View Full Forums : Where do we draw the line?


B_Delacroix
12-21-2004, 08:01 AM
Well, anything remotely thought of as even being close to religious is now being banned in some places. What a dull dull world we will live in when everything that even partially offends anyone is banned.

http://www.floridatoday.com/topstories/121704aptrees.htm

Hey, its your world, I'm just living in it.

Lowerth
12-21-2004, 08:43 AM
Talking to a friend from the USA yesterday before my Children's Christmas Concert I realized how nice being Canadian is.
They do not have a concert before the Christmas Holidays because of the "no God in school".
It's time the Rule makers/Merchandisers gave Christmas back to the Children.
Lowerth

Anka
12-21-2004, 09:19 AM
Flip side story this week in the UK ... www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-13268868,00.html
(From sky news with their spelling of playwright)

PLAYWRITE IN HIDING

The writer of a play that sparked a mini-riot is in hiding after threats to her life.

Hours after performances of her controversial drama were called off, Gurpeet Kaur Bhatti fled her home.

And she has warned that "mob rule" is endangering freedom of expression.

Protesters said her play, Behzti, was demeaning to followers of Sikhism because it showed rape and murder in a Sikh temple.

Violence broke out during a demonstration against the play, which was being performed at Birmingham's Rep theatre.

Some 400 protesters attempted to storm the building and thousands of pounds worth of damage was done to theatre equipment.

Ms Bhatti, who is Sikh herself, has remained silent since her show was cancelled, but friends have spoken out.

Filmmaker Shakila Taranum Mann told The Guardian: "She has been threatened with murder and told to go into hiding by the police. She is personally paying a high price."

The pal added: "She feels this is an attempt to censor her. It is mob rule."

Panamah
12-21-2004, 11:15 AM
What's I find humorous is that the Christmas holiday really has nothing to do with what it is supposed to be... the birth of christ. It was stolen, christmas trees included, from some other religion or tradition, so that the people who converted to Christianity had their favorite winter traditions still.

So the irony is Christians are complaining about the pagan elements of their holiday being taken away. What's next, taking the egg out of easter? Christmas tree's only relationship to christianity is in the name. I doubt they had many conifer's in Bethlehem. Call them Holiday Trees and they're nicely secularized and shouldn't offend anyone's sensibilities.

B_Delacroix
12-21-2004, 11:46 AM
Cedar (http://www.2020site.org/trees/lebanon.html) trees are actually very much from the mid east area, however, in general, I agree with the silliness of the whole thing being mixed up with Christmas.

Panamah
12-21-2004, 12:29 PM
That cedar tree looks about as much like a christmas tree as my cat looks like the baby jesus. :D

I seem to recall, from some A&E biography thing, that Queen Victoria's hubby... old what'shisname, brought christmas trees from his German childhood to England.

Lets see, we've got:

Santa Claus (from some N. European traditions)
X-mas trees (not sure...)
Yule Logs (pre-christian, big old log supposed to burn 24 hours or so)

And then all the christmas lights we have nowadays, maybe we stole that from the Jews and their Holiday of Lights (hope I'm not butchering that too much).

Hmmm... anything else?

Anyway, my theory is, people aren't really concerned that religion is getting stripped out of the holiday -- because it was a total polyglot of a holdiay anyway, it is that their tradition they've loved since childhood is changing. It'd be like reformulating Malt O Meal or something.

Scirocco
12-21-2004, 12:57 PM
Christmas on Dec. 25th, of course, is just the disguised Saturnalia. I think it was Pope Julius I around AD 350 who first declared that Dec. 25th would be the date of celebration of the birth of Jesus.

So, let's give Christmas back to the pagans! (Errr, waitaminnit...we already have...)

Panamah
12-21-2004, 02:12 PM
Oh hey! I just discovered Wikipedia. Very, very cool! Here is what it says about the date of Christmas:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas#Theories_regarding_the_origin_of_the_dat e_of_Christmas
Theories regarding the origin of the date of Christmas
Related article: Chronology of Jesus' birth and death

Many different dates have been suggested for the celebration of Christmas. No explanation of why it is celebrated on December 25 is universally accepted. Theories include the following:

The Catholic Encyclopedia article on "Christmas" (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03724b.htm) offers a starting-point for Christmas, which does not appear among the earliest lists of Christian feasts, those of Irenaeus and Tertullian. The earliest evidence of celebration is from Alexandria, about 200 A.D., when Clement of Alexandria says that certain Egyptian theologians "over curiously" assign not just the year but the actual day of Christ's birth.4 ,on 25 Pachon (May 20) in the twenty-eighth year of Augustus. By the time of the Council of Nicea, 325 A.D. the Alexandrian church had fixed a dies Nativitatis et Epiphaniae. The December feast reached Egypt in the 5th century. In Jerusalem, Egeria the 4th century pilgrim from Bordeaux, witnessed the feast of the Presentation, forty days after January 6, which must have been the date of the Nativity there. At Antioch, probably in 386, St John Chrysostom urged the community to unite in celebrating Christ's birth on December 25, a part of the community having already kept it on that day for at least ten years.
It is an appropriation by early Christians of a day on which the birth of several pagan gods, Osiris, Jupiter, and Plutus, or the ancient deified leader Nimrod, was celebrated.
It is an appropriation of the pagan Midwinter festivals, such as the Germanic Yule and the Roman festival of the birth of Unconquered Sun, celebrated on the day after the winter solstice, or the Roman festival of Saturnalia.
It derives from the tradition that Jesus was born during the Jewish Festival of Lights (Hanukkah, the 25th of Kislev and the beginning of Tevet). Kislev is generally accepted as corresponding with December. Under the Old Julian calendar, the popular choice of 5 BC for the year of Jesus's birth would place the 25th of Kislev on the 25th of November.
The date of Christmas is based on the date of Good Friday, the day Jesus died. Since the exact date of Jesus' death is not stated in the Gospels, early Christians sought to calculate it, and arrived at either March 25 or April 6. To then calculate the date of Jesus' birth, they followed the ancient idea that Old Testament prophets died at an "integral age"—either an anniversary of their birth or of their conception. They reasoned that Jesus died on an anniversary of the Incarnation (his conception), so the date of his birth would have been nine months after the date of Good Friday—either December 25 or January 6. Thus, rather than the date of Christmas being appropriated from pagans by Christians, the opposite is held to have occurred. [See Duchesne (1902) and Talley (1986).]


Saturnalia.

Hold on now... wouldn't the true meaning of christmas involve an orgy then?

LOL! I thought I was just joking! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturnalia)

Damn you, Christians! You had to go an ruin Christmas! Seems like the Romans should've drawn the line... then we could've avoided all this debate over manger scenes and the true meaning of the holiday would have involved orgasms.

Anka
12-21-2004, 02:32 PM
Is it traditional in the US to have a star, angel, or fairy on the top of the christmas tree? All traditions with fairies probably come from celtic roots.

I think the word Easter comes from the name of a Norse goddess (Eostre?) and the easter bunnies and eggs come from her festivals, not the ressurection of christ. Early European christianity needed to mix with existing beliefs to gain converts. Many of the earliest crosses found in Britain have either celtic patterns or the hammer heads of Thor's crossed weapons.

Panamah
12-21-2004, 06:11 PM
Anka, I think in those days the religion with the funnest holidays won. :D

Vindler
12-21-2004, 09:16 PM
We always had a star/angel for our tree when I was growing up.

I always did like the old norse and celtic myths better than sunday school anyway lol

Tiane
12-21-2004, 10:36 PM
My family rotates yearly between a stuffed Kermit, Fozzie and Ms Piggy at the top of the tree 8)

Tudamorf
12-21-2004, 11:16 PM
What difference does it make where the symbols originally come from? It's sufficient that they have religious significance today. The swastika, for example, has ancient roots, but if you use it today, it would be offensive due to the modern historical connotation.

Although placing traditional religious symbols (such as the Christmas tree) in public places might not violate the Constitution, that doesn't mean that public places can't decide, in the interest of fairness and good taste, to exclude them.
What a dull dull world we will live in when everything that even partially offends anyone is banned.Not everything, just religious symbols in a public place. The United States was founded on a history of separation of church and state, and many non-Christians don't appreciate an apparent endorsement of Christianity when the government ought to be neutral. With all that is going on today, I need not remind you of the dangers of government-mandated religion.

