NationStates Jolt Archive

About every week, I hear one or two instance where groups like the ACLU trying to remove a religious symbol. Would it be Islam symbols, or how about Jewish symbols? Nope. Instead all they complain about is the Christian symbols. One of the most recent case is this.

Appeals Court Upholds Nativity Ban in NYC Schools
Susan Jones
Senior Editor

(CNSNews.com) - A federal appeals court in New York ruled it's okay for New York City Public Schools to ban the display of Christian nativity scenes during the Christmas season, even though displays of the Jewish menorah and Islamic star and crescent are permitted during Hanukkah and Ramadan.

A conservative group that sued the school system over its policy said Christians should be outraged by the ruling.

The Thomas More Law Center challenged the ban on nativity scenes in December 2002, on behalf of Andrea Skoros and her two children, who complained that New York City's policy was violating their right to free exercise of religion.


The city defended its policy by arguing that the menorah and the star and crescent were permissible symbols because they were "secular," whereas the nativity scene had to be excluded because it was "purely religious."

In February 2004, a federal judge in New York agreed that Christian Nativity scenes do not belong in public school classrooms and he dismissed the lawsuit.

Skoros appealed, and on Thursday, a higher court ruled against her as well.

Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, called the decision another outrageous example of federal courts discriminating against Christians. "This should be a wake-up call for Christians across this nation," he said.

Thompson accused judges of imposing their ideological views under the pretext of constitutional interpretation.

In his dissenting opinion, appeals court Judge Chester Straub said it is clear to him that New York City's current policy violates the Establishment Clause by sending the message that Judaism and Islam are favored while Christianity is disfavored."

He said the city was wrong to define the menorah and the star and crescent as secular and a creche as "purely religious."

Robert Muise, the attorney handling the case, called the majority decision fundamentally flawed - "and we intend to take this fight to the next level. This battle is far from over," he said.

The Thomas More Law Center describes its mission as defending and promoting the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities.


See Earlier Stories:
Judge Dismisses Nativity Scene Lawsuit (19 Feb. 2004)
NYC Schools Given Lumps of Coal for Banning Nativity Scenes (Dec. 24, 2003)
Birth of Jesus Questioned by New York School System (11 Nov. 2003)
Suit Claims NYC Schools Discriminate Against Christians (Dec. 11, 2002)
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1376621.html

Another case is this.

Thomas More Law Center Asks Federal Appeals Court to Dismiss Atheist's Lawsuit to Remove Mt. Soledad Cross
Thu, Aug 24, 2006
Related Stories
Printer-Friendly

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to vacate the judgment enjoining the City of San Diego from displaying the Mt. Soledad cross and dismiss the cases on appeal on the grounds that new federal legislation now makes the action moot.

The Law Center’s motion to “Dismiss and Vacate” is based on a Congressional Act, signed into law by President Bush on August 14, 2006, that immediately transferred all title and interest to the cross and memorial to the federal government. Thus, as of August 14, 2006, the City of San Diego no longer owns the property upon which the memorial is located.

In its motion, the Law Center argued that this property transfer to the federal government moots the district court’s judgment against the City of San Diego because the City no longer owns the memorial property and the injunction cannot be enforced against it. The Law Center also argued that the injunction cannot be enforced against the federal government because the federal government is not a party to the action and, more fundamentally, it is not subject to the California Constitution, which served as the legal grounds for the district court’s decision.

The Law Center filed the motion on behalf of San Diegans for the Mt. Soledad National War Memorial, the organization that spearheaded the successful referendary petition drive (“Proposition A”) to transfer the memorial property to the federal government in order to preserve the veterans memorial for future generations. Proposition A was approved by an overwhelming 76% of the vote.

Richard Thompson, the President and Chief Counsel for the Law Center, commented, “Congress and the President have spoken. The people of San Diego have spoken. It is time that the courts stop allowing the ACLU to bypass the ballot box and the will of the people for the sake of its own anti-religious agenda. The new federal legislation preserves the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial for all Americans.”

Robert Muise, a Law Center trial attorney working on this case, explained the basis for the motion, “When a civil case becomes moot during the course of an appeal, as in this case, the established practice in the federal system is to reverse or vacate the judgment below and remand with a direction to dismiss. Because this controversy is now moot, both the trial and appellate courts lack subject matter jurisdiction and the concomitant power to declare the law by deciding the merits of the case. Therefore, this case should be dismissed.”

Over the past two years, the Law Center has provided thousands of attorney hours without charge to preserve the memorial cross from destruction by the ACLU-backed atheist Paulson. Charles LiMandri, the west coast director of the Thomas More Law Center who led the effort, commented, “It is time for the courts to put this 17-year court battle to destroy the veterans memorial to rest. The people of San Diego overwhelmingly support the preservation of the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial, the President of the United States strongly supports preserving the veterans memorial, and Congress, in a remarkable, bi-partisan effort, has passed legislation to ensure the preservation of this national treasure. The Ninth Circuit should do the right thing and dismiss this case.”
http://www.thomasmore.org/news.html?NewsID=447

Also, in some or all Califorina schools students are mandated to take Islamic classes to learn about the Islamic religion, and they do go the whole nine yards with this. God forbid there'd be a Jewish or Christian class.

It appears there are several cases across the country where people complain about Christians symbols and want them remove, using the tired out phrase of "Seperation of Church and State." Which is grossly missuse so many times it's not even funny. Ok, let me tell you guys what "Seperation of Church and States" actually means. What it means is that the government cannot force a religion on the masses, nor can it favor or discriminate against any religious beliefs. That means if New York Schools want to put up the Islamic, and Jewish symbol, then the Christians symbol must also go up. No, Snowmens or Santa Clause does not cut it. I am tired of hearing about atheist who feels like they need to complain about every little instance where they see Christian values or symbols being shown in public, it's just stupid. So what do yall think?

How the heck did they arrive that the Menora is a secular symbol? It is most definitely a religious symbol.

About every week, I hear one or two instance where groups like the ACLU trying to remove a religious symbol. Would it be Islam symbols, or how about Jewish symbols? Nope. Instead all they complain about is the Christian symbols.
How many jewish or islamic symbols do you see normally? Answer: not many.


Also, in some or all Califorina schools students are mandated
http://www.snopes.com/religion/islam.htm


It appears there are several cases across the country where people complain about Christians symbols and want them remove, using the tired out phrase of "Seperation of Church and State." Which is grossly missuse so many times it's not even funny. Ok, let me tell you guys what "Seperation of Church and States" actually means. What it means is that the government cannot force a religion on the masses, nor can it favor or discriminate against any religious beliefs.
Using the symbols of one religion to the exclusion of others is discriminating against other religions and implicitly forcing a religion on the masses.

You might also want to note that many suits about prayer are filed by believers. For instance, a Mormon family and Catholic family filed suit in a Texas district to have Baptist prayers stopped before football games.

But only atheists file suits, right?

Christianity is the main religion in our country and its history and almost all public and historical expressions of religion in the country are Christian. I think it's just that there are more examples of Christianity in the public sphere that can be targeted rather than any particular singling out of the religion.

Ah christians...can't wait to climb up on that cross with their buddy. "Oh, oh! I'm persecuted too!!!" Those mean ol' athiests...I mean why aren't they willing to live in a society with this kind of bullshit:
(George Bush Sr. in an interview with Robert Sherman)
RS:
"What will you do to win the votes of Americans who are atheists?"
GB:
"I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me."
RS:
"Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?"
GB:
"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

Yeah, let me shed a tear for the poor fucking christians who are being denied special access. sniffle. Now shake it off.

Oh, let's just give them what they want so badly, and throw one randomly-selected Baptist to a pride of hungry lions, annually, on pay-per-view. They'd be ecstatic to finally be oppressed, even if only by lottery.

Are Christians under attack in the USA?

No.

From my perspective, there is certainly a small amount of reverse discrimination going on against Christians in the US, and there is certainly an unwarranted persecution complex among a lot of conservative Christians in particular. Neither is appropriate or healthy, in my opinion.

What it means is that the government cannot force a religion on the masses, nor can it favor or discriminate against any religious beliefs. That means if New York Schools want to put up the Islamic, and Jewish symbol, then the Christians symbol must also go up. No, Snowmens or Santa Clause does not cut it. I am tired of hearing about atheist who feels like they need to complain about every little instance where they see Christian values or symbols being shown in public, it's just stupid. So what do yall think?
I think I'd like to see something that shows, point blank, a pubic school putting up Jewish or Islamic symbols and not Christian ones for religious and not scholastic purposes, I really would. Because you know what, I have NEVER seen anything beyond myth making that shows that ANY school has.

I HAVE seen people attempt to force schools to put up the Cross for religious, not scholatic, purposes though.

I think I'd like to see something that shows, point blank, a pubic school putting up Jewish or Islamic symbols and not Christian ones for religious and not scholastic purposes, I really would.

I wasn't aware that we had pubic schools. :p

I wasn't aware that we had pubic schools. :p
Yeah, but we usually just call that Junior High.

I wasn't aware that we had pubic schools. :p
It's one of those schools where the kids get an extra special education.

Gym class at pubic school was my favorite, especially when we had to do gymnastics.

I wasn't aware that we had pubic schools. :p
Pick an anwer:

1. I'm typing on a Japanese keyboard which really hates the 'l' key.

2. I teach at a junior high school so I know damn well it's a pubic school.
;)

Sadly, number two sounds better, but number one is closer to the truth (damn old laptop and faulty keys)

Mmkay ....

You have 100 people. 75 of those people are Christian. 2 of those people are Evangelical Atheists. The remaining 23 people just don't care.

I guarantee you that nothing those 2 can do will bully the 75.

However, what's super nice and keen about this nation is that those 75 *cannot* silence the 2.

Vishnu Bless America!

Pick an anwer:

1. I'm typing on a Japanese keyboard which really hates the 'l' key.

2. I teach at a junior high school so I know damn well it's a pubic school.
;)

Sadly, number two sounds better, but number one is closer to the truth (damn old laptop and faulty keys)
Totally called it, I rule!

Mmkay ....

You have 100 people. 75 of those people are Christian. 2 of those people are Evangelical Atheists. The remaining 23 people just don't care.

I guarantee you that nothing those 2 can do will bully the 75.

However, what's super nice and keen about this nation is that those 75 *cannot* silence the 2.

Vishnu Bless America!

I have a better way of looking at this.

While Christians don't get the Ten Commandments in a public building, and can't have Santa Claus in a parade if the locals feel he's too Christian a figure (funny, he's not in the New Testament), and while Muslims where I live get a prayer room in public school during the school day and the Christians do not, and Christians don't get to say prayers at graduation....

that doesn't mean they're under attack. It just means that as a matter of public policy and minor inconvenience, they have to do those things at their church.

See?

To echo Keruvalia: no.

Blocking the forcing of religion down our throats is not "attack[ing] Christianity."

Ah christians...can't wait to climb up on that cross with their buddy. "Oh, oh! I'm persecuted too!!!" Those mean ol' athiests...I mean why aren't they willing to live in a society with this kind of bullshit:
(George Bush Sr. in an interview with Robert Sherman)


Yeah, let me shed a tear for the poor fucking christians who are being denied special access. sniffle. Now shake it off.

I disagree. That's a pat answer to why. I don't think it has anything to do with wanting to be persecuted. Quite the opposite, most of them don't even go to church on christmas because they don't want to waste the holiday.

It's because, like all self-identifying groups, they react to any encroachment on their perceived power base. You tell them they can't do something, then they'll go out and try and do it just to prove they can. When they get stopped, it makes them worse.

Ignoring them is the best answer.

Pick an anwer:

1. I'm typing on a Japanese keyboard which really hates the 'l' key.

2. I teach at a junior high school so I know damn well it's a pubic school.
;)

Sadly, number two sounds better, but number one is closer to the truth (damn old laptop and faulty keys)

Hehe. Number 2 is very true. I've taught in a junior high school and know exactly what you mean. :D

While Christians don't get the Ten Commandments in a public building, and can't have Santa Claus in a parade if the locals feel he's too Christian a figure (funny, he's not in the New Testament), and while Muslims where I live get a prayer room in public school during the school day and the Christians do not, and Christians don't get to say prayers at graduation....
As soon as Christianity calls for special rooms configured for a special mat and prayers at specific times of the day, we can have our own prayer room. Given that, oddly, MY pastor never mentioned any of the above or a commandment to pray at graduations or school events (and actually was QUITE proud that Christians could pray anywhere, anywhen without special set up), I doubt that you're going to get anywhere with saying that Christians MUST be able to pray at football games over loudspeakers or display the 10 commandments.

Totally called it, I rule!
*Hands you a taiyaki for a job well done*

Oh, let's just give them what they want so badly, and throw one randomly-selected Baptist to a pride of hungry lions, annually, on pay-per-view. They'd be ecstatic to finally be oppressed, even if only by lottery.
I like it. It's kinky, sort of like stampeding cattle through the Vatican.

And to Wilgrove, Christians are decidedly not under attack in the US, and it wouldn't matter if they were, since they outnumber any other religious or irreligious group by a factor of at least ten.

And CToaN is absolutely right--some christians can't wait to climb up on that cross and suffer--figuratively, that is. When I was in grad school in Arkansas, there was a student christian group that celebrated Easter week every year by lugging a cross made of 2x2's around campus. Only one hitch--it had wheels at the base. Come on guys--if you're going to fake like you're suffering like Jesus, actually drag the damn thing around. Otherwise it's like you're pulling a grotesque golf cart around.

