The Most Tolerant Era of All?

[Verrick]

Well, I'm sick of America. We claim to live in the most tolerant of times. People love to brag about having gay friends, and such. We love to tout about our great acceptance of those who were shunned and considered parriahs. Everyone just wants to be accepted afterall. Well, that's great... for them!

In an attempt to combat people's prejudice, the Christian citizen has been cast aside.

For an example of what I'm talking about:
YouTube - Philadelphia Eleven Arrested at OutFest 2004
Max sentence of 47 years in jail for singing Gospel music on the sidewalk, and they were charged with ethnic crimes. Ethnic crimes!? Since when is sexual orientation included in ethnicity?

Islam studies required in California district
Yeah, that's right, required Muslim education. I wonder, why can't christians do this?

Valedictorian Speech Cut off at the Name of Christ
So now we can't even state what we believe even if it isn't a witness attempt.

These are just a few examples of how Christians are being silenced.

Now, this just pisses me off. Are we really that tolerant? Yeah right! Now, have fun ripping me to shreds, as I know you probably will.

[Daphnes]

In order to please the minority, the majority is pushed aside. Christians and white men are shunned.

I have no idea why sexual preference would be compared to ethnicity, though. Homosexual, blind, deaf, mentally handicapped, ect people are not races like whites, blacks, chinese, ect are.

Hypocracy is all it is.

[Lantean]

I've said it once, I'll say it again, and I'll probably say it a million times over:

"Liberalism is a mental disorder."

It makes me sick that all these changes are for "making everyone equal." Yeah right. More like making the minority happy, while punishing the majority. That's hypocrisy at its finest.

[Tazryl]

That thing about forcing students to study Islam is horrible. That came out wrong, I would like to state I have nothing against Islam or its followers. I just do not believe it is right for students to be forced to study one religon.

Now I will state that if they had a program where they learn about all of the major religons of the world. Where they spend awhile on Islam and then sometime on Christianity, then on the Jewish culture and so on. I would be fine with this, I would even support the idea. Learning about other religons and cultures would be a good thing.

But if it is just one religon, it could be christianity or some other religon, its wrong. Either you allow the students to learn about all the relgions, but do not shove one down their throats.

But then again it should be an optional choice all together, something encouraged but not forced.

[Queen Kara of Pen Island]

We're kissing the minority's ass so they don't shoot/bomb us with their racial stereotypes.

We are far from the most tolerant era, but we were a lot worse back in the days, when women couldn't enjoy sex, show their ankles, couldn't vote, or when blacks were enslaved and when homosexuality was treated as a mental illness.

Yes, we're screwed up now, but we were even worse back in the day, is what I'm trying to say.

[Virtigo]

Originally Posted by Rhalen

Now, this just pisses me off. Are we really that tolerant? Yeah right! Now, have fun ripping me to shreds, as I know you probably will.

Ah good, you're bent over and have assumed the position. I have the lube in hand already.

Originally Posted by Rhalen

Well, I'm sick of America. We claim to live in the most tolerant of times. People love to brag about having gay friends, and such. We love to tout about our great acceptance of those who were shunned and considered parriahs. Everyone just wants to be accepted afterall. Well, that's great... for them!

Cool.

Originally Posted by Rhalen

In an attempt to combat people's prejudice, the Christian citizen has been cast aside.

Rich.

Originally Posted by Rhalen

For an example of what I'm talking about:
YouTube - Philadelphia Eleven Arrested at OutFest 2004
Max sentence of 47 years in jail for singing Gospel music on the sidewalk, and they were charged with ethnic crimes. Ethnic crimes!? Since when is sexual orientation included in ethnicity?

And? Freedom of assembly is allowed to both the Christian and Gay groups in that video. The charges of obstruction are total bull, applying only to government attempt, not a counter protest by other free citizens.

Philadelphia had every right to charge said characters under law, since sexual orientation is included within the 'ethnic crimes' law. Complaining about sexuality not being ethnic in nature is pointless - this is a hate-crime law and is meant for prosecution of aggressive bigotry. They could have called it anything they wanted and it would make little difference.