Kryttos Arcadia
12-21-2004, 11:41 PM
The United States was founded on a history of separation of church and state

No it wasnt. OUr country was founded on the freedom of religions,a nd the free excercise thereof. IF you CAREFULLY read the Constituation and the Bill of Rights. there is no stipulation for seperation of church and state, SOCAS is made up.

Tudamorf
12-22-2004, 12:43 AM
No it wasnt. OUr country was founded on the freedom of religions,a nd the free excercise thereof. IF you CAREFULLY read the Constituation and the Bill of Rights. there is no stipulation for seperation of church and state, SOCAS is made up.
Of course there is, it's plainly written in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The prohibition against establishment of religion means, in plain terms, that the government can't force you to practice a certain, religion or establish/endorse a national religion (i.e., separation of church and state). Free exercise, a separate right, is your right to practice your own religion without governmental interference. Two different rights, basically flip sides of the same coin.

These rights have been slowly whittled down by the U.S. Supreme Court in the past decades, but they still exist, and they certainly are fundamental to the tradition of freedom and liberty in the United States.

Aidon
12-22-2004, 04:16 AM
Talking to a friend from the USA yesterday before my Children's Christmas Concert I realized how nice being Canadian is.
They do not have a concert before the Christmas Holidays because of the "no God in school".
It's time the Rule makers/Merchandisers gave Christmas back to the Children.
Lowerth

Thank you, but keep your Christmas away from my children (when I have some).

I used to get suspended on a yearly regular basis in elementary school for refusing to sing those putrid Christmas Carol's in music class.

The teacher seemed to think because she tossed "Dreidel Dreidel Dreidel" into the line up, that made up for the rest.

If Christmas is that important to you and your kids, I'm sure you'll make a fine go of it at home.

No Christmas trees at governmental buildings. No menorah either.

Aidon
12-22-2004, 04:19 AM
And then all the christmas lights we have nowadays, maybe we stole that from the Jews and their Holiday of Lights (hope I'm not butchering that too much).


Most pre-Christian religions in the mid-east and Europe included many lights...since it all started as a celebration of the Winter Solstice...the longest night of the year.

So...its not particularly taken from Hannukah (Festival of Lights), since Hannukah was taken from pre-existing religious celebration of the Winter Solstice , for all intents and purposes.

Aidon
12-22-2004, 04:34 AM
No it wasnt. OUr country was founded on the freedom of religions,a nd the free excercise thereof. IF you CAREFULLY read the Constituation and the Bill of Rights. there is no stipulation for seperation of church and state, SOCAS is made up.

If you read the Bill of Rights...it states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Now, if Congress is explicitly forbidden from doing something, that doesn't mean other bodies can do so through non-legislative means.

Hence the legal ideal of the Seperation of Church and State. If the State embraces any religion, it de facto, if not de jure, establishes religion.

By erecting Christmas trees on public grounds....a municipality is establishing religion.

Kryttos Arcadia
12-22-2004, 05:19 AM
Christmas trees are not religious.......

lets change the name to Holiday Tree.. is it acceptable then?

Anka
12-22-2004, 05:20 AM
It is possible for religious customs to cease being celebrated for their religious significance and just become local customs. That is the position that christmas trees have nowadays, if they ever had any religious significance anyway.

By erecting Christmas trees on public grounds....a municipality is establishing religion.

No it's not. People of all religions should be able to parade down public streets on festival days, hold dances in public halls, hold carnivals in public parks, and display traditional symbols. As long as all religions have access based of their needs, what is the problem?

Kryttos Arcadia
12-22-2004, 06:05 AM
Im gonna post this. and some arent gonna like it.. but take it for perspective.


Weapons Of
Christmas Destruction
By Edgar J. Steele
12-16-4


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
--- Amendment I, Constitution of the United States of America

Though my wife and I now home school our children, still they attend public school to participate in band, choir and physical activities. Yes, I know - don't start with me. It was a compromise we struck in order to get them out of the propaganda-laden, under performing classrooms in the first place.

My son came home the other day and mentioned that a Jewish classmate objected to the use of the word "Christmas" in signs posted in the hallways, saying they "offended" her and made her feel "excluded." She told him that the signs violated the Constitutional mandate that Church and State be separated.

I pointed out to my son that the "Church/State Separation" thing simply is a myth, albeit one adopted by virtually all of American society. In fact, the Constitutional mandate about religion is found in the "Establishment Clause" of the First Amendment, quoted above. America's founders were particularly concerned that there be no dominant religious power in America, akin to that wielded by the Church of England. No Church of America telling everybody what to do, in other words.

Today, the Founders' intent has been distorted beyond recognition and carried to ludicrous extremes:

An Oregon kindergarten child was barred from giving his Christmas card to fellow students last Christmas merely because it mentioned Jesus Christ. (Christmas Card with 'Jesus' Banned, WorldNet Daily, 2/10/04.

In Seattle just recently, a King County administrative directive instructed county employees not to say "Merry Christmas." (Santa is Appalled, Bill O'Reilly, 12/22/04) It is unclear to me whether that ban extends to their personal lives and homes.

A New Jersey high school band was precluded from playing Christmas carols, even instrumentals, at its annual concert this year.

In Chicago recently, one school substituted "swinging holiday" for "Merry Christmas" in its annual rendition of "We Wish You a Merry Christmas."

School districts in Florida and New Jersey have banned Christmas carols altogether. However, in both Florida and Chicago, Hanukkah and Kwanzaa songs are included in the approved concert programs.

A Maine school district has banned Christmas trees, following in the steps of many others throughout the country, including the Indiana University School of Law, which clearly knows better.

In Denver, a church float was excluded from this year's "Parade of Lights" parade because it carried carolers and was emblazoned with a "Merry Christmas" banner. Approved, however, was a float from a Native American homosexual group.

In Washington, a school principal banned Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" because of Tiny Tim's prayer: "God bless us all, every one."

And, it's not just public venues. Private organizations and corporations are every bit as politically correct. Target Stores has told Salvation Army to take a hike and clutter the sidewalks in front of its stores no more. Macy's has outlawed the use of "Merry Christmas" by employees, mandating the saccharin "Happy Holidays," instead.

How you get from the Founders' desire to prevent a Church of America to banning the word Christmas is beyond me.

Nor is the madness confined to America.

In Milan, Italy, a school substituted "virtue" for "Jesus" in a Christmas hymn. In northern Italy, the Treviso public elementary school substituted Little Red Riding Hood for its formerly-traditional Nativity play.

In France, chocolates were recalled from school distribution simply because they bore the imprint of crosses.

In Scotland last year, Edinburgh's Royal Hospital for Sick Children banned distribution of a free charity Christmas CD because it mentioned "the baby Jesus." At the same time, Scotland's Parliament banned "Merry Christmas" from greeting cards sent by MSPs or their staff.

For the moment, let us assume that things simply are as they are claimed to be by those issuing the orders - that they are endeavoring to comply with Constitutional requirements. It is a red herring, by the way, but more on that once we dispose of the Constitutional argument, which itself is wrong.

In reality, the "separation of church and state" shibboleth has evolved from a succession of US Supreme Court decisions dealing with the First Amendment. As we have seen in particular just lately, the Supreme Court bends to prevailing political winds and merely claims to be enforcing the Constitution.

It was only 20 years ago, in http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case
&court=US&vol=473&invol=402
Aguilar v. Felton (1985), that the Supremes first enunciated their "excessive entanglement" theme when they struck down governmental partial funding of a church school's strictly-secular academic program because it would "result in the excessive entanglement of church and state" (in overseeing the use of funds to ensure that a state religion was not thereby established, I suppose, was the unspoken rationale). Nearly forty years earlier, Justice Hugo Black first laid the groundwork for modern separationist thinking, in
(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=330&invol=1
Everson v. Board of Education (1947): "No tax in any amount large or small can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion."

Go <http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/vouch3.htm>here for a particularly good, albeit leftist, overview of the development of the prevailing law concerning separation of Church and State.

Even the Supremes have yet to mandate the removal of Christ from Christmas or, even, prayer from schools (yes, it is still legal to say grace over your lunch - in fact, it is still legal for students to get their own prayer groups together on school property). But, it's coming, I suppose. They are political creatures, after all.

Fact is, there has yet to be mandated true Church/State separation. It is public funding and/or official support for parochial activity that is frowned upon. There still is a somewhat tenuous connection to the Founders' desire to prevent the establishment of a state religion, or a Church of America, but the connection has become so attenuated as to be near nonexistent.