As soon as Christianity calls for special rooms configured for a special mat and prayers at specific times of the day, we can have our own prayer room. Given that, oddly, MY pastor never mentioned any of the above or a commandment to pray at graduations or school events (and actually was QUITE proud that Christians could pray anywhere, anywhen without special set up), I doubt that you're going to get anywhere with saying that Christians MUST be able to pray at football games over loudspeakers or display the 10 commandments.

Did you not read the rest of my post?

Wilgrove, you reversed the subject and object in your question.

And CToaN is absolutely right--some christians can't wait to climb up on that cross and suffer--figuratively, that is. When I was in grad school in Arkansas, there was a student christian group that celebrated Easter week every year by lugging a cross made of 2x2's around campus. Only one hitch--it had wheels at the base. Come on guys--if you're going to fake like you're suffering like Jesus, actually drag the damn thing around. Otherwise it's like you're pulling a grotesque golf cart around.

You got that right. I've seen several folks doing that bit. At least the crucifixion re-enactors in the Philippines do it right.... (Google it up if you don't know what I'm talking about. DO NOT DO SO if seeing a real live person crucified - 5 inch nails through the palms and all - bothers you.)

It's really simple. If the people who want religion (code word for Christians) out of our schools, and government, then I think they should go all out. Let's get rid of all religious symbol on government property. So, New York has to take down the Jewish and Islam symbols, and California schools can't celebrate the Islamic fate or whatever they do in the land of nuts and fruits. It's very simple, either you include all three major religion, or you exclude them all. You can't just half ass it and say that you're being fair.

It's very simple, either you include all three major religion, or you exclude them all. You can't just half ass it and say that you're being fair.
No, either you include everybody, or you include everybody. And then it's fair. Three major religions, my ass.

No, either you include everybody, or you include everybody. And then it's fair. Three major religions, my ass.

don't you mean include everybody or exclude everybody? and I agree, I take that three religion remark back.

don't you mean include everybody or exclude everybody? and I agree, I take that three religion remark back.
Nope. include everybody. or conversely, include everybody. there is no exclusion permissable.

It's really simple. If the people who want religion (code word for Christians)
False.


out of our schools, and government, then I think they should go all out.
People are trying.

I don't feel like I'm under attack, and I'm about to marry an atheist! *gasp*

=)

Now, if certain religious symbols truly are being labelled "secular", while others are not, I'd like to know why - because that does sound like a problem. But it isn't a problem that forced religion is being removed. It is a problem that all of it isn't.

It's really simple. If the people who want religion (code word for Christians) out of our schools, and government, then I think they should go all out. Let's get rid of all religious symbol on government property. So, New York has to take down the Jewish and Islam symbols, and California schools can't celebrate the Islamic fate or whatever they do in the land of nuts and fruits. It's very simple, either you include all three major religion, or you exclude them all. You can't just half ass it and say that you're being fair.

How about we strike a balance?

If you have to require an awareness class about religion, it should be a true comparitive religion class which adresses every religion fairly.

But when it comes to symbols, no religion should have them on public ground, since it would be impractical to try to inclue every one of them.

There is no attack on christianity in America. What there is a is a large group only too willing to whine about how "oppressed" they are.

This is an outrage.
















The Jewish symbols shouldn't be there.

And the GWB quote made me angry. I don't want to hijack this thread...but man, what were some people thinking?

It's really simple. If the people who want religion (code word for Christians) out of our schools, and government, then I think they should go all out. Let's get rid of all religious symbol on government property. So, New York has to take down the Jewish and Islam symbols, and California schools can't celebrate the Islamic fate or whatever they do in the land of nuts and fruits.

You've already been busted on that. http://www.snopes.com/religion/islam.htm

It's very simple, either you include all three major religion, or you exclude them all. You can't just half ass it and say that you're being fair.

Err.. there are more than 3 major religions. Maybe you should be taking that grade 7 social studies course from California - you might learn about these "minor" religions known as Buddhism and Hinduism, among other things...

This is an outrage.
















The Jewish symbols shouldn't be there.

And the GWB quote made me angry. I don't want to hijack this thread...but man, what were some people thinking?
It's HW, the first, Sr, not the current George. I want to make sure I'm not misrepresenting that.

And the GWB quote made me angry. I don't want to hijack this thread...but man, what were some people thinking?

They're thinking "you know what?, I could still run for another term".

WHY CANT WE JUST SCREW POLITICAL CORRECTNESS AND NUKE ACLU HQ!!!
Seriously what is with this buisness of not offending anyone? Pisses me off
Who is with me???

WHY CANT WE JUST SCREW POLITICAL CORRECTNESS AND NUKE ACLU HQ!!!
Seriously what is with this buisness of not offending anyone? Pisses me off
Who is with me???

Yo.

Who is with me???
*quickly lowers both hands to ground-level*

not me.

*quickly lowers both hands to ground-level*

not me.
*whiny voice
but whyyyyyyyyyyy?

WHY CANT WE JUST SCREW POLITICAL CORRECTNESS AND NUKE ACLU HQ!!!
Seriously what is with this buisness of not offending anyone? Pisses me off
Who is with me???

What has political correctness got to do with defending the First Ammendmant and insuring that the Church doesn't use the State as it's new evangelizing tool?

About every week, I hear one or two instance where groups like the ACLU trying to remove a religious symbol. Would it be Islam symbols, or how about Jewish symbols? Nope. Instead all they complain about is the Christian symbols. One of the most recent case is this. Most major religions don't whore out their symbols for the simple reason that they aren't the majority. Christians have their symbols the most widespread due to them being the majority.Ergo, they will have the most cases against them to have their symbols removed.

Also, in some or all Califorina schools students are mandated to take Islamic classes to learn about the Islamic religion, and they do go the whole nine yards with this. God forbid there'd be a Jewish or Christian class. Untrue.

It appears there are several cases across the country where people complain about Christians symbols and want them remove, using the tired out phrase of "Seperation of Church and State." Which is grossly missuse so many times it's not even funny. Ok, let me tell you guys what "Seperation of Church and States" actually means. What it means is that the government cannot force a religion on the masses, nor can it favor or discriminate against any religious beliefs. That means if New York Schools want to put up the Islamic, and Jewish symbol, then the Christians symbol must also go up. No, Snowmens or Santa Clause does not cut it.
No, separation of church and state mean just that: Separation (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=separation)(1) of Church (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=church&x=36&y=18)(7) and State (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=state&x=0&y=0)(10). IE: No religion in the government, no government in religion. If churches wish to remain untaxed, then they should stop bitching about the separation that has served them well thusfar. There should be no religious symbols on public land...be it Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Bahai, Voodoo, Santeria, Hindi, Buddhist, et. al.
I am tired of hearing about atheist who feels like they need to complain about every little instance where they see Christian values or symbols being shown in public, it's just stupid. So what do yall think?I'm tired of hearing Christians bitch about how they're persecuted constantly.

It's really simple. If the people who want religion (code word for Christians) Oh, please.
out of our schools, and government, then I think they should go all out. Let's get rid of all religious symbol on government property.
Now you're getting it.
So, New York has to take down the Jewish and Islam symbols, and Sounds good so far...
California schools can't celebrate the Islamic fate or whatever they do in the land of nuts and fruits.That is still not true. There are links to prove that.
It's very simple, either you include all three major religion,
Since when are there only three major religions? There are litarally dozens of "major" religions, and hundreds of groups that qualify as a religion.
or you exclude them all. You can't just half ass it and say that you're being fair.In the US, where most people are Christian, it only makes sense that more christian symbols will be removed than any other. The reason is quite simple:there are more of them that need to be removed.

With fundies like Pat, I hope so.

Actually evangelical christians are attacking the USA.

They've gotten powerfull enough to swing presidential elections so that W won. He rewarded them by channelling tax money into churches through his "Faith Based Initiatives", by enforcing their strict anti-abortion and anti-contraception viewpoints by appointing people to the FDA who will disregard scientific majority opinion and place unreasonable obstacles to contraceptive "morning after" pills. They've trampled on the idea of equal treatment under the law by forcing anti-gay ammendments into state constitutions. They're constantly attempting to place their religious symbols on public land in violation of the establishment clause of the constitution. And there's a lot more going on.

Evangelical christianity is a greater threat to the USA than communism was in the cold war. It's a greater threat than radical Islam is now. Why? Because neither of those external threats were insidious and strong enough to make us scrap our constitution and radically alter our way of life. Creeping christian theocracy seems to be succeeding where communism and terrorism has failed. For the sake of the future of the USA and the world I hope we can defang the serpent of evangelism that threatens to poison us all.

Of course Christians are not being attacked or persecuted in the United States, that's absurd. Telling Christians they are being persecuted sure gets out the vote, though, doesn't it? It's all just part of the culture of victimhood that lies over this country like a wet woolen blanket. Meh.

Actually evangelical christians are attacking the USA.

They've gotten powerfull enough to swing presidential elections so that W won. He rewarded them by channelling tax money into churches through his "Faith Based Initiatives", by enforcing their strict anti-abortion and anti-contraception viewpoints by appointing people to the FDA who will disregard scientific majority opinion and place unreasonable obstacles to contraceptive "morning after" pills. They've trampled on the idea of equal treatment under the law by forcing anti-gay ammendments into state constitutions. They're constantly attempting to place their religious symbols on public land in violation of the establishment clause of the constitution. And there's a lot more going on.

Evangelical christianity is a greater threat to the USA than communism was in the cold war. It's a greater threat than radical Islam is now. Why? Because neither of those external threats were insidious and strong enough to make us scrap our constitution and radically alter our way of life. Creeping christian theocracy seems to be succeeding where communism and terrorism has failed. For the sake of the future of the USA and the world I hope we can defang the serpent of evangelism that threatens to poison us all.
*applause*

CHRISTIANS ARE THE MAJORITY! If you're being 'opressed' or are 'under attack' it's due to apathy.

Actually evangelical christians are attacking the USA.

As I said above, Willy got the subject and object mixed up in his question.

As soon as Christianity calls for special rooms configured for a special mat and prayers at specific times of the day, we can have our own prayer room. Given that, oddly, MY pastor never mentioned any of the above or a commandment to pray at graduations or school events (and actually was QUITE proud that Christians could pray anywhere, anywhen without special set up), I doubt that you're going to get anywhere with saying that Christians MUST be able to pray at football games over loudspeakers or display the 10 commandments.

Actually - Christianity kind of does call for 'special rooms'... this idea of praying publically that Christians are apparently lamenting losing - is not scriptural in the first place. Practically the exact opposite - in fact.

WHY CANT WE JUST SCREW POLITICAL CORRECTNESS AND NUKE ACLU HQ!!!
Seriously what is with this buisness of not offending anyone? Pisses me off
Who is with me???

Do we really have to point out that the ACLU defends religious claimants as well? Check the list of recent cases on their website and you'll find that they defend about as many theistic claims as they do atheistic ones.

Actually - Christianity kind of does call for 'special rooms'... this idea of praying publically that Christians are apparently lamenting losing - is not scriptural in the first place. Practically the exact opposite - in fact.


Quite wrong. The verse you are thinking of does not say anything about Public praying in the sense that public praying is wrong. It is the self glorification of ones self, trying to make yourself look religious for personal gains. Jesus spoke very clearly on it. Jesus in fact was adament about how wrong the "fundies" (as you guys so popularly coin them) were, being the Pharisees mainly.

Matthew 6-5a
5"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men.

Luke 18:14
14"I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

It's about the motives of your heart, not the works you do, though I personally think a moment of silence is far better served than a public prayer, the public prayer in and of itself is not the evil, it is the people behind it and how they intend it to be.

Actually - Christianity kind of does call for 'special rooms'... this idea of praying publically that Christians are apparently lamenting losing - is not scriptural in the first place. Practically the exact opposite - in fact.

Almost but not quite. If a Buddhist might be allowed (;)): Matthew 6:5-6

And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt%206;&version=31;

There is some thoeolgical and historical context debate, but as I understand it, this is simply an admonition against ostentatious and public prayer. It does not say you need a special room, just a private place where you and god may confere. (Those who want prayers at public functions ought oft be reminded of this.)

Quite wrong. The verse you are thinking of does not say anything about Public praying in the sense that public praying is wrong. It is the self glorification of ones self, trying to make yourself look religious for personal gains. Jesus spoke very clearly on it. Jesus in fact was adament about how wrong the "fundies" (as you guys so popularly coin them) were, being the Pharisees mainly.

Matthew 6-5a
5"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men.

Luke 18:14
14"I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

It's about the motives of your heart, not the works you do, though I personally think a moment of silence is far better served than a public prayer, the public prayer in and of itself is not the evil, it is the people behind it and how they intend it to be.


Heh. Slightly differeent readings but close enough. Missed ya while trying to remember chapter and verse. ;)

Actually evangelical christians are attacking the USA.

They've gotten powerfull enough to swing presidential elections so that W won. He rewarded them by channelling tax money into churches through his "Faith Based Initiatives", by enforcing their strict anti-abortion and anti-contraception viewpoints by appointing people to the FDA who will disregard scientific majority opinion and place unreasonable obstacles to contraceptive "morning after" pills.
Don't forget the vaccine for some strains of HPV, which could prevent cervical cancer. A lot of fundies want to block that, too, saying "It could lead to promiscuity".

A friend of mine in the public school system (I was home schooled) was taught about the Islamic faith, and we're in New York.