Originally Posted by Rhalen

Islam studies required in California district
Yeah, that's right, required Muslim education. I wonder, why can't christians do this?

GEE IT SURE IS 2002 IN HERE

Urban Legends Reference Pages: Islam Studies in California Schools

Enjoy your reality.

Originally Posted by Rhalen

Valedictorian Speech Cut off at the Name of Christ
So now we can't even state what we believe even if it isn't a witness attempt.

School policy told her no proselytizing, and public school is in-fact government property - that is school funding being used to host the ceremony is government funding.

They not only had every right to demand valedictorian speeches remain secular, they had the right to enforce it. You are free to state whatever your belief may be. I'm sure she did so incessantly, being one to break a school policy on something as prestigious and guarded as the valedictorian address over such a thing. But, like how you cannot have a specific denominational prayer spoken before a public school football match, so too can you not allow appearances of supporting one faith over any other. The school has to either allow ALL forms of religious expression from state-funded pulpits, or none at all.

This particular school chose none at all, apparently. So I couldn't invoke the name of Allah in my speech. Big whoop. Too many people confuse true pious worship with arrogant showboating.

These are just a few examples of how Christians are being silenced.

Look, just because a certain brand of faith (as in it's only a certain kind of Christians looked down on somewhat) is no longer haute culture is no grounds for crying martyrdom. We've yet to throw them to the lions (well, maybe to the vampires in many horror movies) and people are totally free to preach whatever they want on public property, so long as it is not subversive to public order and, in some states and cities, overly offensive or callous towards another group.

The Philadelphia Eleven bit it for preaching the standard God-hates-fags fare (unless you somehow believe a homosexual gang in bright pink shirts jumped them over preaching Jesus making tons of fish for everyone). Philadelphia believed their actions constituted one qualified for a breach of hate-crime laws. Whatever. Preach on the sidewalk about humility and forgiveness and love. Leave the hate-speech for private property.

[Mad Hatter]

EDIT: Once again, Virtigo says it better than anyone could think of saying it.

Originally Posted by Rhalen

For an example of what I'm talking about:
YouTube - Philadelphia Eleven Arrested at OutFest 2004
Max sentence of 47 years in jail for singing Gospel music on the sidewalk, and they were charged with ethnic crimes. Ethnic crimes!? Since when is sexual orientation included in ethnicity?

You're being very disingenuous here. You know they weren't arrested for "singing Gospel music on the sidewalk." They were arrested for remarks they were making (like when they were shouting at the homosexuals, telling them they were going to hell), blocking the street, and disobeying police orders.

Obviously they had no chance of getting 47 years. It really bugged me to see reports of "CHRISTIANS FACE 47 YEARS IN PRISON." Very few people ever get the maximum sentence, and that's assuming they're found guilty. These charges, of course, were dismissed.

Lastly, "ethnic crimes" of course doesn't always refer specifically to ethnicities. Harassing people because of their race, religion, nationality, gender, etc. also falls under "ethnic crimes."

I support their right to protest, but try to be honest when you report these things.

Islam studies required in California district
Yeah, that's right, required Muslim education. I wonder, why can't christians do this?

They can. It's called comparative religion. Obviously this school took it too far with its role-playing (which is a very good way of teaching, for non-controversial things at least). But to label this as intolerance is ridiculous. The school did this after 9/11 so students would actually get an idea of who these people are. I had to learn about Islam in my Christian school. I don't know if you're trying to make yourself look like a victim or what, but we teach these things for tolerance. They were not taught to follow Islam; they were taught what Muslims follow.

The article you linked to wasn't entirely accurate. The role-playing was only done in one school; it wasn't required in the curriculum.

I agree, though, that the school was quite stupid in taking it to that extent.

Originally Posted by Blizziga

I've said it once, I'll say it again, and I'll probably say it a million times over:

"Liberalism is a mental disorder."