What really gets lost in all the hooha is the "free exercise" part of the First Amendment. For example, does forcing schoolchildren to eat their lunches without saying grace, if that is their preference, inhibit their "free exercise" of religion? You bet. Does taking Christ out of Christmas interfere with "free exercise?" Does taking down crosses from public venues prevent the "free exercise?" Is the Pope Catholic?

There is an inbred tension between the two aspects of the establishment clause. In fact, as now "interpreted" by most American authorities (and not far behind them are the Supremes), the two aspects are mutually exclusive, with free exercise coming out the loser. Yet, America's Founders intended only that there be no Theocracy established to run America. No "establishment of a state religion," in other words. They didn't intend that little girls be prevented from praying. On the contrary. Let's use a little common sense here, folks.

During the original Constitutional Convention, America's Founding Fathers took frequent breaks to pray for divine guidance in their drafting of a charter for their new country. Does that sound like they intended complete separation of Church from State? And, get this, once and for all: America was founded as a Christian nation. Not Judeo-Christian. Not Muslim. Not strictly secular. Christian. Get over it. It is a part of our heritage, regardless of our current religious persuasion.

The Founders saw rights emanating from the Creator, not government: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...." Sound familiar? It should. Declaration of Independence, donchaknow.

As with so many things today, there has been a subversion of original intent. Why? It has been no accident, I assure you.

I understand the reasoning behind full separation. I appreciate the underlying logic. Let me analogize for a moment. In my twenties, as an employee at a succession of firms, I noticed that birthday celebrations almost always were stilted and forced affairs...except in those few, rare cases involving people who were widely admired. I always thought it unfair to the socially inept or physically unattractive that they be forced to endure "celebrations" of their own birthdays on company time that were pale imitations of those given their more popular counterparts. Or, worse, that only the more popular got the cake and the glad tidings.

When I started my own firm, I resolved never to allow any employee to feel that particular shame. I solved the problem by discouraging birthday celebrations altogether and, instead, insisting that each employee take their birthday off, as a sort of personal holiday. I never had any gripes. Take it into your personal life, which is none of my business, was the unstated policy.

There is no way to apply my solution directly to American society, of course. All this already is our personal lives. Christmas already is a holiday, for one thing. Getting away would require leaving the country; indeed, leaving Western civilization altogether for the duration of the holiday season. Instead, the only practical solution is for those who find Christmas so offensive to leave the country for the season and go elsewhere. Perhaps Israel...or Africa. I invite them to consider that as an option.

Many are quick to say that public officials simply are overreacting in an attempt to keep from being sued; that they "defensively ban every vestige of 'religious expression' out of fear of an expensive ACLU lawsuit."

(http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41610
700 Lawyers Ready to Fight ACLU Lawsuits, WorldNet Daily, 11/24/04.) These people are guilty of selective perception. There is more to it than they think...much more. There is an active campaign to destroy Christianity altogether, along with all its paraphernalia, the most obvious of which is...Christmas, of course. And the campaign is organized, financed and run by...Jews, of course.

We all know about the lawsuit to remove "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. Filed by a Jew.

Remember the lawsuit to remove the Ten Commandments from the courthouse foyer, then to remove the judge who put it there? Filed by Jews.

Remember the lawsuit last year to force New York public schools to take down colored lights? Filed by Jews.

Remember the huge Jewish uproar about Mel Gibson's movie, The Passion of the Christ? That backfired badly for Abe Foxman and company, but was of a piece with the overall strategy to deChristianize America. It's a Jewish strategy, of course. That's why the lawsuits are all brought by Jews.

That's why it was a Jewish girl complaining to my son about the word Christmas in the signs at the local high school.

Jews.

Again.

You want proof? Did you see the recent publicity pictures of George Bush lighting a Menorah at the White House? You won't see him erecting any crosses there, despite his claim of being such a hidebound Christian.

In New York City, Jewish Menorahs are a part of city displays during Hanukkah, as are the Islamic star and crescent during Ramadan. Nativity scenes during Christmas are banned, however. Same thing in Palm Beach, Florida (yes, that Palm Beach...the one of hanging chad fame). Both are hotbeds of Jewish activism. Precursors of what is in store for the rest of America.

The Talmud fairly bulges with expressions of animosity for the goyim (that's you and me) and, especially, Christianity, which itself simply turns the other cheek, of course. Normally, I would give just a couple of examples, but I am going to let this list to go on at some length, just so you get a flavor of the depth of hostility for us that exists in Jewish teachings - the hostility that has led to so many things that now are wrong with America, including the destruction of Christmas, of course:

"A Jew must not associate himself with gentiles." - Hilkoth Maakhaloth, Ch. IX.

"The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts." - Saba Mecia, 114, 6.

"Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night." - Midrasch Talpioth, p. 225-L.

"It is permitted to kill a Jewish denunciator everywhere. It is permitted to kill him even before he denounces." -Schuichan Qruch, Choszen Hajpiszpat jog
"Thou shalt not do injury to thy neighbor (Bible), but it is not said, 'Thou shalt not do injury to a Goy.' " - Mishna Sanhedryn 57.

"All property of other nations belongs to the Jewish nation, which, consequently, is entitled to seize upon it without any scruples. An orthodox Jew is not bound to observe principles of morality towards people of other tribes. He may act contrary to morality, if profitable to himself or to Jews in general." - Schalchan arach. Choszen Hasisxpat 348.

"The Jew is not permitted to consider the goyim as human beings." - Schulchan Oruch, Orach Chaiw 14, 20, 32, 33, 39. TaIDud Jebamoth 61.

"To communicate anything to a goy about our religious relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if the goyim knew what we teach about them they would kill us openly." - Libbre David 37.

"Although the non-Jew has the same body structure as the Jew, they compare with the Jew like a monkey to a human." - Schene luchoth haberith, p. 250 b

"If you eat with a Gentile, it is the same as eating with a dog." - Tosapoth, Jebamoth 94b

"It is the law to kill anyone who denies the Torah. The Christians belong to the denying ones of the Torah." - Coschen hamischpat 425 Hagah 425. 5

(Jesus Christ was) illegitimate and conceived during menstruation. Mother a Prostitute. - Kallah 1b. (18b)

Christian birth rate must be diminished materially. - Zohar (II 64b):

Jews must always try to deceive Christians. - Zohar (1 160a)
Jews are not to prevent the death of a Christian. - Choschen Ham (425 5):
Do not save Christians in danger of death, instructed to let die. - Hilkkoth Akum (x,1):
Even the best of the Goim [Christians] should be killed. - Abhodah Zarah (25b)T
If Jew kills a Christian he commits no sin. - Sepher Or Israel 177b

Extermination of Christians necessary. - Zohar (11 43a):
Make no agreements and show no mercy to Christians. - Hilkhoth Akum (x,1):
Christians are idolaters. - Hilkhoth Maakhaloth
Christians have intercourse with animals. - Abhodah Zarah (22a):
Female Jews contaminated when meeting Christians. - Iore Dea (198, 48):
Innocent of murder if intent was to kill a Christian. - Makkoth (7b)
Christians likened to cows and asses. - Zohar II (64b):
Psalmist compares Christians to beasts. - Kethuboth (110b):
Sexual intercourse with Christian same as intercourse with beast. - Sanhedrin (74b)

The seed [children] of Christians valued same as the seed of a beast. - Kethuboth (3b):
Those Jews who do good to Christians never rise when dead. - Zohar (1, 25b)
Jews are to hide their hatred for Christians. - Iore Dea (148, 12H):
Christian property belongs to the first Jew claiming it. - Babha Bathra (54b):
Keep any overpayment Christians make in error. - Choschen Ham (193, 7):
It is permitted for a Jew to deceive Christians. - Babha Kama (113b):
Jew may deceive Christians. - Iore Dea (157, 2) H:

Jew may lie and perjure himself to condemn a Christian. - Babha Kama (113a):
The name of God is not profaned when a Jew lies to Christians. - Babha Kama (113b):

Jew may perjure himself when lying about Christians. - Kallah (1b, p. 18):
Jews may swear falsely by the use of subterfuge wording. - Schabbouth Hag (6d):
Jews must always try to deceive Christians. - Zohar (1, 160a):
Christians who are not Jews' enemies must also die. - Iore Dea (158, 1):

And that's just some of them! Incredible, isn't it? Like the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, they would claim all the foregoing are merely goy forgeries, made in crass expressions of undeserved antiSemitism, but for the fact that they all come straight from their own undisputed "religious" teachings.