Don't forget the vaccine for some strains of HPV, which could prevent cervical cancer. A lot of fundies want to block that, too, saying "It could lead to promiscuity".
Yep. I just read about that last night. Since HPV is the only STD that condoms might not prevent it's their last hope for discrediting condom use. They'd rather see women get cervical cancer than see people using a rubber. How christian of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States#Religion

The first paragraph goes like this:

The United States government keeps no official register of Americans' religious status. However, in a private survey conducted in 2001 and mentioned in the Census Bureau's Statistical Abstract of the United States, 76.7% of American adults identified themselves as Christian; about 52% of adults described themselves as members of various Protestant denominations; Roman Catholics, at 24.5%, were the most populous individual sect; Judaism (1.4%), the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (1.3%), and other faiths also have firm places in American culture; about 14.2% of respondents described themselves as having no religion; the religious distribution of the 5.4% who elected not to describe themselves for the survey is unknown.[62]

If Christians are oppressed in the USA, then 76.7% of the population is being oppressed by a vast conspiracy of atheists, people from other religions, people who don't like to answer surveys, and everybody else who makes up the remaining 23.3% of the US population.

This is theoretically possible, if the 23.3% are all in positions of power, while the 76.7% are not.

I do not believe this is the case.

From Senator Session's website:
http://sessions.senate.gov/bio.htm
Sessions has served as lay leader and as a Sunday school teacher at his family’s church, Ashland Place United Methodist Church, in Mobile. He served as the Chairman of his church’s Administrative Board and every year since 1987, Sessions has been selected as a delegate to the annual Alabama Methodist Conference.

Senator Akaka:
http://akaka.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Akaka.Home
Raised in a deeply religious family, Senator Akaka is a member of the historic Kawaiaha`o Church where he served as choir director for 17 years. He and his wife Millie are the parents of four sons and a daughter who have blessed them with 14 grandchildren and four great-grandchildren.

Senator Alexander:
http://alexander.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Biography.Lamar
He is an elder in Westminster Presbyterian Church.

Kit Bond doesn't mention his religion but he does have this to say
http://bond.senate.gov/
God bless the United States.

Senator Sam Brownback:
http://brownback.senate.gov/english/aboutsam/biography.htm
The Economist called Sam "The Wilberforce Republican." And the New York Times declared that he is "one of the most conservative, religious, fascinating -- and, in many ways, admirable -- politicians in America today."

Jim Bunning:
http://bunning.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Biography.Home
Jim and Mary make their home in Southgate, Kentucky and are active members of the St. Catherine of Siena Catholic Church in Fort Thomas, Kentucky.

It would seem that a lot of senators are either Christian or don't mention religion in their websites:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Good luck finding an atheist.

Are Christians under attack in the USA?

Let me put it to you this way: if Christians currently feel that they are "under attack" in the US of A, then I submit that they are going to feel "under attack" no matter what anybody does for them. If they are "under attack" while holding a 75% majority, every branch of the government at both state and federal levels, every major media outlet, and every major American industry, then I think it's gonna be pretty impossible to ever please them.

Some people labor under the misconception that they are being "oppressed" if people who disagree with them are allowed to exist. Some people think they have a right to hold beliefs which are never criticized in any way, shape, or form. Some people believe that if they aren't permitted to enjoy special perks and privaledges which nobody else enjoys, then they are being "oppressed."

Such people are extremely silly. In America, there are some very loud Christians who happen to be silly in this manner. It is best to deal with them as one would a spoilt child who always whines if he is not given the largest piece of cake.

I have a better way of looking at this.

While Christians don't get the Ten Commandments in a public building, and can't have Santa Claus in a parade if the locals feel he's too Christian a figure (funny, he's not in the New Testament), and while Muslims where I live get a prayer room in public school during the school day and the Christians do not, and Christians don't get to say prayers at graduation....

that doesn't mean they're under attack. It just means that as a matter of public policy and minor inconvenience, they have to do those things at their church.

See?

Any student may at any time bow their head and pray silently to themselves (most choose to do this just prior to a test :-) ). Muslim students (and we all know your feelings about Muslims) need a private room due to spefic rituals their religion requires them to follow when they pray, the Christian students do not.

Are Christians under attack in the USA?

Let me put it to you this way: if Christians currently feel that they are "under attack" in the US of A, then I submit that they are going to feel "under attack" no matter what anybody does for them. If they are "under attack" while holding a 75% majority, every branch of the government at both state and federal levels, every major media outlet, and every major American industry, then I think it's gonna be pretty impossible to ever please them.

Some people labor under the misconception that they are being "oppressed" if people who disagree with them are allowed to exist. Some people think they have a right to hold beliefs which are never criticized in any way, shape, or form. Some people believe that if they aren't permitted to enjoy special perks and privaledges which nobody else enjoys, then they are being "oppressed."

Such people are extremely silly. In America, there are some very loud Christians who happen to be silly in this manner. It is best to deal with them as one would a spoilt child who always whines if he is not given the largest piece of cake.
We should smack them one accross the mouth to really give them something to cry about?

No Christianity is far from being unter attack in a nation where the majority are Christians. Non-Christians are just fighting to keep Christianity from being shoved down their throat at every turn (well - at public school and in the law mainly).

A friend of mine in the public school system (I was home schooled) was taught about the Islamic faith, and we're in New York.

Being taught about a religion is quite different from being taught that religion. I had a class in 5th or 6th grade (yes, in a public school) in which we learned about Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Taoism, Buddhism, and maybe a few more, but those are the ones I specifically remember talking about. We visited a local synagogue as a field trip and spoke to a rabbi. We were supposed to visit the cathedral IIRC, but it was under construction. At the time, I don't think there was a mosque nearby.

I have no problem with this type of class. No one was trying to convert us. No one was trying to indoctrinate us. We simply learned about the faiths.

Speaking as a Christian, I think it's not so much that Christians are under attack but that some of our brothers and sisters are so arrogant they miss no opportunity to tell anyone who believes differently, "Tough luck, this is a Christian nation, either accept our ideology being forced onto you (ie abortion, birth control, public prayer/religious symbols) or go to hell."

The Constitution says QUITE CLEARLY that Congress shall establish no official religion; I don't know why some Christians think this means "Congress shall recognize no religion but ours."

It's not that Christians are under attack, it's that some innocent Christian bystanders get caught in the cross fire when people try to defend themselves from the Christians that try to force their own brand of Christianity down everyone's throat(thankfully these Christians are in the minority).

Speaking as a Christian, I think it's not so much that Christians are under attack but that some of our brothers and sisters are so arrogant they miss no opportunity to tell anyone who believes differently, "Tough luck, this is a Christian nation, either accept our ideology being forced onto you (ie abortion, birth control, public prayer/religious symbols) or go to hell."

The Constitution says QUITE CLEARLY that Congress shall establish no official religion; I don't know why some Christians think this means "Congress shall recognize no religion but ours."
First of all Kat, may I say... I LOVE YOUR NEW AVATAR!!!

Secondly, I agree. the US isn't supposed to be a Christian only state. but while it cannot endorse any one religion, it cannot also seek to silence any one religion at the same time (the original interpretation of seperation of Church and State).

It's really simple. If the people who want religion (code word for Christians) out of our schools, and government, then I think they should go all out. Let's get rid of all religious symbol on government property. So, New York has to take down the Jewish and Islam symbols, and California schools can't celebrate the Islamic fate or whatever they do in the land of nuts and fruits. It's very simple, either you include all three major religion, or you exclude them all. You can't just half ass it and say that you're being fair.

Um, where in New York are Islam and Jewish symbols displayed where Christian symbols are not?

Um, where in New York are Islam and Jewish symbols displayed where Christian symbols are not?
On Mosques and Synagogues.

About every week, I hear one or two instance where groups like the ACLU trying to remove a religious symbol. Would it be Islam symbols, or how about Jewish symbols? Nope. Instead all they complain about is the Christian symbols. One of the most recent case is this.


http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1376621.html

Another case is this.


http://www.thomasmore.org/news.html?NewsID=447

Also, in some or all Califorina schools students are mandated to take Islamic classes to learn about the Islamic religion, and they do go the whole nine yards with this. God forbid there'd be a Jewish or Christian class.

It appears there are several cases across the country where people complain about Christians symbols and want them remove, using the tired out phrase of "Seperation of Church and State." Which is grossly missuse so many times it's not even funny. Ok, let me tell you guys what "Seperation of Church and States" actually means. What it means is that the government cannot force a religion on the masses, nor can it favor or discriminate against any religious beliefs. That means if New York Schools want to put up the Islamic, and Jewish symbol, then the Christians symbol must also go up. No, Snowmens or Santa Clause does not cut it. I am tired of hearing about atheist who feels like they need to complain about every little instance where they see Christian values or symbols being shown in public, it's just stupid. So what do yall think?


A better question would be " are secular values and seperation of church and state under attack in America " .

On Mosques and Synagogues.
Damn you, I was gonna say that!

STOP STEALING MY THOUGHTS!!!

Um, where in New York are Islam and Jewish symbols displayed where Christian symbols are not?
OP (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=497271)

still reading from the first post... so it this has been refuted.... :p

Actually - Christianity kind of does call for 'special rooms'... this idea of praying publically that Christians are apparently lamenting losing - is not scriptural in the first place. Practically the exact opposite - in fact.

Indeed.

Matthew 6:5-6: "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men....when thou prayest, enter into thy closet and when thou has shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret...."

Indeed.

Matthew 6:5-6: "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men....when thou prayest, enter into thy closet and when thou has shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret...."
So Christians are only supposed to pray in closets? If thats the case why do they pray in chruch? Im confused

So Christians are only supposed to pray in closets? If thats the case why do they pray in chruch? Im confused
The point of the verse is that you shouldn't pray in public just so everyone will think you're religious, not that you should only pray on your own in a dark room.

The point of the verse is that you shouldn't pray in public just so everyone will think you're religious, not that you should only pray on your own in a dark room.
*nods in agreement*

On Mosques and Synagogues.


Well, NO DUH. :p

The point of the verse is that you shouldn't pray in public just so everyone will think you're religious, not that you should only pray on your own in a dark room.
Yeah, but god said you should pray in the closet.

Yeah, but god said you should pray in the closet.The closet symbolizes privacy.

Yeah, but god said you should pray in the closet.

With all the gay people? :eek:

hehe

I am tired of hearing about atheist who feels like they need to complain about every little instance where they see Christian values or symbols being shown in public, it's just stupid. So what do yall think?

Actually Atheists look at all religions...not just Christianity.

I have a question for our American based friends -

How many US nationally recognised political leaders are professed Atheists?

With all the gay people? :eek:

hehe
Yup, get in there and start evangelising!

The closet symbolizes privacy.
but I thought the bible was supposed to be the literal word of god.

Yup, get in there and start evangelising!
perhaps that's why so many Gay People are "Coming out of the Closet" too much evangelising :D

The point of the verse is that you shouldn't pray in public just so everyone will think you're religious, not that you should only pray on your own in a dark room.

No - I think it's pretty clear... the point of the verse is that prayer is between one person and their god, and is an entirely private matter, and has no business even being conducted in the presence of others.

Prayer is a private conversation... if you are sharing it, you are missing the point.

Of course - the 'acting religious' to garner praise is not going to be smiled upon either, but there are plenty of other places where that is addressed.

Not that the 'closet' MUST be a dark room, but the text is fairly explicit that it should be entirely separate.

It is curious that: just about everything Jesus taught that diverged from the Pharisee approach to religion, is forgotten with 'the coming' of Paul.

It is curious that: just about everything Jesus taught that diverged from the Pharisee approach to religion, is forgotten with 'the coming' of Paul.
you got examples?

you got examples?

Generalisations, perhaps... Jesus preached a specifically personal experience... yet, post-Jesus, we are back in the temples.

Jesus taught an 'inspired' version of interaction, yet, post-Jesus, we are back to a 'traditional' approach to religion... with a reliance on the 'books of the law' and a 'recognised tradition' of interpretation.

Jesus taught a religion which 'lived'... interaction with god as an ongoing practise, yet, the minute Jesus is on the tree, we revert to the fait accompli approach to absolution through sacrifices.

Jesus preached a religion which centred around one of the virtues, by far above all others... the virtue of love.. yet, post-Jesus, the 'virtue' approach to god is almost entirely displaced by a 'avoiding vice' approach... and 'love' is demoted even within the ranks of the virtues.

Generalisations, perhaps... Jesus preached a specifically personal experience... yet, post-Jesus, we are back in the temples.

Jesus taught an 'inspired' version of interaction, yet, post-Jesus, we are back to a 'traditional' approach to religion... with a reliance on the 'books of the law' and a 'recognised tradition' of interpretation.

Jesus taught a religion which 'lived'... interaction with god as an ongoing practise, yet, the minute Jesus is on the tree, we revert to the fait accompli approach to absolution through sacrifices.

Jesus preached a religion which centred around one of the virtues, by far above all others... the virtue of love.. yet, post-Jesus, the 'virtue' approach to god is almost entirely displaced by a 'avoiding vice' approach... and 'love' is demoted even within the ranks of the virtues.

ah, but Jesus was coming from a diffferent place literally. I don't look at Paul as 'how to be a good Christian' I read his letters like they are his letters, they are what he struggled with, it's not instruction, it's advice.

ah, but Jesus was coming from a diffferent place literally. I don't look at Paul as 'how to be a good Christian' I read his letters like they are his letters, they are what he struggled with, it's not instruction, it's advice.

Which is fine... Paul is a commentator - nothing more.

