports this statement.

When you provide evidence they got what was promised, call me.


Since there can be no evidence either way, it's a moot point.

Only God can deliver you to heaven, but it wasn't God who promised it. In the Bible they're told not to murder people, but they went out and murdered people. Probability factor of going to heaven after disobeying God's commandments are vanishing small.


Point taken. Heaven is probably going to be pretty empty. Which reminds me:

Mother Teresa died and went to heaven. God greeted her at the Pearly Gates. "Be thou hungry, Mother Teresa?" asked God. "I could eat," Mother Teresa replied. So God opened a can of tuna and reached for a chunk of rye bread and they began to share it. While eating this humble meal, Mother Teresa looked down into Hell and saw the inhabitants devouring huge steaks, lobsters, pheasants, and pastries. Curious, but deeply trusting, she remained quiet. The next day God again invited her to join him for a meal. Again, it was tuna and rye bread. Once again, Mother Teresa could see the denizens of Hell enjoying lamb, turkey, venison, and delicious desserts. Still she said nothing. The following day, mealtime arrived and another can of tuna was opened. She couldn't contain herself any longer. Meekly, she asked, "God, I am grateful to be in heaven with you as a reward for the pious, obedient life I led. But here in heaven all I get to eat is tuna and a piece of rye bread and in the Other Place they eat like emperors and kings! I just don't understand it..." God sighed. "Let's be honest Teresa," He said, "for just two people, it doesn't pay to cook."

richardshagrin

@Ernest Bywater

Everybody sins according to the Catholic church. You get to go to heaven if you confess and make an act of contrition. Some Hail Marys and some Pater Nosters (Our Fathers) usually did the trick, although probably not for murder. Considering the Church at that time, perhaps a monetary sum for an indulgence would have sufficed. Of course not all killing is murder. If you are in an army, killing the other side is righteous even today.

Apparently Jesus promised St. Peter he as pope and his successors and their associates down to priests had the authority to forgive sins.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@richardshagrin

If you are in an army, killing the other side is righteous even today.


Wishing to avoid writing a 50,000 word papers on the details, I'll ignore how much of the Catholic Church doctrine violates the Bible and jump straight to the quoted item.

Killing the other side when in an army defending the people is a righteous event, but killing the other side while part of an army making a land grab by stealing the property of the other side is not a righteous event. Essentially, it's the reason for the act and not the act.

richardshagrin

@Ernest Bywater

Almost all property is theft. With the exception of some volcanic islands, nearly all property belonged to someone else (some other nation) and a series of conquers took it from original owners. Britain has gone through the original residents through Celts, Anglo Saxons, Normans, and the Socialist party. The USA had original owners we call the Indians, replaced by Various colonial powers like English, Dutch, French, Spanish and I probably left out some. Eventually the English got most of what became the USA, we rebelled and conquered or "bought" Florida, Louisiana, former Mexican Territory (the Spanish took from the Indians and then lost to Mexico) like Texas, California, etc. There is also Alaska from the Russians who took it from Inuit (Eskimo) and various Indians. We also grabbed Hawaii from native Hawaiians. There is Puerto Rico from the Spanish and Guam and various islands in the Pacific and Caribbean. We may not have stolen it all, but someone along the way probably did. Its not just English speaking nations that get grabby. The Poles went through a lot of losses until they were reconstituted. Russia is still mostly theft, I don't know who owned Siberia, but it wasn't Russia until they took over. Borders are fairly fluid, depending on who has the better army and generals, and more aggressive management. Even today, websites can be taken over. Beyond the far horizon dot net used to be dot com.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@richardshagrin

Almost all property is theft.


True in that almost all land was previously owned by another until taken by conquest or bought. However, there is a moral difference between the person / people who took the land by conquest and those who are living there a number of generations later or who purchased it from the descendants of the ones who took it by force.

Now, back to the Crusades, which is what we were talking about before. At that time the Pope ruled Europe and got a cut from all the trade (call it tax, levy, whatever, he got a cut) except from the lucrative trade coming in via the Silk Trade Route. Since all the kings etc also got a cut from the trade, he talked them into raising armies to capture the land at the western end of the route and they'd share in the taxes etc from everything traveling along the route. Then they came up with a way to justify the war of conquest to the masses, and the Crusades started. The telling part about what the real reason is can be seen in the way the campaigns were conducted and the emphasis put on securing the ends of the trade route over securing Jerusalem etc.

sejintenej

@richardshagrin

Being willing to die for a cause is not limited to Muslims, although their version of Paradise is different than most religions. A honeydo list for 72 virgins is likely to be longer than most.

but Muslims never dare read
http://storiesonline.net/s/13517/72-virgins

sejintenej

@Ernest Bywater

Killing the other side when in an army defending the people is a righteous event, but killing the other side while part of an army making a land grab by stealing the property of the other side is not a righteous event.

"Kill them all, God will know His own"
To find the 222 heretics it was right for the Pope Innocent III's envoy to order the slaughter of about 20,000 in Béziers?

Replies:   richardshagrin
richardshagrin
Updated:

@sejintenej

Only for certain values of "right". One of the fairly recent (20th Century) Popes decided when speaking about faith and morals, Popes are infallible. Retroactively, Pope Innocent III must have been infallibly "right".

Are we sure we want to argue about religion as well as sex? Keep it friendly. Eyeballs gouged out will be returned at the end of the fight.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@richardshagrin

One of the fairly recent (20th Century) Popes decided when speaking about faith and morals, Popes are infallible.