What is particularly ironic is that, the more Jewish America becomes in law and deed, the more the official state religion of secular humanism, mirror image to Judaism, becomes established. In other words, in the name of not establishing a state religion, we are establishing a state religion - a truly Orwellian concept.

So much of what is happening in America today, indeed, throughout the world, is a direct expression of Jewish antipathy, even hatred, for things Christian. As America becomes increasingly a Jewish country (by virtue of those who call the shots, of course), its tolerance of Christianity wanes ever more. What you see happening today could be characterized as theocide, to coin a word - the systematic eradication of a religion. When you consider that most Jews are atheists and that Judaism really is secular humanism - the worship of self and self determination - then it also can be seen as deicide, as well - the systematic eradication of God.

You just have to wonder how the way things are going in America will set with Him when the time comes to settle accounts.

New America. An idea whose time has come.

Aidon
12-22-2004, 07:51 AM
Ah, a good old fashioned anti-semite.

Guess what. For the most part he's right.

It is mainly Jews (and Catholics) pushing for a further seperation of Church and State.

Because goyim like you would just love to force us to pray to the "Lord Jesus Christ" in schools, or at least ostracize us when we don't.

But now...now I understand that those who rail against "Secular Humanism" are really just anti-semites.

Oh, and before we Jews take such wonderful advice and go to Israel, leaving you your Christian Nation, I invite you to look at the history of those nations which have expelled or persecuted their Jewry so much that there was a mass exodus.

When we Yids leave...bad things follow shortly thereafter. Conversely...nations which have proven a safe haven for Jews, prosper.

The cause and effect are debatable. While I'd prefer to think that it was Jews which brought prosperity and advancement to those nations, the likelihood is that those nations with the liberalism, advancement of thought, and rightmindedness to permit Jews relatively full and unfettered access to society, also contain those attributes which make for successful nationhood. While those which allow conservatism, retrogression of ideals, and closemindedness to take root and poison its society...are doomed to failure by their own lack of progress.

But hey. Keep fighting the "good" fight. And remember...once they've gotten rid of all the Kikes, Niggers, Micks and Whops...it might be your brand of Christianity next.

Kryttos Arcadia
12-22-2004, 07:55 AM
your twisted beyond reality.

B_Delacroix
12-22-2004, 08:09 AM
With all that is going on today, I need not remind you of the dangers of government-mandated religion.

You have no idea of my religious affiliations.

My problem with all of this is that we have gone overboard trying not to offend when that is 100% impossible to do. I don't care if you don't like christmas trees. I am offended that you are so insecure in your beliefs that you can't stand to have a christmas tree in view.

I don't know what your beliefs are either, but I sure as hell won't run around screaming to have whatever symbology it may have removed on the simple grounds that I don't agree with it.

See that's what is being missed here. I and others don't want to force any religious views on anyone neither do we want to be forced to hide them. For some reason this has become a binary situation where because we have a little carving or a statue or even a blinking pine tree it means we want to force everyone to bow down to our God or Gods, whomever they may be.

Hey, soon we'll be removing books from Librarys that offend people. Then we won't allow editorials to speak about offensive material. Hey, wait till we get the thought police out.

Its not about state sanctioned religion, its about freedom of expression and tradition. So please, don't get high and mighty on me with your higher wisdom based on current world events.

If I had a mosque in my neighborhood calling to prayer on a loud speaker, I'd not necessarily like the noise, but I'd put up with it because freedom is what this country was all about. I'm not so sure it is anymore. I think now its about intolerance, fear and laziness. I guess that is what happens when a society becomes rich.

Kryttos Arcadia
12-22-2004, 08:16 AM
wait till we get the thought police out.

France is already doin this. You can be aressted for saying deragatory things about someone.

Klath
12-22-2004, 08:45 AM
People of all religions should be able to parade down public streets on festival days, hold dances in public halls, hold carnivals in public parks, and display traditional symbols. As long as all religions have access based of their needs, what is the problem?
That sounds good but in practice you're going to have a government official dispensing permits who is going to introduce their own religious biases into the mix. Inevitably, dominant religions will be allowed to use the property while less popular religions will get the shaft.

I'd be willing to bet that the very folks who are trying to get their religious symbols onto public property are the same people who will attempt to stop other religions from doing the same. Imagine the uproar from the Christians when the Satanists attempt to set up their display.

Klath
12-22-2004, 09:05 AM
I and others don't want to force any religious views on anyone neither do we want to be forced to hide them.
That's a bit overstated; nobody is forcing you to hide your religion.

soon we'll be removing books from Librarys that offend people.
Soon? This has already happened.

Anka
12-22-2004, 09:38 AM
That sounds good but in practice you're going to have a government official dispensing permits who is going to introduce their own religious biases into the mix. Inevitably, dominant religions will be allowed to use the property while less popular religions will get the shaft.

So what's your solution? Stopping anyone using public space and devaluing festivals to the lowest common denominator, devoid of meaning and heritage, isn't going to help anyone. It's fair enough for a jewish child to refuse to perform in christian services, but if you don't like a christmas tree then look the other way. Let the people who are enjoying themselves get on with it and if you suffer a little indignity then fine, it won't hurt you and it's not the end of civilisation as we know it.

Panamah
12-22-2004, 10:02 AM
That guy sounded pretty anti-semitic to me. He's trying to pin everything he disagrees with, what little I could stomach to read, on jews. Its odd that he pointed out the guy suing over the Plege of Allegiance was jewish, because he is an atheist, which seems like it is the important characteristic to point out about the guy. It'd be like pointing out his skin color if he were not white. It's immaterial to the discussion, unless there's a racial prejudice driving the discussion.

Imagine the uproar from the Christians when the Satanists attempt to set up their display.

LOL! Good point.

Bap, surely you're joking about the library remark. It's been common practice for some time now, in many areas, that parents get together to force libraries to ban books that offend them.

I don't care about religious symbols displayed on private property, that's quite fine. I also don't care about them displayed on public property as long as it is in a context where everyone's religious symbols can also be displayed.

France is already doin this. You can be aressted for saying deragatory things about someone.

And in Florida you can be sued for saying anything bad about citrus! Its a state law.

Klath
12-22-2004, 10:58 AM
So what's your solution? Stopping anyone using public space and devaluing festivals to the lowest common denominator, devoid of meaning and heritage, isn't going to help anyone.
I don't see any reason why they couldn't have their events/festivals/displays on private property.

Truid
12-22-2004, 11:41 AM
Forgive my ignorance and please correct me if I am wrong, but the nation of Israel is a religious state which is also democratic in nature, correct?

Is there not religous freedom in Israel? Or are Muslims and the practice of Islam outlawed? What about Christianity, is it illegal to practice Christianity in Israel. If not, then why is is such a bad thing to have a religious state?

Why not have the United States of America be recognized as a Christian nation? How does this in any way prevent you personally from believing in [insert your belief here]. The majority of Americans (78% last I heard) claim to be "Christian". In a Democratic country majority rules, or so I've been told.

I mean, it seems pretty obvious to me that this is a Christian nation, despite the very vocal minority's claim to the contrary. As an official Christian state I don't see how we could prohibit you (as a Jew, Muslim, or Druid for example) from practicing your religion, all the while waving the banner of freedom and liberty. I honestly don't believe the founding fathers of this country intended the states to recognize and endorse all religions equally or for this country to become an entirely secular state.

Fenlayen
12-22-2004, 12:09 PM
Is there not religous freedom in Israel? Or are Muslims and the practice of Islam outlawed? What about Christianity, is it illegal to practice Christianity in Israel. If not, then why is is such a bad thing to have a religious state?

Why not have the United States of America be recognized as a Christian nation? How does this in any way prevent you personally from believing in [insert your belief here]. The majority of Americans (78% last I heard) claim to be "Christian". In a Democratic country majority rules, or so I've been told.


I come at this from a different angle than the posters who are from the US. I'm British and on paper we are sort of a Christian nation.

1) Our head of state is also the Head of the Church of England.

2) The law does not allow a Roman catholic (to be honest I'm not sure if it mentions any other religion :) ) to become Monarch and therefore head of state.

I don't agree with the rules by the way there just there :P but then again the UK has so many obsolete laws and rules still on the books. For example it's lawful for me to kill a welshman as long as its after dark and I'm standing on the walls of Chester and using a longbow.