However, clearly, the post-Jesus version of Christianity bears little resemblence to the version the living Jesus exemplified. Paul bears a lot of responsibility for this, since he is (by far) the loudest voice on the 'will of Christ' - despite the never-actually-meeting-the earthly-Christ-during-his-ministry aspect.

The simple fact remains - Jesus lived one version of how we should live with god, and preached one version of how we should walk closely with him... and yet, the 'church' fell straight back into the Pharisee mould, the minute his back was turned.

How many US nationally recognised political leaders are professed Atheists?

Well, if you are talking about Presidents, they have all been Christian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States#Other_facts

All Presidents have been white males and nominally Christian (mostly Protestant). Most presidents have been of substantially British descent, but there have been a few who came from a different background:

Which is fine... Paul is a commentator - nothing more.

However, clearly, the post-Jesus version of Christianity bears little resemblence to the version the living Jesus exemplified. Paul bears a lot of responsibility for this, since he is (by far) the loudest voice on the 'will of Christ' - despite the never-actually-meeting-the earthly-Christ-during-his-ministry aspect.

The simple fact remains - Jesus lived one version of how we should live with god, and preached one version of how we should walk closely with him... and yet, the 'church' fell straight back into the Pharisee mould, the minute his back was turned.
because it's easier.

You meet a new convert to Christianity and what to they pop out with "I quit hanging out in bars, and drinking and smacking ladies on the bum"

it's a huge list of "what I don't do anymore"

people are dense (you know it's true) they want a big list of "DO THIS" and "DON'T DO THIS" and they can carry it around with them making check marks and keeping score.

When I start to talk to people about my relationship with God, they freak out, they think I am a nut, even "church people" are too caught up in trying to "live it" that they just don't get the "be still" that Christ taught.

Jews and Muslims don't shove their religions down the throats of everyone else. Christians do and put their garbage everywhere.

Jews and Muslims don't shove their religions down the throats of everyone else. Christians do and put their garbage everywhere.
Maybe not in this country, but in some other countries Islam is shoved down everyone's throat.

Maybe not in this country, but in some other countries Islam is shoved down everyone's throat.

In case you haven't read the title of this thread, it is
"Are Christians under Attack in The USA?"

In case you haven't read the title of this thread, it is
"Are Christians under Attack in The USA?"
akl;dshfaporhguahsnjkgbvyuiheITYJAJFHVPOUIAJSEKTNPAUIHVFL I'AsnvfIUWehf[ouihaeroi

Actually evangelical christians are attacking the USA.

They've gotten powerfull enough to swing presidential elections so that W won. He rewarded them by channelling tax money into churches through his "Faith Based Initiatives", by enforcing their strict anti-abortion and anti-contraception viewpoints by appointing people to the FDA who will disregard scientific majority opinion and place unreasonable obstacles to contraceptive "morning after" pills. They've trampled on the idea of equal treatment under the law by forcing anti-gay ammendments into state constitutions. They're constantly attempting to place their religious symbols on public land in violation of the establishment clause of the constitution. And there's a lot more going on.

Evangelical christianity is a greater threat to the USA than communism was in the cold war. It's a greater threat than radical Islam is now. Why? Because neither of those external threats were insidious and strong enough to make us scrap our constitution and radically alter our way of life. Creeping christian theocracy seems to be succeeding where communism and terrorism has failed. For the sake of the future of the USA and the world I hope we can defang the serpent of evangelism that threatens to poison us all.
*genulates*

Well, if you are talking about Presidents, they have all been Christian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States#Other_facts

what about other leaders like Senators or Representatives?

I suspect the number will be small to non existant...

If there are no national leaders professing atheism I do not see how Christianity in the US is under attack as stated by the OP....

what about other leaders like Senators or Representatives?

I suspect the number will be small to non existant...

If there are no national leaders professing atheism I do not see how Christianity in the US is under attack as stated by the OP....
I don't know if there are any atheist politicians, but according to one survey atheists are the least trusted group in America. Less trusted than a gay Islamist terrorist. Also most respondents to the poll said that they'd rather vote for an incompetent religious presidential candidate than a well qualified atheist candidate.

I don't know if there are any atheist politicians, but according to one survey atheists are the least trusted group in America. Less trusted than a gay Islamist terrorist. Also most respondents to the poll said that they'd rather vote for an incompetent religious presidential candidate than a well qualified atheist candidate.
It's so good to be loved. Maybe we'd be more electable if we ran as gay Islamic terrorists.

I don't know if there are any atheist politicians, but according to one survey atheists are the least trusted group in America. Less trusted than a gay Islamist terrorist. Also most respondents to the poll said that they'd rather vote for an incompetent religious presidential candidate than a well qualified atheist candidate.

Really? wow...that is a staggering statistic (seriously!)

Why would that be I wonder?

I will state that I am a non believer...an atheist if you will. Just to avoid any confusion :)

It's so good to be loved. Maybe we'd be more electable if we ran as gay Islamic terrorists.
Imagine a political rally where the people chant Allahu Gaybar*
That might just piss off enough people in America to unite the country.

*Fake Arabic for god is in a gay bar.

Awfully hard to be under attack by a minority.

Christians love to be persecuted.
They want nothing more than to be martryed for thier own cause.
They do this, by insisting that they are being persecuted, and that thier very right to worship is under threat.

This is, without a doubt, the biggest pile of bullshit in America today.

The only ones oppressing them, are themselves.

Also, in some or all Califorina schools students are mandated to take Islamic classes to learn about the Islamic religion, and they do go the whole nine yards with this. God forbid there'd be a Jewish or Christian class.

It appears there are several cases across the country where people complain about Christians symbols and want them remove, using the tired out phrase of "Seperation of Church and State."

So what do yall think?

Having Islamic studies being mandated is EXACTLY why the seperation of Church and State should be construed as "Freedom FROM Religion".

This nation is so far up Christ's ass that crap such as mandated Islamic studies will keep on happening until "Seperation of Church and State" finally DOES become the "Freedom FROM Religion" that it always should have been.

Get used to this crap.
Stuff like "Intelligent Design" in Public Schools opened the door WIDE on mandating Islamic studies.

akl;dshfaporhguahsnjkgbvyuiheITYJAJFHVPOUIAJSEKTNPAUIHVFL I'AsnvfIUWehf[ouihaeroi

Gesundheit

*offers Hankie*

Really? wow...that is a staggering statistic (seriously!)

Why would that be I wonder?

I will state that I am a non believer...an atheist if you will. Just to avoid any confusion :)
http://www.ur.umn.edu/FMPro?-db=releases&-lay=web&-format=umnnewsreleases/releasesdetail.html&ID=2816&-Find

Why? Because as we all know atheists have no morals because they have no god to base them on.

Not in the USA.

However in england, especially in the media (not in the government). If a christian is on tv, he is automaticly represented as a social retard or a crazy wacko.

Not in the USA.

However in england, especially in the media (not in the government). If a christian is on tv, he is automaticly represented as a social retard or a crazy wacko.
Maybe someday, the US will be enlightened as well.

I am tired of hearing about atheist who feels like they need to complain about every little instance where they see Christian values or symbols being shown in public, it's just stupid. So what do yall think?

Im tired of every nutjob Christian who thinks that becuase HIS religions symbols arent allowed in government building, that it means he/she is being persecuted.

They arent allowed becuase America does not allow religious favoritism.
We do this, becuase of nutjobs like you, who would most certainly allow Christian favoritism everywhere, and anywhere you could.

We dont allow it in public schools for two reasons:

1. Its all bullshit, and you cant prove otherwise, wich means, it sure as HELL isnt a science, or anything worthy of teaching students.
Regaedless of proof (or not) to the opposite viewpoint.

2. More than just Christians go to American schools.
People like you would prefer that Muslim children in America manditorily learn about Jesus.

Thank "God" we have laws against that.

I am tired of hearing about atheist who feels like they need to complain about every little instance where they see Christian values or symbols being shown in public, it's just stupid. So what do yall think?

Im tired of every nutjob Christian who thinks that becuase HIS religions symbols arent allowed in government building, that it means he/she is being persecuted.

They arent allowed becuase America does not allow religious favoritism.
We do this, becuase of nutjobs like you, who would most certainly allow Christian favoritism everywhere, and anywhere you could.

We dont allow it in public schools for two reasons:

1. Its all bullshit, and you cant prove otherwise, wich means, it sure as HELL isnt a science, or anything worthy of teaching students.
Regaedless of proof (or not) to the opposite viewpoint.

2. More than just Christians go to American schools.
People like you would prefer that Muslim children in America manditorily learn about Jesus.

Thank "God" we have laws against that.

However in england, especially in the media (not in the government). If a christian is on tv, he is automaticly represented as a social retard or a crazy wacko.

I knew there was a reason why Great Britain/England is superior to the the USA.

Cthulhu-Mythos']I knew there was a reason why Great Britain/England is superior to the the USA.

That and cricket ;)

However in england, especially in the media (not in the government). If a christian is on tv, he is automaticly represented as a social retard or a crazy wacko.

Ah stereotypical tv. Guess it is in all countries.

That and cricket ;)



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v427/vonbek/rourke.gif

No Christianity is not under attack. Christianity is attacking women, though.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v427/vonbek/rourke.gif


*Salutes the flag*

http://www.ur.umn.edu/FMPro?-db=releases&-lay=web&-format=umnnewsreleases/releasesdetail.html&ID=2816&-Find

Why? Because as we all know atheists have no morals because they have no god to base them on.

That is rather....frightening!

Thanks for the link!

That and cricket ;)
And Dr. Who.

And Monty Python's Flying Circus

And... Lots of other stuff.

That is rather....frightening!

Thanks for the link!


If by "frightening", you mean "stupid", i agree.

Who knew guys like Ghandi, or the Dhali Lama were evil morality-bereft people?

Cthulhu-Mythos']And Dr. Who.

And Monty Python's Flying Circus

And... Lots of other stuff.

Don't forget, we had the best music. ;)

If by "frightening", you mean "stupid", i agree.

Who knew guys like Ghandi, or the Dhali Lama were evil morality-bereft people?

No...frightening is much more apt.

Ghandi and the Dhali Lama were/are not atheists...well as far as I know anyway...

No...frightening is much more apt.

Ghandi and the Dhali Lama were/are not atheists...well as far as I know anyway...


They arent christians either, I assure you.

This goes to show you how many Christians believe that morality itself comes from thier God.

Wich, is rather assinine.

They arent christians either, I assure you.

This goes to show you how many Christians believe that morality itself comes from thier God.

Wich, is rather assinine.

do you know that all those 2,000 households are christian?

bit of a knee jerk there...

Kindly remember when you generalize that I am Christian too.... of course I'm one of those Satanic Roman Catholics... ;)

Kindly remember when you generalize that I am Christian too.... of course I'm one of those Satanic Roman Catholics... ;)
*places fingers in a cross and hisses*

Kindly remember when you generalize that I am Christian too.... of course I'm one of those Satanic Roman Catholics... ;)
What I love is that you'll get people (baptists, mostly) who scream that catholics aren't xers--but then claim there are 2 billion xers on the planet. Only way to do that is add the catholics.

Of course, no one ever said they were consistent.

Kindly remember when you generalize that I am Christian too.... of course I'm one of those Satanic Roman Catholics... ;)

http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/1660/scared.gif

Don't forget, we had the best music. ;)
Styx is British?

*places fingers in a cross and hisses*
That doesn't work on Catholics... I know, I've tried.

It does wonders on Mormons though. ;)

Kat's right though, not ALL Christians are nut jobs, I'd say even most are not nut jobs. It's the very vocally shrill minority that keeps giving the rest of us bad names.

Cthulhu-Mythos']Styx is British?

Nope, and thats why british music is superior :D

I would just like to make a note (if it has not been made already - short term memory failure :) )


Christians have various dominations.

Some may be very strict.

Some may not be.

To say that all are strict, or all of them hate people who eat bananas (for example) is merely a generalization and should not be made lightly.

IE:
All Chocolate is Brown.


What about white chocolate??


--

Just thought I'd make a point.

No Christianity is not under attack. Christianity is attacking women, though.

May I ask how please?
(although I think I know your answer)

I... choose to not have an opinion due to the influence that going to a Baptist school undoubtble has on my mental health.

Nope, and thats why british music is superior :D

BUT, I LIKE STYX...

Considering myself a Christian as well, I have MET nutjob Christians.
Indeed, my Presbyterian minister has stated in a sermon that the greatest threat to Christianity is Christians.

Banning our right to express OUR RELIGION is discrimination.

Why do you atheist keep expecting us to keep silent about this? We complain because Christmas is a CHRISTIAN holiday and your trying to take it's real meaning away from it Christmas without Christianity is not CHRIST-MAS.

Sure you can say it is based more around family and Giving without wanting to get anything back, But since when did Atheist think that way?.

If you love Freedom of speech dont make us silent, if you hate discrimination then stop doing it to us.

We dont want to force our religion onto people but we want to standup and be Happy we are Christian why is that so wrong to you people?

Banning our right to express OUR RELIGION is discrimination.

Why do you atheist keep expecting us to keep silent about this? We complain because Christmas is a CHRISTIAN holiday and your trying to take it's real meaning away from it Christmas without Christianity is not CHRIST-MAS.

Sure you can say it is based more around family and Giving without wanting to get anything back, But since when did Atheist think that way?.

If you love Freedom of speech dont make us silent, if you hate discrimination then stop doing it to us.

We dont want to force our religion onto people but we want to standup and be Happy we are Christian why is that so wrong to you people?