I couldn't help notice what a stunning piece of literature that is. We quote quotes because we really admire the brilliant use of language. We use them when we could never say it better ourselves. I really admire Michael Savage's ability to make something so quote-able while leaving out any resemblance wit, elegance, cleverness, class, humour, and hell - even truthfulness. It's just his opinion to the bare minimum, like it should be. Screw eloquence. The best part about it, and I hope this wins him the Pulitzer, is how specific it is. For example, I could never just say, "Republicanism is a mental disorder," because that would be crazy. Clearly Savage has said what nobody else dares to say.


Apologies for the sarcasm, and for contributing nothing of substance. But hey, it's the quote I'm attacking, not you And yes, I will point out how absolutely ridiculous that quote is every time you post it.

[Lantean]

Good, you do that. As long as I find something that applies, I will quote that.

[Sanny17]

Most tolerant era, maybe. I think so, although I can't substantiate this. However, what I do know is that we still have a long way to go from being really tolerant.

I remember in the Netherlands ten years back, there was quite a big intolerance towards Turks and Moroccan people. Now there is still some intolerance, but it has gotten a whole lot better in my opinion.

The thing with tolerance is, is that by nature we are kind of suspicious and unfriendly towards 'new' cultures and people, especially if this is enhanced by talking with intolerant people. In reality, there is some truth in our feelings towards others. I mean, should we be tolerant towards Satanists or the KKK? I guess we have to distinguish a line between bad and different.

The thing with being tolerant with some groups such as Satanists is that they will harm and take action towards other groups. Therefore, to protect the majority, we have to set boundaries and disregard views from such groups. Some go further and attack the group that is said being 'evil' or 'bad' by saying this is for protection and we cannot allow such groups to exist in order to live in harmony with the world around us. The idea is fine, but we need to really look at how far we go in our intolerance or otherwise we might be just as bad as say the KKK. Are Muslims all terrorists of need to be killed to protect the majority? This is one of the questions that needs answering before action is taken.

Also, the problem with majority and minority is that sometimes the minority actually has better ideas and views towards living in a better world together. Of course if you support anarchy, this is questionable and the majority should not suffer from the acts and views from a small group of people. But what about equality in sex preference? And what about groups that give up all belongings to live in nature to preserve it? Isn't that actually better than what the majority is doing? Of course, most people don't go too far in following morals, especially if it doesn't affect them personally.

To be honest, with the differing views of six billion people, it is really hard to strike a balance between what is a bad element in our world in need of removal and a good element in need of preserving. In many of the topics in this sub-forum alone there are so many differing opinions about a wide variety of topics. And who's to say whose correct. Some can substantiate their claims better, but really in the end a lot of topics have arguments for both sides. I think in the end, if an opinion/group doesn't physically or mentally (meaning excessive mental violence) hurt others, I'm okay with that, as long as we keep in mind also our environment, that is besides just us humans.

What do you think?

Have a nice day,

Sander K.

[GDwarf]

Originally Posted by Rhalen

In an attempt to combat people's prejudice, the Christian citizen has been cast aside.

Please don't cry martyrdom. Christians are the majority in the least-secular country in the western world.

You'd have to go out of your way to accept some very fringe Christian beliefs before there's even a chance of you being persecuted against.

For an example of what I'm talking about:
YouTube - Philadelphia Eleven Arrested at OutFest 2004
Max sentence of 47 years in jail for singing Gospel music on the sidewalk, and they were charged with ethnic crimes. Ethnic crimes!? Since when is sexual orientation included in ethnicity?

Of course sexual orientation is part of the law, it's an invalid grounds of discrimination.

In addition, they weren't arrested for singing gospel music, as you very well know.

Valedictorian Speech Cut off at the Name of Christ
So now we can't even state what we believe even if it isn't a witness attempt.

Oh come off it.

She wasn't "stating what she believes" she was preaching after she was specifically told not to.

Tell me, how would you feel if, at your graduation, the summation of your highschool career, your valedictorian stood up and proceeded to say that all Christians were going to hell?