Anyway back on topic.

If the US becomes a Christian nation what does that mean to you ?

Does it mean.

a) All laws have to conform/come from the New testament ?
b) only christians can hold goverment postions ?
c) No places of buisness open on the sabbath ?

Being Christian means differenent thinks to different people.

Tudamorf
12-22-2004, 12:27 PM
Forgive my ignorance and please correct me if I am wrong, but the nation of Israel is a religious state which is also democratic in nature, correct? I mean, it seems pretty obvious to me that this is a Christian nation, despite the very vocal minority's claim to the contrary.
One big difference: the United States has a Constitution, Bill of Rights, and First Amendment which prohibits a religious state. Many other countries do not. This country was founded on the principle that church and state should be separate, and it should never be a "Christian state".
Its not about state sanctioned religion, its about freedom of expression and tradition. So please, don't get high and mighty on me with your higher wisdom based on current world events.You're missing a key distinction here between STATE sponsored symbols and your own private symbols. You have the right to display whatever you damn well please on your own property, and that should never be taken away from you, no matter who finds it offensive. However, when the state starts endorsing religion, suggesting it prefers one religion to another, it violates the liberty guaranteed to us by the First Amendment.
Im gonna post this. and some arent gonna like it.. but take it for perspective.
*Offensive pro-Nazi article excluded in the interest of good taste*That article is offensive and irrelevant to this discussion. Contrary to what Adolf Hitler tried to have you believe, there is no Jewish conspiracy to destroy you, and inventing facts to suggest one only demonstrates your hatred, ignorance, and paranoia.

Aidon
12-22-2004, 06:14 PM
Forgive my ignorance and please correct me if I am wrong, but the nation of Israel is a religious state which is also democratic in nature, correct?

Is there not religous freedom in Israel? Or are Muslims and the practice of Islam outlawed? What about Christianity, is it illegal to practice Christianity in Israel. If not, then why is is such a bad thing to have a religious state?

Why not have the United States of America be recognized as a Christian nation? How does this in any way prevent you personally from believing in [insert your belief here]. The majority of Americans (78% last I heard) claim to be "Christian". In a Democratic country majority rules, or so I've been told.

I mean, it seems pretty obvious to me that this is a Christian nation, despite the very vocal minority's claim to the contrary. As an official Christian state I don't see how we could prohibit you (as a Jew, Muslim, or Druid for example) from practicing your religion, all the while waving the banner of freedom and liberty. I honestly don't believe the founding fathers of this country intended the states to recognize and endorse all religions equally or for this country to become an entirely secular state.

And you are the reason why the 1st Amendment is in place.

The difference between Israel and the US, is Israel was intended to be a Jewish State from its inception. Whereas the US was specifically created as a Secular state.

The Bill of Rights was specifically emplaced in order to protect the minority (every other religion) from the majority (Christians).

You can disbelieve the intent of the founding father's all you want, however, fortunately for us, they were fairly clear in their intents.

Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion.

Pay close attention. Establishment of religion. Not, establishment of a religion. Of religion. This is a secular nation and was created to be a secular nation.

Anka
12-22-2004, 06:18 PM
I don't see any reason why they couldn't have their events/festivals/displays on private property.

I know that here in the UK there just isn't private property available to match public facilities and we're usually happy to allow all religious groups reasonable use of our streets, halls, and parks. Let's be honest, most people celebrate their festivals for their own good, not to insult or demean anyone else's religion and any offence given is usually accidental.

I mean, it seems pretty obvious to me that this is a Christian nation, despite the very vocal minority's claim to the contrary.

The US is a predominantly christian nation and that naturally influences all laws and customs, but people of all religions are still given full freedom and protection under law. For example, citizens are not required to have christian ceremonies for marriage, baptism, and funerals. Children are free to be educated in their chosen faith.

You should also consider that christianity isn't a single unified religion. US culture doesn't fully reflect the values of Amish communities, the Russian orthodox church, or Jehova's Witnesses. Many violent conflicts are still being fought to this day between different branches of religions, Iraq providing a very contemporary example.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
12-22-2004, 08:10 PM
Let's be honest, most people celebrate their festivals for their own good, not to insult or demean anyone else's religion and any offence given is usually accidental.

I seriously doubt that, honestly.

It is the Christians like Kryttos Arcadia and his quoted Nazi-Christian writer that scare the **** out of me.

I have seen normal everyday Christians writhe around bon-fires of burning books(my books) and music(my music). I have never seen a Jew do anything such as that.

I am only tolerant of those who are tolerant. My libertarian sensibilities are not hung up with the notion of imprisoning those who seek to take the liberties of the rest of us, including Jews.

If you Christians push, I will push back. I will feed you to the lions myself.

Kryttos, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Klath
12-22-2004, 08:14 PM
I know that here in the UK there just isn't private property available to match public facilities and we're usually happy to allow all religious groups reasonable use of our streets, halls, and parks.
In the US there's quite a bit of private space available. With big farms driving little farms out of business, there are plenty of farmers who would rent out some acreage to make a few bucks.

Let's be honest, most people celebrate their festivals for their own good, not to insult or demean anyone else's religion and any offence given is usually accidental.
I agree. However, I don't think that, in practice, there would be equal opportunity given to all religions. If you want some examples of this bias, research how Wiccans and Satanists have been treated by representatives of the US governement.

Anka
12-22-2004, 08:57 PM
However, I don't think that, in practice, there would be equal opportunity given to all religions.

Fine. So what's your solution? Do you deprive the vast majority of people a reasonable opportunity to celebrate their culture or just do the best you can to keep everyone happy? The world isn't perfect. I'd go for doing the best we can. If we want a society where a muslim, jew, and christian can live side by side in harmony then nobody should be ashamed of their religion, nobody should be ashamed of their neighbours religion, and nobody should be ashamed of their neighbours holidays and festivals either.

Merry Christmas everyone from an unapologetic agnostic.

Kryttos Arcadia
12-22-2004, 10:14 PM
I didnt write that. i just posted it =P lol

Kryttos Arcadia
12-22-2004, 10:24 PM
i'm tolerant by nature myself. Its just that this whole we cant say Christmas, but can say Hanaukah or whatever is getting under my skin.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
12-22-2004, 11:25 PM
I didnt write that. i just posted it =P lol

It was implied(or at least I inferred it) by your post to Aidon that you did not merely post it as some public service. That you agreed with the ideology.

I assure you, I am not held to your turning the other cheek bull****. If you smack mine, I will cut yours off with a razor. You try and burn stuff again this time, I will burn more.

I was young and impressionable when you Christains did your witchhunt **** back in the 80's. If you think that Bush's mandate neo-con whatever will bring back the good ol' revival days, I am not that kid anymore.

Klath
12-23-2004, 04:46 AM
Fine. So what's your solution? Do you deprive the vast majority of people a reasonable opportunity to celebrate their culture or just do the best you can to keep everyone happy?
Telling people to celebrate on private property is hardly the same as depriving them of a reasonable opportunity to celebrate their religion. It doesn't prevent smaller religions from pooling their resources so that they can gain access to a larger venue for their celebration either. In fact, that cooperation may even help them to get along with each other better.
If we want a society where a muslim, jew, and christian can live side by side in harmony then nobody should be ashamed of their religion, nobody should be ashamed of their neighbours religion, and nobody should be ashamed of their neighbours holidays and festivals either.
I agree. I don't see how having religious celebrations on private property will thwart this goal. I know I'd attend these celebrations if, at least in some cases, for no other reason than to try the food.

Anka
12-23-2004, 07:11 AM
I don't see how having religious celebrations on private property will thwart this goal.

It's thwarting that goal because you want people to hide their religions away instead of letting people display them in public. You're implying all religions are offensive. An attitude of "he's a muslim but it's alright, he keeps it all private and you wouldn't know by looking at him" isn't beneficial to anyone.

Kryttos Arcadia
12-23-2004, 08:06 AM
Im sorry if that posted offended some. This is not my outlook on religion. HOwever those verses from the Jewish bible ( whatever its called ) are rather disturbing. I dont hate anyone. Christianity teaches tolerance of all. And thats what i beleive, Tolerence of all.

Klath
12-23-2004, 08:40 AM
It's thwarting that goal because you want people to hide their religions away instead of letting people display them in public. You're implying all religions are offensive. An attitude of "he's a muslim but it's alright, he keeps it all private and you wouldn't know by looking at him" isn't beneficial to anyone.
I said they should have their celebrations on private property. This doesn't mean that they have to hide anything. If a religious group wants to rent a football stadium for a celebration and advertise about it on TV, radio, and in the newspapers, more power to them.