Show me one example of your so-called "oppression"... Because either 99% of Atheists will agree and oppose the opression, or it will be drawn out of your ass because you're angry you can't use the government to evangelize anymore.

Do your evangelization on your OWN property, thanks.

No one is saying Christmas is not Christian.

What they are objecting to is being forced to listen to religious Christmas songs at public functions on public property, the same as they'd object to being forced to listen to any other prayer or religious song.

Banning our right to express OUR RELIGION is discrimination.

Why do you atheist keep expecting us to keep silent about this? We complain because Christmas is a CHRISTIAN holiday and your trying to take it's real meaning away from it Christmas without Christianity is not CHRIST-MAS.

Sure you can say it is based more around family and Giving without wanting to get anything back, But since when did Atheist think that way?.

If you love Freedom of speech dont make us silent, if you hate discrimination then stop doing it to us.

We dont want to force our religion onto people but we want to standup and be Happy we are Christian why is that so wrong to you people?
Nice satire. You even managed to work in that BS "War on Christmas", and trust me I thought that conspiracy theory was dead. Atheists unable to think in loving terms, claiming that expressing religion is somehow being banned, it's priceless!

The mere existance of Christianity is an act of violence against "unbelievers".

Making "Proselytizing" illegal is desperately needed by this country.
Specifically as Islam is the fastest growing Religious belief in the USA.
The erosion of Christianity to Islam is a direct result to allowing "Proselytizing" to be legal.

Why do you people INSIST on having every little detail explained to you?

I didnt say your trying to KILL CHRISTMAS (as someone said) I said your trying to change it's meaning so it does not seem so 'Religious' someone also said that we want to government to force religion onto them. You say you dont force beliefs on other people then why the hell are children everyday being forced into thinking Evolution has all the facts (which nomatter what you say it does not).

Now yet again im going to go before some idiot Mistranslates my post and gets another wacky outcome.

Why do you people INSIST on having every little detail explained to you?

I didnt say your trying to KILL CHRISTMAS (as someone said) I said your trying to change it's meaning so it does not seem so 'Religious' someone also said that we want to government to force religion onto them. You say you dont force beliefs on other people then why the hell are children everyday being forced into thinking Evolution has all the facts (which nomatter what you say it does not).

Now yet again im going to go before some idiot Mistranslates my post and gets another wacky outcome.
Ha Ha! Look at this, condescending, rude, impatient, even working in evolution and he still manages to wedge in the Christmas conspiracy, all without any quotes or direct replies to other poster. Classic satire!

I heard of a case somewhere in the US where a graduating student wanted to thank God. When that point in her speech came, the staff turned off the microphone.

I heard of a case somewhere in the US where a graduating student wanted to thank God. When that point in her speech came, the staff turned off the microphone.
Makes sense to me...

May I ask how please?
(although I think I know your answer)
It's certainly among the most gender-biased of religious systems--Islam is worse, but not by much (and I'm talking about the ideal here, not the various ways it's practiced--I mean, it's hard to find a christian equivalent of sharia law today). Paul gets a lot of blame for it, though that blame is apparently misplaced. A lot of the misogynistic stuff that is credited to him was apparently written by later followers who claimed his mantle and nom de plume.

I heard of a case somewhere in the US where a graduating student wanted to thank God. When that point in her speech came, the staff turned off the microphone.
Can you back that story up? Because it smells like bovine fecal emission to me.

I heard of a case somewhere in the US where a graduating student wanted to thank God. When that point in her speech came, the staff turned off the microphone.

Source please.

I wasn't aware that we had pubic schools. :p

Where do I sign up??? :D

Why do you people INSIST on having every little detail explained to you?

I didnt say your trying to KILL CHRISTMAS (as someone said) I said your trying to change it's meaning so it does not seem so 'Religious' someone also said that we want to government to force religion onto them. You say you dont force beliefs on other people then why the hell are children everyday being forced into thinking Evolution has all the facts (which nomatter what you say it does not).

Now yet again im going to go before some idiot Mistranslates my post and gets another wacky outcome.


Please do. Before you get into trouble for flaming.

Can you back that story up? Because it smells like bovine fecal emission to me.
It does remind me of the time when the "bad ol' ACLU" defended the right of a senior to thank god in her yearbook. Except, instead of relying on 'I heard..." here it is. (http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12845prs20040511.html)
"While it is true that the Constitution forbids public schools to promote religion, schools must be careful not to suppress the private religious expression of students," said ACLU of Michigan Legal Director Michael J. Steinberg, who represented the student.

So I echo The Nazz, I'm gonna want to see something on that...

I didnt say your trying to KILL CHRISTMAS (as someone said) I said your trying to change it's meaning so it does not seem so
'Religious' Hon, when y'all quit scheduling it on one of my holy days and insisting that your invisible guy's son is the 'reason for the season'; when y'all quit shutting down the entire country on your holiday (but no one elses), you might have a bitch coming. Until then y'all are just whiners.

someone also said that we want to government to force religion onto them. You say you dont force beliefs on other people then why the hell are children everyday being forced into thinking Evolution has all the facts (which nomatter what you say it does not).The Clue Taxi's waiting for you: evolution isn't religion. Nor is it taught as having all the answers...you obviously weren't paying attention in class.

I mean, it's hard to find a christian equivalent of sharia law today).Although it wasn't that long ago that you could; and there are some still on the books, just not enforced. (Okla. statutes still proclaim the man the head of the household, zB.)

No one is saying Christmas is not Christian.
They aren't?

Okay, get ready for it - it's not. It's a very special time of year that was co-opted by Rome for political reasons. It's traditionally Saturnalia.

And it's not Christian at all. It's Roman. Properly Roman.

Hah!

Banning our right to express OUR RELIGION is discrimination.

Why do you atheist keep expecting us to keep silent about this? We complain because Christmas is a CHRISTIAN holiday and your trying to take it's real meaning away from it Christmas without Christianity is not CHRIST-MAS.
Actually, it's the Feast of Bacchinalia. "Christ's Mass" was grafted onto it by the early church.

And no is banning your right to express your religion. No one. Let me repeat that: no one is banning your right to express your religion. No one.

One more thing: if evolution is a religion, so are gravity and electromagnetism.

Although it wasn't that long ago that you could; and there are some still on the books, just not enforced. (Okla. statutes still proclaim the man the head of the household, zB.)
Like I said, I was talking about the doctrine as opposed to the practice. There's a lot of variation within sects of both cases. Most muslims aren't fans of sharia, and most christians aren't hardasses about women being subservient--though there are very few that fully accept women in positions of authority in the church. The Catholics certainly don't, and neither do Baptists or Pentecostals or most of the evangelical churches. The exceptions are the old mainline churches--Anglicans, Episcopalians, Unitarians, etc.--you know, the ones the fundies claim aren't even real churches anymore.

The exceptions are the old mainline churches--Anglicans, Episcopalians, Unitarians, etc.--you know, the ones the fundies claim aren't even real churches anymore.
Lapsed Unitarian, here myself. It frankly makes me sick at heart to see people carrying on like this. And as a sidebar, my spiritual ancestors were actually oppressed like Hell - by the Vatican, during the Inquisitions.

Oppressed, my wobbly ass.

Banning our right to express OUR RELIGION is discrimination.

Why do you atheist keep expecting us to keep silent about this? We complain because Christmas is a CHRISTIAN holiday and your trying to take it's real meaning away from it Christmas without Christianity is not CHRIST-MAS.

I guess I missed the part of Jesus' teachings where he went, "Oh yeah-on my birthday, go all out. I'm serious. Like, day after Thanksgiving (it'll make sense to you in a couple hundred years) I don't want to see a window without spray on frost. Whole hog, I'm tellin' ya. And let me be clear about this, if someone doesn't specificly wish you a Merry Christmas-not Happy Holidays, I don't care that there are a lot of holdiays goin' on-it's my birthday, bitches. If they don't wish you a Merry Christmas then they're practically throwing you to the lions. Bitch like all hell that they're trying to repress you by not stringing up a bunch of crap and ending every sentence with 'Merry Christmas.' Because the best way to celebrate my birth and the love I was trying to bring to the world is to shrilly scream at everyone to celebrate or they're oppressing you."

Can you back that story up? Because it smells like bovine fecal emission to me.

Here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13461308/)

Here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13461308/)
That's disappointing.
"While it is true that the Constitution forbids public schools to promote religion, schools must be careful not to suppress the private religious expression of students," said ACLU of Michigan Legal Director Michael J. Steinberg, who represented the student.
I quoted that earlier, which I think is more important than this-
"There should be no controversy here," ACLU lawyer Allen Lichtenstein said. "It's important for people to understand that a student was given a school-sponsored forum by a school and therefore, in essence, it was a school-sponsored speech."
since it seems that this was met-
The policy does allow for religious expression at school ceremonies and says speakers chosen "on the basis of genuinely neutral, evenhanded criteria" are responsible for the content of their expression and "it may not be restricted because of its religious (or anti-religious) content."
since she was the valedictorian, that's a fair criteria it seems to me.

Disappointing, but still not really christianity under attack just a dispute over where the government endorsed and privately endorsed line is drawn.

I do not think Christians are persecuted in the USA, primarily because they make up 80% of the United States of American population, and in my experience flex the power that comes with that fact quite more than other religions or Athiests have. Now, I do not doubt that if another religion had the power to do the same, they would, but the fact is, they don't.

For example, in the public high school and junior high I went to, if one was not Christian, they were heavily harrassed, and the students would threaten anyone who was Wiccan, telling them they'd tell the teachers. If one person, or that one person I should say as there was only one Wiccan, were to get cocky, saying that it was a public school and nothing could be done, one of the Christian students would ask the teacher what would happen if they knew of another student practicing witchcraft. The teacher's voice would rise in rage and indignation, and demand to know who was seen doing such a thing, making it quite clear that they would be in trouble.

Due to this, I do not see how Christians are being persecuted, as they can openly express their beliefs in any location, pray without hiding what they are doing (although they may not be allowed to tell everyone to join them in prayer in some places, they are allowed to pray themselves), and basically are allowed to do whatever their religion requires of them. Aside from forcing others to join them in their religious rituals, although in some areas of America this is permitted as well.

Now, I do believe that some of the twenty percent of non Christians in the United States may grow quite tired of the behavior of the Christians they'd encountered in the past and may begin to discriminate back, assuming that Christianity as a whole is a ravenous beast that must devour every last soul or it shall not be satiated. This group may even grow quite loud, doing things that may cross the line and engaging in activities that are no better than what was done to them.

However, most of what this group does is centered around removing religious symbols. Now, can you imagine a Wiccan, Moslem or Buddhist religous symbol in a public building for purposes unrelated to education that would not invoke the rage of some of the Christians in the area enough that they would force them to take it down? Maybe in a few parts of the US, a very, very scant few you may find a place where that could happen, like those California schools mentioned. That is more than balanced out, however, by the majority of the USA where Christianity is the dominant power.

That's disappointing.

I quoted that earlier, which I think is more important than this-

since it seems that this was met-

since she was the valedictorian, that's a fair criteria it seems to me.

Disappointing, but still not really christianity under attack just a dispute over where the government endorsed and privately endorsed line is drawn.

I don't really know enough about how the school runs to say whether or not it was unfair. If they'd do this for any religion, then fair enough I suppose. (I assume they would, of course, but like I said I don't know).

I was really just pointing out that it wasn't a bullshit story.

as she began deviating from a pre-approved speech and reading from a version that mentioned God and contained biblical references.

"There should be no controversy here," ACLU lawyer Allen Lichtenstein said. "It's important for people to understand that a student was given a school-sponsored forum by a school and therefore, in essence, it was a school-sponsored speech."

Administrators who vetted an early draft of McComb's speech cut six references to God or Christ, and omitted two biblical references. They also deleted a detailed reference to the crucifixion of Christ.The devil's in the details, and there's a way bit of difference between "I want to thank Christ for being in my life" and hijacking a valedictorian speech in order to preach for 15 minutes. It's the same reason I wasn't allowed to give a valedictorian speech, except they were afraid I'd say something really radical like 'forget highschool' and 'get a life.'

Are Christians under attack in the U.S.? No, but they should be.

Here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13461308/)
Fair enough. It was so like many of the other bullshit stories I automatically doubted it.

Banning our right to express OUR RELIGION is discrimination.Oh please. No one is stopping you from going to church and praying. No one is stopping you from saying a prayer by yourself on public grounds. No one is stopping you from climbing up on your roof and screaming how much you love God and whatnot.
In other words, no one is banning your right to express your religion. What is banned is the state endorsing religion: ie, school sponsored prayer.

Why do you atheist keep expecting us to keep silent about this? We complain because Christmas is a CHRISTIAN holiday and your trying to take it's real meaning away from it Christmas without Christianity is not CHRIST-MAS.Christians did a fine job stripping the Christian meaning out of Christmas with the whole Santa bullshit. If you want someone to blame, blame consumerism and whoring religion out for cash.

Sure you can say it is based more around family and Giving without wanting to get anything back, But since when did Atheist think that way?....not even worth a response. Atleast not one that won't get me into trouble...*waves to kat*

If you love Freedom of speech dont make us silent, if you hate discrimination then stop doing it to us.Again, no one is making you be quiet about it. If you need proof of that, I point you to Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, and every other figurehead who whores out the name of Jesus and God for the sake of profit and/or power.
You wouldn't like it much if you were forced to say Muslim prayers in school, would you? Thought not. So don't dare ridicule me for not wanting to pray to your god in your style. Hell, even all the Christian sects can't agree on how to pray.