While the doctrine of Papal infallibility is relatively recent as a matter of church history, it is not an invention of the 20th century.

It was defined as dogma in the First Vatican Council in the 19th century, but the idea goes back to at least the Council of Trent in the 16th century.

You are also wrong about the scope of Papal Infallibility. Yes, it applies when he is speaking about faith and morals, but it also only applies when he is speaking "for the church" in his official capacity as Pope.

Also, while the basis for it is a bit shaky in my opinion, it is not, contrary to some critics of the Catholic Church, wholly a-biblical.

Paul, who is considered the first pope, was told that whatever he bound on Earth would be bound in Heaven and whatever he loosed on Earth would be loosed in Heaven. The base idea behind Papal infallibility is that this authority passed on to Paul's successors.

Replies:   richardshagrin
richardshagrin

@Dominions Son

Maybe St. Peter was the first Pope? Saint Paul is a bigger city and an insurance company, but I don't think he was a Pope.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son
Updated:

@richardshagrin

Maybe I am confusing Peter and Paul on that issue.

ETA:

You are correct.

http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?ParagraphID=etn

All the references to Paul in my prior comment should be Peter, otherwise it should be reasonably accurate.

Not_a_ID

@Ernest Bywater

Only God can deliver you to heaven, but it wasn't God who promised it. In the Bible they're told not to murder people, but they went out and murdered people. Probability factor of going to heaven after disobeying God's commandments are vanishing small.


Define murder. Killing someone in combat as part of a military or some other form of defensive act obviously wasn't viewed as a sin in the old testament as well.

Otherwise David should have been condemned when he slew Goliath, rather than praised.

Going further back(and much closer to "Thou shalt not murder") you have the twelve tribes of Isreal attacking the Canaanites(sp?) as they go about laying claim to their promised land.

There are other grey areas obviously(such as massacre events), but generally the resolution for most faiths when it comes to war is that the killing that happens is on the hands of the leadership that put those troops in that situation, not the troops themselves.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@Not_a_ID

Define murder


To murder someone you go out with the preformed intention of killing someone, either specific or general.

In regards to a military situation to start a military campaign with the intent of killing the soldiers and / or population of another political unit is murder, while taking up arms to kill soldiers and people who are attacking you and yours is self-defence and not murder. Is that clear enough for you.

So, to start a military campaign to take over the control of another group's land and business operations is to start a campaign of murder, and it matters not if you're doing it by yourself or as the head of an army.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Not_a_ID

@Ernest Bywater

So, to start a military campaign to take over the control of another group's land and business operations is to start a campaign of murder, and it matters not if you're doing it by yourself or as the head of an army.


So the (rank and file) Jews were committing murder in the old testament when they conquered their promised land at God's command?

Replies:   Ernest Bywater  Jim S
Ernest Bywater

@Not_a_ID

So the (rank and file) Jews were committing murder in the old testament when they conquered their promised land at God's command?


In my view, yes. However, I wasn't their God or their commander. And, yes, I apply the same to the events since then and today.

Jim S

@Not_a_ID

So the (rank and file) Jews were committing murder in the old testament when they conquered their promised land at God's command?


Remember that Jews were prohibited killing by the Commandments, not murder/homicide/whatever. As I understand it, killing was defined as within the 12 tribes of Jews. So David killing Goliath, while murder, was not killing.

When you think about it, that distinction pretty much carries through to today where killing the enemy in, say, war is not really "killing" per se.

Replies:   tppm
tppm

@Jim S

Remember that Jews were prohibited killing by the Commandments, not murder/homicide/whatever.


You need a better translation. The best direct translation I know of is "No Murder".

Note, I've heard that apparently all of the ten commandments (well the nine that are breakable, the first being "I am the lord, your God, who brought you out of bondage.") are all capital offenses.

Dominions Son

@tppm

You need a better translation. The best direct translation I know of is "No Murder".


More "You shall not murder"

http://www.jewfaq.org/10.htm

It should be noted that even in Biblical times, not all homicides were considered murder.

richardshagrin

@tppm

Really? All that coveting of neighbor's possessions is a capital offense? That is to say someone will "murder" you for committing it?

And does that make BDSM (bondage, etc.) a violation of the first commandment, since God brought us out of bondage?

Probably its better not to discuss religion. We argue enough about punctuation. There is only so much bandwidth to commit to the Forum.

Replies:   sejintenej
sejintenej

@richardshagrin

Really? All that coveting of neighbor's possessions is a capital offense? That is to say someone will "murder" you for committing it?

Consider the situation when those ten commandments were set in stone and to whom they were given.
It was a relatively small band trying to eke out an existence in the very hot (and bitterly cold) desert surrounded by tribes which were inherently anti Jew simply because they did not want to be thrown out of their lands. Such a band had to act cohesively and any action which loosened that cohesion was a risk for the entire band. So, any member who lusted after someone else's goat or tent of female was a risk to the entire setup.

There is a parallel to that. The Jews were not the only tribe surviving in difficult terrain. Some of the other tribes (and perhaps the Jews - I don't know) would seize slaves and concubines if they had the chance so any attractive female was kept under cover so as not to attract hostile interest. Food was also a problem - without refrigeration some foods spoiled and became poisonous very quickly so it became a tribal rule to avoid such foods for the good of the tribe.
Make of that what you will.

Back to Top