Aidon
12-23-2004, 08:40 AM
Im sorry if that posted offended some. This is not my outlook on religion. HOwever those verses from the Jewish bible ( whatever its called ) are rather disturbing. I dont hate anyone. Christianity teaches tolerance of all. And thats what i beleive, Tolerence of all.

Ah, ignorance is bliss.

The Jewish Bible, is the Pentatuch, with some of the prophets and proverbs tossed in. First and foremost is the Torah (the Pentatuch, or Five Books of Moses).

The Talmud, is rabbinic laws, basically speaking.

Understand, however, unlike most Christian sects there is no central body or figure who determines what is and isn't law. Judaism is not a very dogmatic religion.

And Christianity has been the least tolerant, most destructive, and most consuming religion to ever scourge this planet. If, indeed, these versus come from some portion of the Talmud (which, frankly, I'm not about to attempt to look up. I don't have the resources handy...), I find it rather unsurprising. Consider that since the rise of Christianity, until the later modern and post modern eras, Christianity had persecuted and murdered Jewry, we may have had a few harsh words to say about Christians.

If I was Moshe Rabbinovich in Minsc...600 hundred years ago, I certainly would teach my kids to stay away from Christians, not trust them, and beat any Christian they saw, considering about the only time your average Jew saw a Christian was when they were coming to set his village aflame.

Kryttos Arcadia
12-23-2004, 09:02 AM
thats a little harsh you know.

Fenlayen
12-23-2004, 09:11 AM
thats a little harsh you know.

Harsh maybe, but there's nothing in Aidons post that's untrue.

Christians have been killing non christians for not beliving for centries. Lets face it christians have been killing each other for just as long and you want a christian state ? Yep the christian churches have a great track record lets put them in charge :tut: :ange:

Thicket Tundrabog
12-23-2004, 09:40 AM
Wow... there sure is a lot of intolerance on this thread. Very disturbing. There seem to be a lot of closet (or not so closet) bigots. Scratch the surface a bit, and the hateful prejudices ooze out. This is not religion specific either. I see it present in Christian, Jewish and agnostic comments.

... and what is all this stuff about the wisdom of the 'Founding Fathers'? They seem to have a mystical reverence associated with them. Is this the new religion being taught in American schools? There certainly are a lot of 'religious' icons associated with them. Is there much difference between a buddha statue and Mount Rushmore? It's tough to separate church and state when the state itself is developing its own religion (or mythology if you prefer).

Do you really think that the Founding Fathers had the foresight to imagine a world over 200 years in the future. I must admit it's convenient to spout about the wise intents of long dead respected statesmen, because they can't burst your idealistic bubbles with their own faults and prejudices.

"Our Founding Fathers, who art in..... "

Thicket

Ndainye
12-23-2004, 09:47 AM
Which sect of Christianity would be considered the Majority? Would we all be non drinking, non gambling, non dancing Baptists? Would we be non out of marriage sex, non birth control using Catholics - which would make us drinkers and gamblers. Or would we be faith healers shunning modern medicial advances?

Christianity is as divided among itself as all other religions combined. The only glue that holds the sects together under a banner of Christianity is belief in Christ and in his death for our sins. Making a "Christian" state would not make your Christianity the right one, and could very likely make those "Christians" that don't worship correctly persecuted right along side the Jews and Muslims.

I grew up in a Christian household, I attend church and consider myself a Christian but I barely recognize the beliefs that are tagged as Christian when mixed with US politics. The 75% majority of Christians in the US if broken down into individual sects would have a hard time keeping that majority.

The US was founded on seperation of Church and State, it is due to that seperation that the US is not only as large but as diverse as it is today. We must continue to follow that seperation and if in doing so some traditions are change so be change is a good thing. As a child I would have gladly skipped the annual Christmas Concert at school and still enjoyed my Winter break, celebrating Christmas at home with my family and our friends. Christmas isn't or shouldn't be the trimmings it has always been about family, why is that a problem?

Panamah
12-23-2004, 09:50 AM
Christianity teaches tolerance of all. And thats what i beleive, Tolerence of all.

Such as Gays, people of different faiths and races, abortion doctors and so on? If so, that particular lesson hasn't gotten through to a lot of Christians.

Aidon
12-23-2004, 10:17 AM
Wow... there sure is a lot of intolerance on this thread. Very disturbing. There seem to be a lot of closet (or not so closet) bigots. Scratch the surface a bit, and the hateful prejudices ooze out. This is not religion specific either. I see it present in Christian, Jewish and agnostic comments.

... and what is all this stuff about the wisdom of the 'Founding Fathers'? They seem to have a mystical reverence associated with them. Is this the new religion being taught in American schools? There certainly are a lot of 'religious' icons associated with them. Is there much difference between a buddha statue and Mount Rushmore? It's tough to separate church and state when the state itself is developing its own religion (or mythology if you prefer).

Do you really think that the Founding Fathers had the foresight to imagine a world over 200 years in the future. I must admit it's convenient to spout about the wise intents of long dead respected statesmen, because they can't burst your idealistic bubbles with their own faults and prejudices.

"Our Founding Fathers, who art in..... "

Thicket

The wisdom of the Founding Fathers was their ability to create a system which would outlast them..and evolve beyond their own faults and prejudices.

Yes, when this nation was created...the US was much more overwhelmingly Christian than it is now. However, they specifically forbad religion in the Government...and the Government from religion.

And frankly, I hold their names more hallowed than any of the Christian gods.

Anka
12-23-2004, 11:23 AM
Yes, when this nation was created...the US was much more overwhelmingly Christian than it is now. However, they specifically forbad religion in the Government...and the Government from religion.

The early US settlers were often from european religious minorities who left europe to practice their theology in new lands. They were not a unified christian majority who magnaminously separated church and government. They were arguably a disparate groups of religious extremists who prevented their own persecution in new lands.

Leafblower
12-23-2004, 01:34 PM
The problem you have with all religions getting along is they all believe they are right and the others are wrong. I was raised in a Christian family with a Jewish step-mother (practicing) and also lived with a Mormon aunt (also practicing). People just don't believe in the validity of other religions.They might say they do but in all honesty they don't.Their beliefs are tolerated not accepted because they are wrong. And until the Gods themselves and point out whose right and whose wrong it is an unwinnable argument. But of course you would still have the people that would say "Thats not my God"
To me all are valid. I don't agree with them but whatever gives you faith.

Panamah
12-23-2004, 01:46 PM
The early US settlers were often from european religious minorities who left europe to practice their theology in new lands. They were not a unified christian majority who magnaminously separated church and government. They were arguably a disparate groups of religious extremists who prevented their own persecution in new lands.

Some were, but there were also guys like Ben Franklin and Thomas Paine who were quite clearly concerned about the boundaries of religion and government. Even Thomas Jefferson, who was very religious, had his concerns. Then there were guys like John Adams who didn't like democracy because the "rabble" would be in charge, he wanted an aristocracy, and he's often the guy cited as the source for why America is a Christian democracy etc.

The religions were a lot different then too, Quakers were common, as were Puritans, Southern Baptists and Mormons weren't even around then. I think Catholics were pretty rare.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
12-23-2004, 01:59 PM
The problem you have with all religions getting along is they all believe they are right and the others are wrong.


Duh, it is God's first Commandment.


Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child.
--Lazarus Long
aka Robert Anson Heinlein

Truid
12-23-2004, 03:04 PM
Forgive my ignorance and please correct me if I am wrong, but the nation of Israel is a religious state which is also democratic in nature, correct?

Is there not religous freedom in Israel? Or are Muslims and the practice of Islam outlawed? What about Christianity, is it illegal to practice Christianity in Israel. If not, then why is is such a bad thing to have a religious state?

Sorry, but I don't recall seeing an answer to the above questions.

Why not have the United States of America be recognized as a Christian nation? How does this in any way prevent you personally from believing in [insert your belief here]. The majority of Americans (78% last I heard) claim to be "Christian". In a Democratic country majority rules, or so I've been told.

Again, how does the USA being recognized officially as a "Christian" nation in anyway, shape or form prohibit you from practicing a different religion other than Christianity? Again, I refer back to Israel being a "Jewish" nation. However, do they outlaw the practice of Christianity or Islam?