We dont want to force our religion onto peopleSorry. I stopped reading here because I was laughing entirely too hard.
but we want to standup and be Happy we are Christian why is that so wrong to you people?THAT is exactly why.

Fair enough. It was so like many of the other bullshit stories I automatically doubted it.

Yea. Religious people tend to have an extraordinary sense of the fabulous.

OK, I've finished reading the whole thread so far, and am I getting this right? Christianity is NOT currently under attack in the US?

Damn. I thought someone had that one covered already.

*adds note to "to do" list, and mutters about having to do everything around here...*

OK, I've finished reading the whole thread so far, and am I getting this right? Christianity is NOT currently under attack in the US?

Damn. I thought someone had that one covered already.

*adds note to "to do" list, and mutters about having to do everything around here...*
Well, it's under attack by secular athieofascists like me, but there's only like twelve of us, and we keep arguing about our name and never get anything done about it.

Well, it's under attack by secular athieofascists like me, but there's only like twelve of us, and we keep arguing about our name and never get anything done about it.
Plus, the EAC is on break. We recently decided that all of August is a holiday.

They aren't?

Okay, get ready for it - it's not. It's a very special time of year that was co-opted by Rome for political reasons. It's traditionally Saturnalia.

And it's not Christian at all. It's Roman. Properly Roman.

Hah!

Yes, but people aren't walking about wishing people a happy Saturnalia, are they? (And I am not talking about 'just' Christians -- there are plenty of secular people who say Merry Christmas (or Happy Christmas, depending on where you are).

Well, it's under attack by secular athieofascists like me, but there's only like twelve of us, and we keep arguing about our name and never get anything done about it.
Now if you would just believe in God, you could get the Protestant work ethic (assuming you chose the right God) and actually get something done!

Now if you would just believe in God, you could get the Protestant work ethic (assuming you chose the right God) and actually get something done!

LOL.

;) I've known plenty people who are NOT Protestant who definitely have the vaunted work ethic.

I've also known non-Christians who were well more worth my time of day than some so-called Christians.

Now if you would just believe in God, you could get the Protestant work ethic (assuming you chose the right God) and actually get something done!

LOL.

;) I've known plenty people who are NOT Protestant who definitely have the vaunted work ethic.

I've also known non-Christians who were well more worth my time of day than some so-called Christians.

LOL.

;) I've known plenty people who are NOT Protestant who definitely have the vaunted work ethic.

I've also known non-Christians who were well more worth my time of day than some so-called Christians.
haha...I know...but I'm a sucker for a bit of irony.

Yes, but people aren't walking about wishing people a happy Saturnalia, are they?
Kat, I hope you won't think I'm being cute when I tell you, that - well - yes, I actually do wish people just that. I mean, not in any sort of sneery or rude way, either. Just kinda smilingly, in a best-of-the-season sort of way.

I mean, why not? Saturnalia was, and continues to be the annual, great weeklong series of feasts, gifts, and orgies. Okay, it's been toned down, and in some quarters there's a lot of piety and stoicism thrown into the mix, but as far as I'm concerned, observing miserableness is entirely up to the conscience of the individual reveller.

Yes, but people aren't walking about wishing people a happy Saturnalia, are they? (And I am not talking about 'just' Christians -- there are plenty of secular people who say Merry Christmas (or Happy Christmas, depending on where you are).
I tailor my approach... I wish my christian friends and acquantainces a merry christmas, my jewish friends and acquantiances a happy hanukah (sp?!) and if I don't know what religion a person is I go to my default... "happy winter solstice" 'cause really, no matter what religion you are it's still the winter solstice at that time of year.

Im tired of every nutjob Christian who thinks that becuase HIS religions symbols arent allowed in government building, that it means he/she is being persecuted.

They arent allowed becuase America does not allow religious favoritism.
We do this, becuase of nutjobs like you, who would most certainly allow Christian favoritism everywhere, and anywhere you could.

We dont allow it in public schools for two reasons:

1. Its all bullshit, and you cant prove otherwise, wich means, it sure as HELL isnt a science, or anything worthy of teaching students.
Regaedless of proof (or not) to the opposite viewpoint.

2. More than just Christians go to American schools.
People like you would prefer that Muslim children in America manditorily learn about Jesus.

Thank "God" we have laws against that.

Ok, so they don't allow Christian holidays symbols in school due to Seperation of Church and State, but what about the Jewish Symbol or Islamic symbol? Why does New York Schools puts up the menorah and the crescent moon and stars, but not the navitiy scene? This is what I am arguing about. If government really want to follow the Seperation of Church and State law, then they need to exclude all religion from being on government property.

Ok, so they don't allow Christian holidays symbols in school due to Seperation of Church and State, but what about the Jewish Symbol or Islamic symbol? Why does New York Schools puts up the menorah and the crescent moon and stars, but not the navitiy scene? This is what I am arguing about. If government really want to follow the Seperation of Church and State law, then they need to exclude all religion from being on government property.
Well, if you're offended by a menorah or a crescent in a public school, then maybe you should take it up with the school and get them to change it. You know, the same thing people do for christian symbols found in schools...

Well, if you're offended by a menorah or a crescent in a public school, then maybe you should take it up with the school and get them to change it. You know, the same thing people do for christian symbols found in schools...

Well I don't live in NY, I live in NC, but my point still remains valid. You can't half ass seperation of church and state and still call it seperation of church and state. The reason I've heard for not showing the navitiy scene is that it's a religious symbol (yes it is). So, what the fuck do they think the menorah or crescent is?

Seriously, Christians aren't being persecuted. I live in probably the least religious city in the US (Portland, OR), and am a Christian. I really don't think that the Ten Commandments belong on federal property, and the excuse that they're a template for legal systems is kinda weak. Hammurabi's Code was much more of a template for legal systems (it included things like softer punishments for minors, and it's thousands of years old!), and if you're gonna put the Ten Commandments up there, you might as well put up the other 603 of them, because it's not complete without them.

Well I don't live in NY, I live in NC, but my point still remains valid. You can't half ass seperation of church and state and still call it seperation of church and state. The reason I've heard for not showing the navitiy scene is that it's a religious symbol (yes it is). So, what the fuck do they think the menorah or crescent is?
Well, maybe no one has made a fuss about the menorah or crescent?

Do you have an article about how the nativity set is forbidden while the menorah and crescent aren't and what context the menorah and crescent are displayed in?

Well I don't live in NY, I live in NC, but my point still remains valid. You can't half ass seperation of church and state and still call it seperation of church and state. The reason I've heard for not showing the navitiy scene is that it's a religious symbol (yes it is). So, what the fuck do they think the menorah or crescent is?

That's rich. You're making these pronouncements about things you don't know about as if they are gospel? I WORK in a NYC public school. They don't favor ANY religious symbol over any other.

Next?

Ok, so they don't allow Christian holidays symbols in school due to Seperation of Church and State, but what about the Jewish Symbol or Islamic symbol? Why does New York Schools puts up the menorah and the crescent moon and stars, but not the navitiy scene? This is what I am arguing about. If government really want to follow the Seperation of Church and State law, then they need to exclude all religion from being on government property.


What you should be asking yourself, is that if 80% of America is predominantly Christian, then why is it so many people dont like that?

Maybe its the Christians themselves who dont like it?
Surely they have the biggest political base, dont they?

If indeed, as you obviously feel, the government is clearly biased against Christianity in such a way, why on Earth the Christians keep passing those laws?

They are the majority.
Ultimately, THEY are the ones insisting on the removal of their own religions symbols from such places.

You get it now?

The same people are oppressing themselves.
Martyr complex.

Anyone fancy a trip to the evil gay-marriaging abortionist baby-eating and keeping-people-alive-who-God-wants-to-die Socialised Medicineing Europe, anyone? Then moan America isn't theocratic enough. Hell, we could just make a Christian Iran in the US while we're at it. Supreme Leader of the Christian Revolution Robertson/Bush I fancy!

[/sarcasm]

No one is saying Christmas is not Christian.

What they are objecting to is being forced to listen to religious Christmas songs at public functions on public property, the same as they'd object to being forced to listen to any other prayer or religious song.

I'll happily say it.

Christmas IS 'not Christian'. It is neither scripturally supported, nor originally a Christian celebration.

Some Christians may celebrate 'christmas'... (not all do), but that doesn't make it a Christian celebration.

Hell, I know Christians that cheerfully celebrate Halloween...

Why is all the fuss about, or the amusent or shock about. Haven't we all learned, that one of the icreasing hobbies of people, is to attack the Church, in any way, shape or form, both directly and indirectly.
And than people say that democracy is good.

I'll happily say it.

Christmas IS 'not Christian'. It is neither scripturally supported, nor originally a Christian celebration.

Some Christians may celebrate 'christmas'... (not all do), but that doesn't make it a Christian celebration.

Hell, I know Christians that cheerfully celebrate Halloween...


First of all Christmas, is a Christian and Catholic celebration of the birth of Christ.
You know what the fucking problem is?
Instead now it has become a celebration, where we party, drink and eat a damned turkey, and where the damned businesses, get a lot of money, so we can see some overweight buisness tycoon with gold rings,and gold chains, happy that Christianity exists, because it makes him a lot of dough.

First of all Christmas, is a Christian and Catholic celebration of the birth of Christ.
You know what the fucking problem is?
Instead now it has become a celebration, where we party, drink and eat a damned turkey, and where the damned businesses, get a lot of money, so we can see some overweight buisness tycoon with gold rings,and gold chains, happy that Christianity exists, because it makes him a lot of dough.

No - Christmas is not a Christian or Catholic celebration.

As I said - it is totally unscriptural. Perhaps you'd care to show me where Jesus endorses the Christmas celebration?

What it is is a 'pagan' festival... a combination of the Saturnalia celebration, and the traditional pagan end-of-year-celebrations of the early Europeans. We can probably go through and highlight all of the heathen touches, if you like... the log, the tree, the mistletoe, the feasting... etc.

Tacking the appelation often attributed to Jesus, onto the description of a pagan festival, doesn't make it a Christian celebration.

The conversion of Christmas to Capitalistmas is sad, I agree... but that is not what makes Christmas a less-than-Christian celebration. It just adds more reasons to consider it less-than-Christian.

No - Christmas is not a Christian or Catholic celebration.

As I said - it is totally unscriptural. Perhaps you'd care to show me where Jesus endorses the Christmas celebration?

What it is is a 'pagan' festival... a combination of the Saturnalia celebration, and the traditional pagan end-of-year-celebrations of the early Europeans. We can probably go through and highlight all of the heathen touches, if you like... the log, the tree, the mistletoe, the feasting... etc.

Tacking the appelation often attributed to Jesus, onto the description of a pagan festival, doesn't make it a Christian celebration.

The conversion of Christmas to Capitalistmas is sad, I agree... but that is not what makes Christmas a less-than-Christian celebration. It just adds more reasons to consider it less-than-Christian.


No Christmas is a Christian and Catholic celebration, but not the christmas that we are celebrating nowadays. What we are celebrating, today is an excuse for having a holdiay, and get drunk with food and drinking and parties. But the Real Christmas is the celebration of Christs birth. I don't give you any fault that you think it is pagan, because it is nowadays, on that I totally agree with, but it is not Christmas, we may call it that, but it is just another holiday, which everyone celebrates, even non-christians and Catholics, which shows, that it has slipped of from its original roots, as have many other Catholic andChristian Celebrations, like Easter.

No Christmas is a Christian and Catholic celebration, but not the christmas that we are celebrating nowadays. What we are celebrating, today is an excuse for having a holdiay, and get drunk with food and drinking and parties. But the Real Christmas is the celebration of Christs birth. I don't give you any fault that you think it is pagan, because it is nowadays, on that I totally agree with, but it is not Christmas, we may call it that, but it is just another holiday, which everyone celebrates, even non-christians and Catholics, which shows, that it has slipped of from its original roots, as have many other Catholic andChristian Celebrations, like Easter.

Wrong. "Having a holdiay, and get(ing) drunk with food and drinking and parties" is the entire point of the event and always has been. It's origins are Roman, it was and is known as Saturnalia, and don't compound your error by claiming Ostara as a Christian observance, either.

Go back a few pages and read, 'cause this is a repeat of something that was discussed last night, and then may I suggest you look up the words Saturnalia and Ostara on Wikipedia, lest you manage to fit yet another toe in behind your Jesus-loving tonsils?

Wrong. "Having a holdiay, and get(ing) drunk with food and drinking and parties" is the entire point of the event and always has been. It's origins are Roman, it was and is known as Saturnalia, and don't compound your error by claiming Ostara as a Christian observance, either.

Go back a few pages and read, 'cause this is a repeat of something that was discussed last night, and then may I suggest you look up the words Saturnalia and Ostara on Wikipedia, lest you manage to fit yet another toe in behind your Jesus-loving tonsils?


Don't start getting offensive you fucking atheist. Just because you don't beleive in Christ doesn't mean you can offend me for that. When I wrote in this thread, I didn't offend anyone, so if you decide to start offending, go to hell, you cretin.

Don't start getting offensive you fucking atheist. Just because you don't beleive in Christ doesn't mean you can offend me for that. When I wrote in this thread, I didn't offend anyone, so if you decide to start offending, go to hell, you cretin.

How remarkable. "Don't start getting offensive you fucking atheist". Yes, I can really and truly feel the Spirit of the Lamb of God in the room right now.