Or, even if she didn't do that, if she just went on and on about how awesome being a Muslim is and how you should accept Allah as your saviour?


Believe it or not, Valedictorian speeches are not public platforms to say whatever you want, they're for the valedictorian to try and sum up highschool and give an encouraging message.

[Chencheya]

Yeah right, Rhalen. I assume, going by Virtigo's, GDwarf's and Mad Hatter's extremely good posts (kudos to them for going into depth about those links and bringing things up to date), you're being intentionally dishonest as well as adopting an overly sensitive martyrdom complex?

Just because your religion isn't allowed to trample everyone else's rights to the ground anymore doesn't mean that your faith being persecuted. Christianity has had it's time to shine, and now it's time to give other minorities and people of different faith some freedom without being overshadowed by intolerance. If any particular 'faith' is being persecuted in the good 'ol US of A, it's atheism more than Christianity will ever be. In fact, atheism is the one of the few things in which it's still legal to discriminate against

Here, something from wikipedia to think about.

In the United States, there is widespread disapproval of atheists. For example, according to motherjones.com, 52% of Americans claim they would not vote for a well-qualified atheist for president.[9] More recently a 2007 Gallup poll produced nearly identical results.[10] A 2006 study at the University of Minnesota showed atheists to be the most distrusted minority among Americans.[11] Notwithstanding such attitudes, atheists are legally protected from discrimination in the United States. They have been among the strongest advocates of the legal separation of church and state. American courts have regularly, if controversially, interpreted the constitutional requirement for separation of church and state as protecting the freedoms of non-believers, as well as prohibiting the establishment of any state religion. Atheists often sum up the legal situation with the phrase: Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.[citation needed]

In the 1994 case[12] Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, Justice Souter wrote in the opinion for the Court that: "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion." [13] Everson v. Board of Education established that "neither a state nor the Federal Government can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another". This applies the Establishment Clause to the states as well as the federal government.[14] However, several state constitutions make the protection of persons from religious discrimination conditional on their acknowledgment of the existence of a deity, making freedom of religion in those states inapplicable to atheists. These state constitutional clauses have not been tested. Civil rights cases are typically brought in federal courts, so such state provisions are mainly of symbolic importance.

In the Newdow case, after a father challenged the phrase "under God" in the United States Pledge of Allegiance, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found the phrase unconstitutional. Although the decision was stayed pending the outcome of an appeal, there was the prospect that the pledge would cease to be legally usable without modification in schools in the western United States, over which the Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction. This resulted in political furor, and both houses of Congress passed resolutions condemning the decision, unanimously.[15]. On June 26, a Republican-dominated group of 100-150 congressmen stood outside the capital and recited the pledge - showing how much they disagreed with the decision.[15] The Supreme Court subsequently reversed the decision, ruling that Michael Newdow did not have standing to bring his case, thus disposing of the case without ruling on the constitutionality of the pledge.

Several private organizations, the most notable being the Boy Scouts of America, do not allow atheist members. However, this policy has come under fire by organizations who assert that the Boy Scouts of America do profit from taxpayer money and thus cannot be called a truly private organization, and thus must admit atheists (along with gays, and others currently barred from membership). An organization called Scouting for All,[16] founded by Eagle Scout Steven Cozza, is at the forefront of the movement to expose perceived hypocrisy on the part of the Boy Scouts of America. Cozza and others allege that when the BSA wants to discriminate, they act as a private organization; when they want money or the use of publicly-funded buildings, venues, or property, they act as a public organization.