I mean, it seems pretty obvious to me that this is a Christian nation, despite the very vocal minority's claim to the contrary. As an official Christian state I don't see how we could prohibit you (as a Jew, Muslim, or Druid for example) from practicing your religion, all the while waving the banner of freedom and liberty.

Just to clarify, whether or not this country is secular or Christian in nature, I think it is just stupid for people to file lawsuits against the state because they were offended at seeing the 10 Commandments on government property. I think it's stupid that public schools are afraid to mention Christmas because it might offend someone. If you're going to prohibit Christianity and ban it from public schools then you should also ban Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Wiccans, and anything that even remotely resembles religious beliefs. My suggestion (as a social experiment), maybe someone should come up with a new city that is entirely secular without any influence from religion. There would be no churches, synogogues, mosques or other places of worship. The problem I see with that is it would have to embrace anarchy since even our own laws have their roots in religion.

BTW, can a person be both jewish and christian? Jews for Jesus as an example. What happens if a jewish man marries a non-jewish woman, are their children half-Semitic? It's hard sometimes to seperate the nationality with the religion.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
12-23-2004, 03:23 PM
The problem I see with that is it would have to embrace anarchy since even our own laws have their roots in religion.


That is a Straw Man argument. A false assumption based on a false premise.


I could not disagree more.


It is not hard to imagine a complete, just, and fair legal and criminal system based solely on Contract Law.


I do not need a god to keep me from killing you. Having a god has not kept Christians from murdering millions of non-Christians.


Many societies(most Asian) work rather well and are without a diety. Just because you need some bearded man up in the sky to keep you on the good path, does not mean that we all need such a crutch.

http://twotom.home.mindspring.com/07-god.jpg
God: What are you doing now?
King Arthur: Averting our eyes, oh Lord.
God: Well, don't. It's just like those miserable psalms, always so depressing.

Panamah
12-23-2004, 03:26 PM
The problem I see with that is it would have to embrace anarchy since even our own laws have their roots in religion.

If that's the case, why aren't all atheists and agnostics in jail, since they're anarchists and have no religion to guide them? Why is it that most people in jail believe in god? Rules and law are not the invention of religions, they've existed independent of any particular religion for recorded history, and probably long before. Why don't apes murder each other with ruthless abandon? They don't have religion...

Religion didn't invent ethics and law and orderly society.

Anka
12-23-2004, 04:00 PM
My suggestion (as a social experiment), maybe someone should come up with a new city that is entirely secular without any influence from religion. There would be no churches, synogogues, mosques or other places of worship. The problem I see with that is it would have to embrace anarchy since even our own laws have their roots in religion.

I believe that communist China is effectively secular and not embracing anarchy. Defining a morality without religion that is robust enough to universally satisfy law, education, and change will be challenging though, to say the least (or will philosophers tell us it can evolve through experimentation and refinement? Hmm, my brain hurts).

Most religions have a limitation that they are over a thousand years old and will struggle to address complex contemporary moral issues. The terraforming, colonization, and habitation of Mars is hardly covered by a philosophy where the sun revolves round a flat earth, is it?

Aidon
12-23-2004, 05:47 PM
Sorry, but I don't recall seeing an answer to the above questions.

You are free to worship as you wish in Israel. However, many in many cities you won't find non-kosher foodstuffs, by law, and on friday night the bus systems shutdown until saturday evening.



Again, how does the USA being recognized officially as a "Christian" nation in anyway, shape or form prohibit you from practicing a different religion other than Christianity? Again, I refer back to Israel being a "Jewish" nation. However, do they outlaw the practice of Christianity or Islam?

Technically, I suppose, I would be free to practice my religion as I wish. However, realistically, taking a look at history, odds are strong I'd end up loosing my rights to own property, or if I was permitted to own property it'd be in specifically designated areas deemed "Jewish", and then only until some Christian decided he wanted it. My children would be ridiculed in school, or forced to say some Christian prayer at the start of the school day (which would definately be against my religion), and Jews would, once again, be banned from "proper" places (Its only been oh, 50-60 years since signs which stated "No Jews, No Dogs, No Niggers" were fairly prominent). It'd be illegal for our women to get abortions (even under those conditions which our religion permits it. In Judaism, the law is to save the mother at the expense of the child, whereas in most Christian sects as I understand it, you are supposed to save the child at the expense of the mother).



Just to clarify, whether or not this country is secular or Christian in nature, I think it is just stupid for people to file lawsuits against the state because they were offended at seeing the 10 Commandments on government property. I think it's stupid that public schools are afraid to mention Christmas because it might offend someone. If you're going to prohibit Christianity and ban it from public schools then you should also ban Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Wiccans, and anything that even remotely resembles religious beliefs.

I agree entirely, as do most people who believe in a Seperation of Church and State. Religion has no place in schools, or governmental proceedings in the United States.



BTW, can a person be both jewish and christian? Jews for Jesus as an example. What happens if a jewish man marries a non-jewish woman, are their children half-Semitic? It's hard sometimes to seperate the nationality with the religion.

Well, as the defition of Christian is someone who believes that Jesus was the Christ...no. You cannot be Jewish and Christian at the same time. The most you can be is a Christian who, like the original Christians, follow Jewish law and tradition.

As for intermarriage. Judaism is a somewhat unique religion in that...historically it has been both an ethnicity and a religion. By Jewish law, a persons "Judaism" is determined by their mother. However you can convert to Judaism, regardless.

For instance, my mother was born Catholic. She converted to Judaism. I was born Jewish.

Tinsi
12-23-2004, 08:16 PM
The problem I see with that is it would have to embrace anarchy since even our own laws have their roots in religion.

Not quite correct. Some laws have roots in the same place as parts of religious doctrines, but I've never seen research that supports the notion that religion entered society before rules of conduct did.

Tudamorf
12-23-2004, 08:23 PM
My suggestion (as a social experiment), maybe someone should come up with a new city that is entirely secular without any influence from religion. There would be no churches, synogogues, mosques or other places of worship. The problem I see with that is it would have to embrace anarchy since even our own laws have their roots in religion.Hardly; most Asian countries are almost completely secular by Western standards and they maintain law and order quite well.

I have little doubt that the Earth would be a better place if the concept of religion disappeared entirely.

Jinjre
12-24-2004, 12:50 AM
Hardly; most Asian countries are almost completely secular by Western standards and they maintain law and order quite well.

Along similar lines, there are also religions which, to the western mind, aren't so much religions as ways of life. Where dieties are told of in story, but there isn't really a "worship" like we think of it, the individuals just live their lives by the social mores surrounding them, which are based on these stories. These societies get along just fine without "worship" as their lives and their religions are so intertwined as to be inseparable.

One of the issues facing the US, as opposed to other societies is that we are not ONE society. The melting pot is a myth. We did not all meld, like smeltings, into one giant amalgam. We are a collection a drastically varied backgrounds, religions, ethnicities and languages. It is nearly impossible to reach consensus on religious moral values when we are so very heterogenous, as opposed to someplace like Singapore where the entire country's society is very homogenous.

Remi
12-25-2004, 01:25 AM
After reading this thread, it was a pleasure to come across this article. I wish I could quote it, but it is in PDF format which I can't copy.

http://www.dennisprager.com/whitehousehanukkah.pdf

Really nice commentary on the co-existance of Christianity, Judaism, and Nationalism during this holiday season, plus a little perspective that some things have changed.

Klath
12-25-2004, 06:39 AM
After reading this thread, it was a pleasure to come across this article. I wish I could quote it, but it is in PDF format which I can't copy.

http://www.dennisprager.com/whitehousehanukkah.pdf

Really nice commentary on the co-existance of Christianity, Judaism, and Nationalism during this holiday season, plus a little perspective that some things have changed.
Do you think he'd have written a similar article if the party had had an Islamic theme? Dennis Prager is a Judeo-Christian supremacist and an ardent Bush supporter so his glowing portrayal of this party doesn't surprise me at all.

Aidon
12-26-2004, 06:32 AM
Do you think he'd have written a similar article if the party had had an Islamic theme? Dennis Prager is a Judeo-Christian supremacist and an ardent Bush supporter so his glowing portrayal of this party doesn't surprise me at all.

Islam is considered a Judeo-Christian religion, fyi.

Klath
12-26-2004, 07:08 AM
Islam is considered a Judeo-Christian religion, fyi.
lol True. Not the way prager draws the lines though.