If you find truth offensive, might I suggest you go hide under your bed with a crucifix?

Don't start getting offensive you fucking atheist. Just because you don't beleive in Christ doesn't mean you can offend me for that. When I wrote in this thread, I didn't offend anyone, so if you decide to start offending, go to hell, you cretin.

First: 1) Grow a thicker skin. Nobody loves the victim complex

Second: He's right. Many "Christian" holidays are actually pagan holidays recuperated by the Church in the early days in order to compromise for newly converted pagans. So the pagans could keep their celebratins and holidays, at roughly the same time of the year, but with a new, "christian added flavor". Look up some history of early Christianism, it's very enlightening.

Sorry if I offended you Dobbyworld, I was wrong in offending you, but for some reason or other, that phrase "Jesus-loving tonsils", really offended me more than it should have, so I excuse myself with you, and ask for an apology.
And please don't make a fuss about it, if I got offensive and I am a Catholic, because it seems that we aren't allowed to make mistakes, as if we weren't human. I have my difficulties like eveyone in controlling my temper, sometimes I do well, and sometimes I screw up, like today. Sorry.

How remarkable. "Don't start getting offensive you fucking atheist". Yes, I can really and truly feel the Spirit of the Lamb of God in the room right now.

If you find truth offensive, might I suggest you go hide under your bed with a crucifix?

If I found the truth offensive, I would say, that God and the Catholic Church are offensive. So in my point of view, I don't find the truth offensive.

First: 1) Grow a thicker skin. Nobody loves the victim complex

Second: He's right. Many "Christian" holidays are actually pagan holidays recuperated by the Church in the early days in order to compromise for newly converted pagans. So the pagans could keep their celebratins and holidays, at roughly the same time of the year, but with a new, "christian added flavor". Look up some history of early Christianism, it's very enlightening.

Ska, if I may? It's "Christendom", not "Christianism". Apologies for the Grammar-Nazi tendency, but that just made me cringe. And Maypole, if you ever do actually take the time read back several pages, note that my spiritual antecedents were in fact, bona fide victims of religious persecutions perpetuated by Holy Mother Church - and yet you don't see me stooping to calling you a "fucking Christian".

Oh, and have you tried using Wikipedia to look up the terms "Saturnalia" and "Ostara" yet, or are you content to continue coming off as a self-righteously ignorant, ill-educated and thoroughly rude person?

Ska, if I may? It's "Christendom", not "Christianism". Apologies for the Grammar-Nazi tendency, but that just made me cringe.

Forgive my poor, french-speaking self. English is my second language. The french term is "christianisme", and I've seen the english equivalent used in the past. I stand corrected.

Is "Catholicism" proper english, or is another term appropriate?

No Christmas is a Christian and Catholic celebration, but not the christmas that we are celebrating nowadays. What we are celebrating, today is an excuse for having a holdiay, and get drunk with food and drinking and parties. But the Real Christmas is the celebration of Christs birth. I don't give you any fault that you think it is pagan, because it is nowadays, on that I totally agree with, but it is not Christmas, we may call it that, but it is just another holiday, which everyone celebrates, even non-christians and Catholics, which shows, that it has slipped of from its original roots, as have many other Catholic andChristian Celebrations, like Easter.

You should be thankfull that it's become a secular holiday as well. If it wasn't a legal argument could be made that closing the government down for it is an illegal establishment of religion. Hey, you've got non-christians to thank for protecting Christmas.

Ska, if I may? It's "Christendom", not "Christianism". Apologies for the Grammar-Nazi tendency, but that just made me cringe. And Maypole, if you ever do actually take the time read back several pages, note that my spiritual antecedents were in fact, bona fide victims of religious persecutions perpetuated by Holy Mother Church - and yet you don't see me stooping to calling you a "fucking Christian".

Oh, and have you tried using Wikipedia to look up the terms "Saturnalia" and "Ostara" yet, or are you content to continue coming off as a self-righteously ignorant, ill-educated and thoroughly rude person?

No, I did not scroll a few pages back, to learn that you come from a another Christian Sect. So for that, I apologise as well, but Roman Catholic and Holy Mother Church, are totally different, beleive me. Now this is not an offense, or anything, but the, Only Church which resembles ours, is the Orthodox Church, and all the other Churches, have totally turned upside down, Christs teachings( Women priests,Archbishop) and that Mary wasn't the mother of God, and so on and so on, in other words, they created a different religion, but took information from or based a lot on Catholic and Orthodox.
And no I have not bothered, and will not search on Saturnalia and Ostara and other of this stuff, because I can take your word for it.
And I am not ill-educated and rude, the only person who is ill-educated is neither you not me, lets leave it, and if I was a rude person, as you said, I woudn't have apologised over and over again in that post, and woudn't have been rational enough to realise that I was wrong, and admit it, and thus suffer humiliation. If my excuse wasn't enough or my offense too much just tell me.

Forgive my poor, french-speaking self. English is my second language. The french term is "christianisme", and I've seen the english equivalent used in the past. I stand corrected.

Is "Catholicism" proper english, or is another term appropriate?

Yes, "Catholicism" (kuh-thol-uh-siz-uhm) (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Catholicism&x=25&y=10) is proper usage.

You should be thankfull that it's become a secular holiday as well. If it wasn't a legal argument could be made that closing the government down for it is an illegal establishment of religion. Hey, you've got non-christians to thank for protecting Christmas.


In America, not in Malta though. And for me it isn't a secular holiday because as I 've said before I don't consider the regular "Christmas" that is in occurence today to be the real Christmas and consider it a holiday. If I would write a dictionary, I would write two definitions of Christmas:
(1.) Celebration of the Birth of Christ.
(2.) National Holiday in Most countries in he World, on december 25th.

In America, not in Malta though. And for me it isn't a secular holiday because as I 've said before I don't consider the regular "Christmas" that is in occurence today to be the real Christmas and consider it a holiday. If I would write a dictionary, I would write two definitions of Christmas:
(1.) Celebration of the Birth of Christ.
(2.) National Holiday in Most countries in he World, on december 25th.
Neither of which holds true in Japan, but this country still gets into the season (without understanding why, but that's Japan for ya).

Neither of which holds true in Japan, but this country still gets into the season (without understanding why, but that's Japan for ya).


In Japans case I would go with my second defintion of Christmas, maybe its not a national holiday or public holiday in many countries, but still many people celebrate it.

And Dobbsworld, still waitng for an answer.

Neither of which holds true in Japan, but this country still gets into the season (without understanding why, but that's Japan for ya).
I love Japan.

And Dobbsworld, still waitng for an answer.

Hmm? What answer?

Hmm? What answer?

If my apology wasn't good enough for you, or if I was so rude, that you can't forgive me. And the other stuff I wrote in my last big post, because if you enter into a discussion, you continue, discussing not stop.

If my apology wasn't good enough for you, or if I was so rude, that you can't forgive me. And the other stuff I wrote in my last big post, because if you enter into a discussion, you continue, discussing not stop.

No, no, no. Apology offered? Apology accepted. Forgiveness is another thing altogether, it honestly carries too many meanings to be bothered with unduly over a forum thread - But if it helps matters along, by all means, consider yourself forgiven.

I submit that it's not that Christianity in the USA that is "under attack". It's the underlying sense of entitlement that pervades Christianity in the USA, a sense that has, wrongly, been allowed over generations to take root, that is under attack. And rightly so. America was founded by Deists and Unitarians. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Presidential_religious_affiliations)

Don't start getting offensive you fucking atheist. Just because you don't beleive in Christ doesn't mean you can offend me for that. When I wrote in this thread, I didn't offend anyone, so if you decide to start offending, go to hell, you cretin.
It was simply pointed out that you put your foot in your mouth--which you did.

HInt: if you would bother to learn the history of your holidays, you probably wouldn't have made the error that you did.

You should be thankfull that it's become a secular holiday as well. If it wasn't a legal argument could be made that closing the government down for it is an illegal establishment of religion. Hey, you've got non-christians to thank for protecting Christmas.
Excellent point, though I doubt Reverend Dobson would see it that way.

Excellent point, though I doubt Reverend Dobson would see it that way.

Reverend dobson should be raped by dildo-weilding gay Samoans.

Reverend dobson should be raped by dildo-weilding gay Samoans.

Hmmm. That's an image I'm going to cherish for quite a while.

...and just to (perhaps hopefully, unnecessarily) make it abundantly clear to anyone cursorily reading this thread, I am in no way connected to, nor associated with the Rev. James Dobson (http://www.davidfeldmancomedy.com/archives/james-dobson.gif) of Focus on the Family (http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/unfair.htm).

From my perspective, there is certainly a small amount of reverse discrimination going on against Christians in the US, and there is certainly an unwarranted persecution complex among a lot of conservative Christians in particular. Neither is appropriate or healthy, in my opinion.
I agree with you.

I think that it's better to allow people of any and every faith to express it on public property, than to let none of them do it.

...and just to (perhaps hopefully, unnecessarily) make it abundantly clear to anyone cursorily reading this thread, I am in no way connected to, nor associated with the Rev. James Dobson (http://www.davidfeldmancomedy.com/archives/james-dobson.gif) of Focus on the Family (http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/unfair.htm).

I knew that.


*hides shovel behind back and whistles innocently*

I agree with you.

I think that it's better to allow people of any and every faith to express it on public property, than to let none of them do it.

That would work if you had enough space, time, and funding to represent every religion. It would also bring up disputes over who's religion gets more or less exposure. Then there is the issue of atheists and agnostics. What are they to do, put up a statue of nothing? It favors belief over disbelief.

That would work if you had enough space, time, and funding to represent every religion. It would also bring up disputes over who's religion gets more or less exposure. Then there is the issue of atheists and agnostics. What are they to do, put up a statue of nothing? It favors belief over disbelief.
People should be allowed to apply at will. In one of the world's biggest, most (internally) peaceful countries, don't tell me that there's no time or no space for people to advertise their religion.

Only property owners can put stuff on their property. Your solution removes freedom of religious expression from non-owners.

People should be allowed to apply at will. In one of the world's biggest, most (internally) peaceful countries, don't tell me that there's no time or no space for people to advertise their religion.

Only property owners can put stuff on their property. Your solution removes freedom of religious expression from non-owners.

Not true. Property renters can often put up religious symbols, but if the government does it it becomes government endorsement of one type of belief about religion over another type of religious belief. Plus I wonder how internally peacefull we'd remain if a Satanist grotto puts a Baphomet sign on the lawn outside city hall in Alabama.

Well I don't live in NY, I live in NC, but my point still remains valid. You can't half ass seperation of church and state and still call it seperation of church and state. The reason I've heard for not showing the navitiy scene is that it's a religious symbol (yes it is). So, what the fuck do they think the menorah or crescent is?

could you please show evidence that this happens? Anything at all, beyond hear-say? Because quite honestly, I don't believe it for a second. Kat teaches in NY...I think NYC to be more accurate, and she says it hasn't been occuring there. I have many friends on Long Island, and I know it isn't an issue there, and the rest of the state is fairly heavily conservative and, from what I've seen, too big on the persecution complex to allow for this to happen.

People should be allowed to apply at will. In one of the world's biggest, most (internally) peaceful countries, don't tell me that there's no time or no space for people to advertise their religion.

Only property owners can put stuff on their property. Your solution removes freedom of religious expression from non-owners.

Renters can decorate the property they rent. If anything, it would discriminate against the homeless. However, they can decorate their body in any way they choose. And something tells me, decorating for Christmas isn't exactly a huge worry for them compared to getting a meal and not freezing to death.

And more to the point, people seem to think that you need to decorate everywhere for holidays...as if its some big pissing contest between the major religions. Decorating your house, fine. Awesome. But do you really need every square foot of public land to decorate too?

I couldn't say anything about this that Lenny Bruce hasn't already said a dozen time far better...

i think the better question is why aren't christians being attacked in the us? lord knows they're asking for it...

i think the better question is why aren't christians being attacked in the us? lord knows they're asking for it...

I think the backlash is coming...
I hope like HELL that its coming.
2008 should be the year that people wake up and realize that Religion is as much an evil tyrant as Hitler or Stalin and quite probably worse than BOTH of them combined

could you please show evidence that this happens? Anything at all, beyond hear-say? Because quite honestly, I don't believe it for a second. Kat teaches in NY...I think NYC to be more accurate, and she says it hasn't been occuring there. I have many friends on Long Island, and I know it isn't an issue there, and the rest of the state is fairly heavily conservative and, from what I've seen, too big on the persecution complex to allow for this to happen.

If you would've read the OP, you would've saw my source....here it is again.

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1376621.html

Cthulhu-Mythos;11599721']I think the backlash is coming...
I hope like HELL that its coming.
2008 should be the year that people wake up and realize that Religion is as much an evil tyrant as Hitler or Stalin and quite probably worse than BOTH of them combined

Yea, because we all know that Christians are responsible for genocide in this day and age. :rolleyes: . Get real and cut out your CHRISTIXNNAAREVIL! bullshit.

Yea, because we all know that Christians are responsible for genocide in this day and age. :rolleyes: . Get real and cut out your CHRISTIXNNAAREVIL! bullshit.

Dude, you have to call them XTIANS. Or Xers. That's way more 3dgy.

Yea, because we all know that Christians are responsible for genocide in this day and age. :rolleyes: . Get real and cut out your CHRISTIXNNAAREVIL! bullshit.

The fact that you don't see it to be true is sufficient proof for me to retain my beliefs.