Some state constitutions in the US require a religious test as a qualification for holding public office or being a witness, though a unanimous 1961 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Torcaso v. Watkins held that the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution override the state requirements.[17] The states which still have religious tests on the books include:

* Arkansas' Constitution of 1874 (Article 19, Section 1) states: "Atheists disqualified from holding office or testifying as witness. No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court."[18]

* North Carolina's Constitution of 1971 (Article 6, Section 8) states: "Disqualifications of office. The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God...."[19]. This was challenged and overturned by Voswinkel v. Hunt (1979).[citation needed]

* South Carolina's Constitution of 2006 (Article 6, Section 2) states: "Person denying existence of Supreme Being not to hold office. No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution."[20]

* Tennessee's Constitution/Bill of Rights (Article 9, Section 2) states: "No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state."[21]

* Texas' Constitution: The Bill of Rights (Article I, Section 4) last amended on September 13, 2003 states that an official may be "excluded from holding office" if she/he does not "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."[22] Overturned by O'Hair v. Hill (1978-84).[citation needed]

* Maryland's Bill of Rights:[23] "That as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore, no person ought by any law to be molested in his person or estate, on account of his religious persuasion, or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent, or maintain, or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain, any place of worship, or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefore either in this world or in the world to come." o Article 37: "That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution."o Overturned in Torcaso v. Watkins.[24]

Christians persecuted? PUHLEEZE.

Also: The Boy Scouts of America is the largest youth organization in the United States, and actively has policies in place which prohibit atheists, agnostics, and "known or avowed" homosexuals from membership in its scouting programme at all. Both youths and adults have had their memberships revoked as a result.

Who is persecuted again? Lemme hear it!

[Ogmios22188]

Blizzaga, you do know that liberalism is what this country was, to a degree, founded on, right?

[Margar]

Originally Posted by Ogmios22188

Blizzaga, you do know that liberalism is what this country was, to a degree, founded on, right?

the word "Liberalism" has been twisted by the extreme right to mean something other than what it actually does. they have twisted it into practically a dirty word.
Liberal does not mean tree-hugging, baby-killing, gun-banning, atheist, homosexual people with an agenda of converting the world to evil.

grrrr... I won't go any further, lest I get pissed off and ruin my air shift (I'm still at work, LOL)

Originally Posted by GDwarf

Tell me, how would you feel if, at your graduation, the summation of your highschool career, your valedictorian stood up and proceeded to say that all Christians were going to hell?

Or, even if she didn't do that, if she just went on and on about how awesome being a Muslim is and how you should accept Allah as your saviour?


Believe it or not, Valedictorian speeches are not public platforms to say whatever you want, they're for the valedictorian to try and sum up highschool and give an encouraging message.

QFT

[Skoomzeh]

Sums it all up, I say.

[Daemonius]

Originally Posted by Ogmios22188

Blizzaga, you do know that liberalism is what this country was, to a degree, founded on, right?

Or is that what you're led to believe?

[Ogmios22188]

Originally Posted by Daemonius

Or is that what you're led to believe?

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
lib·er·al·ism Audio Help /ˈlɪbərəˌlɪzəm, ˈlɪbrə-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[lib-er-uh-liz-uhm, lib-ruh-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the quality or state of being liberal, as in behavior or attitude.
2. a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.
3. (sometimes initial capital letter) the principles and practices of a liberal party in politics.
4. a movement in modern Protestantism that emphasizes freedom from tradition and authority, the adjustment of religious beliefs to scientific conceptions, and the development of spiritual capacities.
[Origin: 1810–20; liberal + -ism]

—Related forms
lib·er·al·ist, noun, adjective
lib·er·al·is·tic, adjective
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

You tell me.

[Igna]

I agree with everything Virtigo, Mad Hatter, and GDwarf said...except for the part about the lube.

Yeah, that's right, required Muslim education. I wonder, why can't christians do this?

As mentioned before, they weren't courses on the actual theology, they were courses on the history of it. We already learn enough about Christian history in our curriculum, while most other religions don't get any mention at all, so where's the problem?

Sort of like how a course about the history of African Americans might be more acceptable than a course about White Americans. Both are somewhat redundant with American History, but the latter is clearly more so, to the point of stupidity.

[Flames of Valor]

Well, I'm sick of America.

Why don't you go to say, China, where they will KILL you if you step out of line and speak up. Why don't you piss and moan about the much less tolerant countries?

You tell me.