Anka
12-26-2004, 07:59 AM
Christmas is for most of us a time for a break from work, for family and friends, for presents, turkey and crackers. But we should not lose sight of the fact that these are traditional celebrations around a great religious festival, one of the most important in the Christian year.

Religion and culture are much in the news these days, usually as sources of difference and conflict, rather than for bringing people together. But the irony is that every religion has something to say about tolerance and respecting others.

For me, as a Christian, one of the most important of these teachings is contained in the parable of the Good Samaritan, when Jesus answers the question, Who is my neighbour?

It is a timeless story of a victim of a mugging who was ignored by his own countrymen but helped by a foreigner, and a despised foreigner at that. The implication drawn by Jesus is clear. Everyone is our neighbour, no matter what race, creed or colour. The need to look after a fellow human being is far more important than any cultural or religious differences.

Most of us have learned to acknowledge and respect the ways of other cultures and religions, but what matters even more is the way in which those from different backgrounds behave towards each other in everyday life.

It is vitally important that we all should participate and cooperate for the sake of the wellbeing of the whole community. We have only to look around to recognise the benefits of this positive approach in business or local government, in sport, music and the arts.

There is certainly much more to be done and many challenges to be overcome. Discrimination still exists. Some people feel that their own beliefs are being threatened. Some are unhappy about unfamiliar cultures. They all need to be reassured that there is so much to be gained by reaching out to others; that diversity is indeed a strength and not a threat.

We need also to realise that peaceful and steady progress in our society of differing cultures and heritage can be threatened at any moment by the actions of extremists at home or by events abroad. We can certainly never be complacent.

That is the Queen's Christmas message 2004. I'm not particularly a supporter of the monarchy, but an address like that shows the advantages of a non-political head of state. I certainly prefer it to the spin doctoring of Dennis Prager.

Jinjre
12-26-2004, 10:11 AM
an address like that shows the advantages of a non-political head of state.

I'm not sure if you're meaning that the Queen is non-political in the sense that she has little power over the day to day running of the country (e.g. figurehead) or if you mean that she is a religious rather than political head of state.

Anka
12-26-2004, 10:58 AM
I was referring to her non-political role, in contrast to Dennis Prader's attempt to woo the Jewish vote. She is only a figurehead leader for the church as well though and, interestingly, her message fits both her roles appropriately without the two interfering.

Truid
12-27-2004, 10:37 PM
I would like to thank Aidon and the rest who took the time to answer my questions for your forthright answers. We may not always see eye to eye, but I want you all to know how much I appreciate your responses and you should know that I don't just simply forget what you've written. I may not always agree or even like what I read, but I always walk away with a new understanding and appreciation for the other side's views.

Again, thank you. I wish you all a Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Winter Solstice, or any other Season's Greetings you care to accept.

Silxie
12-31-2004, 04:14 PM
Since we are all druids here, this is a nature worshipper's perspective on Christmas... of course this really only applies to the northern hemisphere.

Despite all the barriers we have put up to nature: artifical lights, fresh fruit year round, and other wonderful things, we are still intimately connected to the passing of the seasons, still part of the wheel of the year. The celebrations that mark the turning of that year are important to the human spirit. These celebrations mark time, they sew together communities, they are the rituals by which our communal lives are measured.

At the end of december the year is darkest, we need to gather close with family, we need the lights, the roaring yule fires, the bounty- even glut of Christmas dinners... when the days are short, and resources are thin, the community comes together to celebrate, to receive and give gifts, and to share warmth and kinship against the sparse dark times.

To me it isnt important how you celebrate, or what names you use. What is important is the eating together, the opening of homes and hearths and the moment of uncharacteristic generosity that can see people through the dark and cold times. To seek to prevent any expression of that energy is, in my mind, an offense against the human spirit.

Happy Holidays.

Nimchip
12-31-2004, 06:05 PM
Why not just display ALL religious symbols instead of none? No censorship, people are free to choose their own symbols to praise, and besides if this is intended for the country as a whole, it's going to be damn difficult to ban all of these symbols everywhere in the country.

Why do people always look for ways that instigate fighting and arguing? Why stimulate a climate of fighting and grief in a time where all religions spend time with their families to be happy and celebrate?

Kryttos, your argument was incredibly offensive and nazi-like, and at first i thought your goal was to prove your argument that your country wasn't funded on a history of separation between church and state, but it isn't. It's just some ethnocentric crap that even i find offensive, even though i'm supposed to be catholic (though i consider myself somewhat of an atheist, i don't believe in religion) .

Aidon:

For the record, I admire jews and I admire the way you stand up and defend your own religion.

If I was Moshe Rabbinovich in Minsc...600 hundred years ago, I certainly would teach my kids to stay away from Christians, not trust them, and beat any Christian they saw, considering about the only time your average Jew saw a Christian was when they were coming to set his village aflame.

While i understand that you meant in that day and age. But even so, how can you sink to the level of anti-semites everywhere by having that line of thought? Even you said:

Thank you, but keep your Christmas away from my children (when I have some).

How can you say that when you hurt when people like that one in the article Kryttos posted speak out those nazi-like ideas? You're acting the SAME way.


Christians have been killing non christians for not beliving for centries. Lets face it christians have been killing each other for just as long and you want a christian state ? Yep the christian churches have a great track record lets put them in charge

Yep that is correct, but remember to not blame current folks for past mistakes.


To people that are flipping out because they are losing "their christmas". Hey, tough luck! That's the way other people from different religions have felt for years... so now its your turn. And this is only in a sector, mostly here are AFRAID of this happening to all of the states. So start tolerating or face the consequences.


And finally to Fyremind:

Religion is the opiate of the masses.
Karl Marx

Excellent quote and I happen to agree with it, though i don't discriminate with religious people and i don't try to convince them to follow my perspective.

BUT...

In your post you made it seemed like you were religious aligned, so out of curiosity, if you are... why carry Marx's quote as signature? If you are not religious then ignore it :P

Klath
12-31-2004, 07:40 PM
Why not just display ALL religious symbols instead of none? No censorship, people are free to choose their own symbols to praise, and besides if this is intended for the country as a whole, it's going to be damn difficult to ban all of these symbols everywhere in the country.
That sounds good and I'd be all for it if there were any chance of it working. Inevitably, however, some fringe religion would do something like erect a 15' penis altar and everyone would get bent out of shape over it. Hmmm, perhaps I should rephrase that...

Truid
01-05-2005, 11:36 PM
It seems I have been wrong in my understanding of the founding fathers and their "christian" faith in relation to the foundation of the united states of america. When I am wrong I admit my mistake and learn from it (so as not to make it again).
I recently ran across a very informative website which has increased my interest in early american history. I thought I would share it with those of you who also enjoy early american history as well.
http://earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

Fyyr Lu'Storm
01-06-2005, 07:46 PM
...some fringe religion would do something like erect a 15' penis altar and everyone would get bent out of shape over it. Hmmm, perhaps I should rephrase that...


Funny.

That is exactly what the First Religions did.

http://www.aerobatics.ws/GEI/images/UK/standing_stones_close_548x388.gif

I would not exactly say that they are fringe, though most Christians would disagree with me on this.

(aside: got the one with the sheep for Aidon /smile)

Teaenea
01-07-2005, 12:18 AM
Not sure of stone rings count as phallic worship.

http://www3.tky.3web.ne.jp/~edjacob/festival.html

Is a little more obvious.

Aidon
01-07-2005, 07:59 AM
Viva la Sheep!

Jinjre
01-07-2005, 10:14 AM
In this festival, a large wooden phallus is carried around on a mikoshi. The penis is eight feet long and weighs a thousand pounds. During the festival, you can eat penis shaped candy, touch phalluses for good luck, and drink free sake. If you visit the shrine, you will see that the walls of the shrine are lined with phalluses. There is a vagina festival one week later. (bolding mine)

Um, what do they carry around for the vagina festival?

Maybe I don't want to know.

Dexail
01-07-2005, 10:23 AM
Um, what do they carry around for the vagina festival?

a big smile :)

Panamah
01-07-2005, 10:56 AM
LOL! Do they celebrate all organs or just the reproductive ones? I wonder what the Appendix festival is like? Do they all go around saying, "what is this thing for, anyway?"

Nimchip
01-08-2005, 02:07 AM
Pancreas festival! Where all diabetics (like me) are kings and get to eat lots of sugary stuff and die by the end of the day ... Weehhhhhh destroy that pancreas son!