Cthulhu-Mythos;11599829']The fact that you don't see it to be true is sufficient proof for me to retain my beliefs.

Well I just don't believe it because 1. you have no source where genocide has happened because the leader or people thought it was the "Christian" thing to do. 2. What you basically said was that because we have leaders who are Christians, that they are worse than Hitler or Stalin. You just basically did a Godwin, and you did a Bush is Hitler argument. and 3. Being Christians =/= Hitler or Stalin.

Christians are under attack in both the USA and the UK. Not by other religions, but by other christians, going far too far to attempt to please those who they believe may accuse them of racism. Two words: Political Correctness.

Christians are under attack in both the USA and the UK. Not by other religions, but by other christians, going far too far to attempt to please those who they believe may accuse them of racism. Two words: Political Correctness.

Yes, I think PC is part of the problem here, too much of it. Can anyone find out who created PC so I can go back in time and kill him before he creates it?

Yea, because we all know that Christians are responsible for genocide in this day and age

they certainly seem to be calling for it often enough

Well I just don't believe it because 1. you have no source where genocide has happened because the leader or people thought it was the "Christian" thing to do. 2. What you basically said was that because we have leaders who are Christians, that they are worse than Hitler or Stalin. You just basically did a Godwin, and you did a Bush is Hitler argument. and 3. Being Christians =/= Hitler or Stalin.
By invoking Godwin, you have proven yourself and any point of view you will ever have to be of NO value.

If you would've read the OP, you would've saw my source....here it is again.

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1376621.html
Wanna provide a link to a site that isn't a christian site?

they certainly seem to be calling for it often enough

Pat =/= the rest of the Christian population.

Cthulhu-Mythos;11599956']By invoking Godwin, you have proven yourself and any point of view you will ever have to be of NO value.

Actually you involked Godwin by saying that Christian leaders are worse than Hitler....

Actually you involked Godwin by saying that Christian leaders are worse than Hitler....
They are.
YOU are the one to use GODWIN'S MAXIM as a defense, which has completely negated your right be considered a human being.

Pat =/= the rest of the Christian population.


i'm not saying all

i am, however, willing to say many of the politically powerful and well-connected

Wanna provide a link to a site that isn't a christian site?

Be more than happy to.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200602%5CNAT20060203b.html

http://www.cwfa.org/articles/2922/CWA/freedom/index.htm

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/aug/06082303.html

Cthulhu-Mythos;11599974']They are.
YOU are the one to use GODWIN'S MAXIM as a defense, which has completely negated your right be considered a human being.

Yea, you already lost this argument, good day.

i'm not saying all

i am, however, willing to say many of the politically powerful and well-connected

Source?

Be more than happy to.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200602%5CNAT20060203b.html

http://www.cwfa.org/articles/2922/CWA/freedom/index.htm

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/aug/06082303.html

I'm certain that the second two are religious publications.
Typical though for them NOT to mention that...

Yea, you already lost this argument, good day.
Nope, I won the arguement as soon as you relied on GODWIN'S MAXIM...

Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Christians are most definitely under attack in the same manner the white male is.

"The white male controled everything for centuries if not millenia, so now instead of making things equal as they should be, we'll give everyone an advantage over him." is the general attitude in the work place and in instisutions of higher education. Of course, this is never stated. It's always the wonderful institution of affirmative action.

The same is with the Christians: "The horrible Christians have oppressed the other religions forever! It's their turn now!" And this is shown by all the lawsuits and the ridicule from the "credible" media. Because Christians (true Christians, not the liberal Christians, or Neo-Orthodox who want to compromise Scripture) refuse to give in to the demands of society, they are now the enemies of society, and not by their choice (Well, they knew what they were getting into when they chose to be a Christian, but it was a result of their choice not the choice itself.).

Christians need to fight back politically, socially, through civil disobedience (if it is called for - example: mandatory abortions for pregnencies after the first child), through the judicial system, etc. NOT PHYSCICALLY! Unless we are truly being thrown to lions and then great thought and prayer must be taken first. And such a decision ought not to be made individually or even corporately within a denomination, but at the overwhelming consensus of the Christian body as a whole. And even then, it should be a war of defense, not offence. No attack ever!

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200602%5CNAT20060203b.html

http://www.cwfa.org/articles/2922/CWA/freedom/index.htm

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/aug/06082303.html
The first one appears to be sponsored by a group determined to expose the "liberal bias" in american media, the Media Research Centre, run entirely by conservatives according to their about page.

The second website is a christian one again (look at their about the CWFA page, it's entirely about returnign america to christian values)

The third site also points out that it holds judeo-christian values in its highest regard in its "About Lifesite" page.

Could you get something from a more mainstream site or one that would perhaps have the opposite bias, thus being unlikely to lie about such things?

Cthulhu-Mythos;11599993']I'm certain that the second two are religious publications.
Typical though for them NOT to mention that...
No, they do mention it, simply go to their "about us" pages and they state it a number of times. However, just because they state it doesn't mean that Wilgrove checks before posting them as non-religious sources of information.

Cthulhu-Mythos;11599998']Nope, I won the arguement as soon as you relied on GODWIN'S MAXIM...

Whatever makes you happy. :rolleyes:

Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Christians are most definitely under attack in the same manner the white male is.

"The white male controled everything for centuries if not millenia, so now instead of making things equal as they should be, we'll give everyone an advantage over him." is the general attitude in the work place and in instisutions of higher education. Of course, this is never stated. It's always the wonderful institution of affirmative action.

The same is with the Christians: "The horrible Christians have oppressed the other religions forever! It's their turn now!" And this is shown by all the lawsuits and the ridicule from the "credible" media. Because Christians (true Christians, not the liberal Christians, or Neo-Orthodox who want to compromise Scripture) refuse to give in to the demands of society, they are now the enemies of society, and not by their choice (Well, they knew what they were getting into when they chose to be a Christian, but it was a result of their choice not the choice itself.).

Christians need to fight back politically, socially, through civil disobedience (if it is called for - example: mandatory abortions for pregnencies after the first child), through the judicial system, etc. NOT PHYSCICALLY! Unless we are truly being thrown to lions and then great thought and prayer must be taken first. And such a decision ought not to be made individually or even corporately within a denomination, but at the overwhelming consensus of the Christian body as a whole. And even then, it should be a war of defense, not offence. No attack ever!

All of that is more PROOF of why they must be attacked.
Sounds like an Islamic Jyhad being cooked up in that post.

Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Christians are most definitely under attack in the same manner the white male is.

"The white male controled everything for centuries if not millenia, so now instead of making things equal as they should be, we'll give everyone an advantage over him." is the general attitude in the work place and in instisutions of higher education. Of course, this is never stated. It's always the wonderful institution of affirmative action.

The same is with the Christians: "The horrible Christians have oppressed the other religions forever! It's their turn now!" And this is shown by all the lawsuits and the ridicule from the "credible" media. Because Christians (true Christians, not the liberal Christians, or Neo-Orthodox who want to compromise Scripture) refuse to give in to the demands of society, they are now the enemies of society, and not by their choice (Well, they knew what they were getting into when they chose to be a Christian, but it was a result of their choice not the choice itself.).

Christians need to fight back politically, socially, through civil disobedience (if it is called for - example: mandatory abortions for pregnencies after the first child), through the judicial system, etc. NOT PHYSCICALLY! Unless we are truly being thrown to lions and then great thought and prayer must be taken first. And such a decision ought not to be made individually or even corporately within a denomination, but at the overwhelming consensus of the Christian body as a whole. And even then, it should be a war of defense, not offence. No attack ever!

You're full of it. Christianity isn't under attack in this country. In fact, Evangelical Christianity is attacking the nation itself. It's seeking to have it's creation myth taught in schools, to have it's sexual repression forced upon everyone else, and to scrap the constitution and our nation's history in favor of the fictional "Christian Nation" myth.

Ok, using CNN search engine this is what I found, I've also check out these new sources, and they are not Christian affiliated.

This one promotes first admendment rights.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/about.aspx?item=about_this_site

It's also an AP story which it says so on the site, can't find the AP link right now though.

Cthulhu-Mythos;11599993']I'm certain that the second two are religious publications.
Typical though for them NOT to mention that...
And CNS stands for Christian News Service. Three for three.

Source?

since our oh so christian dear leader keeps talking about nukes, it sort of goes without saying at this point. and he comes off rather moderate compared to other super christians in the movement.

With Wilgrove representing Christianity so damn well, I'm beginning to see that maybe Karl Marx had it right after all.

Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Christians are most definitely under attack in the same manner the white male is.

"The white male controled everything for centuries if not millenia, so now instead of making things equal as they should be, we'll give everyone an advantage over him." is the general attitude in the work place and in instisutions of higher education. Of course, this is never stated. It's always the wonderful institution of affirmative action.

The same is with the Christians: "The horrible Christians have oppressed the other religions forever! It's their turn now!" And this is shown by all the lawsuits and the ridicule from the "credible" media. Because Christians (true Christians, not the liberal Christians, or Neo-Orthodox who want to compromise Scripture) refuse to give in to the demands of society, they are now the enemies of society, and not by their choice (Well, they knew what they were getting into when they chose to be a Christian, but it was a result of their choice not the choice itself.).

Christians need to fight back politically, socially, through civil disobedience (if it is called for - example: mandatory abortions for pregnencies after the first child), through the judicial system, etc. NOT PHYSCICALLY! Unless we are truly being thrown to lions and then great thought and prayer must be taken first. And such a decision ought not to be made individually or even corporately within a denomination, but at the overwhelming consensus of the Christian body as a whole. And even then, it should be a war of defense, not offence. No attack ever!

You win the prize for most unintentionally funny poster.

I think that Wilgrove and Edwardis are the same person under two seperate accounts.

Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Christians are most definitely under attack in the same manner the white male is.

"The white male controled everything for centuries if not millenia, so now instead of making things equal as they should be, we'll give everyone an advantage over him." is the general attitude in the work place and in instisutions of higher education. Of course, this is never stated. It's always the wonderful institution of affirmative action.

Complete Horseshit.

The white male is the dominant species on the planet.
The average income for a white male is muich higher than any other.
As is the life expectancy....

The white male simply has more opportunity, money, and support, than any other male of any other color.


The same is with the Christians: "The horrible Christians have oppressed the other religions forever! It's their turn now!" And this is shown by all the lawsuits and the ridicule from the "credible" media. Because Christians (true Christians, not the liberal Christians, or Neo-Orthodox who want to compromise Scripture) refuse to give in to the demands of society, they are now the enemies of society, and not by their choice (Well, they knew what they were getting into when they chose to be a Christian, but it was a result of their choice not the choice itself.).

Oh get off the cross, we need the wood for the fire.

Where do you truly see any Christians being oppressed, in a first-world country?

America, where they have the biggest political support base?

England?

Austrailia?

Anywhere?

No, you dont, becuase its not happening outside your own mind.

You only WISH you were truly being religiously oppressed so you could feed that martyr complex half the christians think its thier duty to possess.



Christians need to fight back politically, socially, through civil disobedience (if it is called for -

Fight back for what??

From whom??

For controlling everything?
For being the majority?

Whats to fight?



example: mandatory abortions for pregnencies after the first child), through the judicial system, etc. NOT PHYSCICALLY! Unless we are truly being thrown to lions and then great thought and prayer must be taken first. And such a decision ought not to be made individually or even corporately within a denomination, but at the overwhelming consensus of the Christian body as a whole. And even then, it should be a war of defense, not offence. No attack ever!


Sounds to me like zealotist ramblings.

What would you fight?

Who is this evil enemy you proffess is harming the white man, and the christian alike?

The white male christian is RULING, not being subjugated.

Beyond the desire to be martyred for your own cause, there is no one to opresss you.

If you would've read the OP, you would've saw my source....here it is again.

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1376621.html]
Yeah...I read your OP and responded to it incase you missed it. However, I am looking for, oh, I don't know...an actual news source with some level of credibility? ABC, NBC, CNN, BBC, other fun three letter acronyms? Yeah.

Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Christians are most definitely under attack in the same manner the white male is.

"The white male controled everything for centuries if not millenia, so now instead of making things equal as they should be, we'll give everyone an advantage over him." is the general attitude in the work place and in instisutions of higher education. Of course, this is never stated. It's always the wonderful institution of affirmative action.making people equal by reducing one groups advantage =/= attacking or repressing the other group(s)

The same is with the Christians: "The horrible Christians have oppressed the other religions forever! It's their turn now!" And this is shown by all the lawsuits and the ridicule from the "credible" media. Because Christians (true Christians, not the liberal Christians, or Neo-Orthodox who want to compromise Scripture) By claiming others are not "true" christians, you reveal yourself to not be one.
refuse to give in to the demands of society, they are now the enemies of society, and not by their choice (Well, they knew what they were getting into when they chose to be a Christian, but it was a result of their choice not the choice itself.). Yes, if you're an asshat that screams "I can do anything I want so there!", you will get flack for it. No other religion demands to have their religious symbols waved infront of everyone.

Christians need to fight back politically, socially, through civil disobedience (if it is called for - example: mandatory abortions for pregnencies after the first child)Forcing abortions isn't physical? I suggest you pick up a copy of Civil Disobedience (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1557094179/sr=8-1/qid=1156627109/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-4814711-2285618?ie=UTF8) today., through the judicial system, etc. NOT PHYSCICALLY! Unless we are truly being thrown to lions and then great thought and prayer must be taken first. And such a decision ought not to be made individually or even corporately within a denomination,You've already declared that many Christians are not true Christians...now you want their help?