I will tell you that it is a state of mind. It also has nearly nothing to do today with the start of our country. Liberals today, want bigger government. Which is against the founding principals. WAY against the founding principals. They are against a fair tax, but instead advocate the heavy taxing of the rich. Which is against our founding principles. They are also, not thinking in the best interest of our defense. Which is against the founding principles.

A definition means nothing. It is all in the persons head.

[Ogmios22188]

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

I will tell you that it is a state of mind. It also has nearly nothing to do today with the start of our country. Liberals today, want bigger government. Which is against the founding principals. WAY against the founding principals. They are against a fair tax, but instead advocate the heavy taxing of the rich. Which is against our founding principles. They are also, not thinking in the best interest of our defense. Which is against the founding principles.

A definition means nothing. It is all in the persons head.

Uh, no; a definition means everything. Without definitions we would have no language and wouldn't be able to communicate in the manner in which we do. See, if I didn't know that by head you meant:

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
head Audio Help /hɛd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[hed] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the upper part of the body in humans, joined to the trunk by the neck, containing the brain, eyes, ears, nose, and mouth.
2. the corresponding part of the body in other animals.
3. the head considered as the center of the intellect, as of thought, memory, understanding, or emotional control; mind; brain: She has a good head for mathematics. Keep a cool head in an emergency.
4. the position or place of leadership, greatest authority, or honor.
5. a person to whom others are subordinate, as the director of an institution or the manager of a department; leader or chief.
6. a person considered with reference to his or her mind, disposition, attributes, status, etc.: wise heads; crowned heads.
7. that part of anything that forms or is regarded as forming the top, summit, or upper end: head of a pin; head of a page.
8. the foremost part or front end of anything or a forward projecting part: head of a procession.
9. the part of a weapon, tool, etc., used for striking: the head of a hammer.
10. a person or animal considered merely as one of a number, herd, or group: ten head of cattle; a dinner at $20 a head.
11. a culminating point, usually of a critical nature; crisis or climax: to bring matters to a head.
12. the hair covering the head: to wash one's head.
13. froth or foam at the top of a liquid: the head on beer.
14. Botany.
a. any dense flower cluster or inflorescence.
b. any other compact part of a plant, usually at the top of the stem, as that composed of leaves in the cabbage or lettuce, of leafstalks in the celery, or of flower buds in the cauliflower.
15. the maturated part of an abscess, boil, etc.
16. a projecting point of a coast, esp. when high, as a cape, headland, or promontory.
17. the obverse of a coin, as bearing a head or other principal figure (opposed to tail).
18. one of the chief parts or points of a written or oral discourse; a main division of a subject, theme, or topic.
19. something resembling a head in form or a representation of a head, as a piece of sculpture.
20. the source of a river or stream.
21. Slang.
a. a habitual user of a drug, esp. LSD or marijuana (often used in combination): feds versus the heads; an acid-head; a pothead.
b. a fan or devotee (usually used in combination): a punk-rock head; a chili head.
22. heads, Distilling. alcohol produced during the initial fermentation. Compare tail1 (def. 6d).
23. headline.
24. a toilet or lavatory, esp. on a boat or ship.
25. Nautical.
a. the forepart of a vessel; bow.
b. the upper edge of a quadrilateral sail.
c. the upper corner of a jib-headed sail.
d. that part of the upper end of one spar of a mast that is overlapped by a spar above; a doubling at the upper end of a spar.
e. that part of the upper end of a mast between the highest standing rigging and the truck.
f. crown (def. 28).
26. Grammar.
a. the member of an endocentric construction that belongs to the same form class and may play the same grammatical role as the construction itself.
b. the member upon which another depends and to which it is subordinate. In former presidents, presidents is head and former is modifier.
27. the stretched membrane covering the end of a drum or similar musical instrument.
28. Mining. a level or road driven into solid coal for proving or working a mine.
29. Machinery. any of various devices on machine tools for holding, moving, indexing, or changing tools or work, as the headstock or turret of a lathe.
30. Railroads. railhead (def. 3).
31. (loosely) the pressure exerted by confined fluid: a head of steam.
32. Also ca