NationStates Jolt Archive

Cthulhu-Mythos;11600020']All of that is more PROOF of why they must be attacked.
Sounds like an Islamic Jyhad being cooked up in that post.

No, just pointing out that what you would do if you were being ripped from your home and shot or raped then shot. Fight back. Please note, I said that this would be permissible only if some modern equivilant of the third Reich were doing to Christians what the Nazi's did to the Jews: an extermination attempt.

Reminds me of the show I saw on the History Channel about Nazis in America.
At the very end, they shared this bizarre elderly minister of a heretical sect that believes that the True Jews were Aryans and Christ was the last of them and somehow this other group of completely unrelated people called Jews now are in Israel.
Christian Faith and White Supremacy are very closely linked now as back in Nazi Germany.
The only thing that is lacking is a close association between Corporate/Industrial America and the government...
Hmmm...
Suddenly, the idea of Christianity NEEDING to be under attack takes on legitimacy.

Cthulhu-Mythos;11600236']Reminds me of the show I saw on the History Channel about Nazis in America.
At the very end, they shared this bizarre elderly minister of a heretical sect that believes that the True Jews were Aryans and Christ was the last of them and somehow this other group of completely unrelated people called Jews now are in Israel.
Christian Faith and White Supremacy are very closely linked now as back in Nazi Germany.
The only thing that is lacking is a close association between Corporate/Industrial America and the government...
Hmmm...
Suddenly, the idea of Christianity NEEDING to be under attack takes on legitimacy.

So:

One ultraconservative racist minister of a tiny heretical sect = the entirety of Christendom.

Yeah.

Apparently I did not expalin myself clearly. Why are all of you trying to convince me that I'm wrong? Why are there so many lawsuits against Christian ideas or symbols or whatever? Because people think that the Christians are wrong in one degree or another. And I think you are wrong, then you can hardly blame me for doing the same things.

And I am not advocating a Christian jihad! I am saying that if persecution (yes, it's persecution. Everyone is persecuted for something to some extent. Even if you were laughed at for sucking your thumb in Kindergarten, that was a form of persecution, but that debate if for another thread.) becomes so horrible that we are experiencing an extermination attempt like the Jews, Gypsies, and people of handicaps or other races experienced, I reserve the right to rebel and to encourage others to rebel. I won't do it alone: I recognize that my thinking can be blurred and that there are others wiser and more knowledgable than I which is why the Christian body as whole must agree to it, by an overwhelming majority.

Now with those conditions and under those circumstances, very few but the pure pacifists could disagree with me. A lot of you would rebel for a lot less. You being the general public, not the just those on NS.

And with that I'm off. I'm going to the museum: I'll check back for more death wishes after I return.

So:

One ultraconservative racist minister of a tiny heretical sect = the entirety of Christendom.

Yeah.

Glad you agree.
:)

Well, yes, Christians are under attack... so are Muslims, Jews, Blacks, and gays.

Well, yes, Christians are under attack... so are Muslims, Jews, Blacks, and gays.

One day, they're all gunna get together and we're going to be fucked.

One day, they're all gunna get together and we're going to be fucked.

Who's "we"? :eek:

Apparently I did not expalin myself clearly. Why are all of you trying to convince me that I'm wrong? Why are there so many lawsuits against Christian ideas or symbols or whatever? Because people think that the Christians are wrong in one degree or another. And I think you are wrong, then you can hardly blame me for doing the same things. No, the lawsuits are because Christians routinely try to violate the establishment clause of the constitution and change this country from one that was founded on a religiously neutral basis into a Christian country.

And I am not advocating a Christian jihad! I am saying that if persecution (yes, it's persecution. Everyone is persecuted for something to some extent. Even if you were laughed at for sucking your thumb in Kindergarten, that was a form of persecution, but that debate if for another thread.) becomes so horrible that we are experiencing an extermination attempt like the Jews, Gypsies, and people of handicaps or other races experienced, I reserve the right to rebel and to encourage others to rebel. I won't do it alone: I recognize that my thinking can be blurred and that there are others wiser and more knowledgable than I which is why the Christian body as whole must agree to it, by an overwhelming majority. If someone is trying to exterminate Christians in the USA I'll stand up with you, but lately it's been a war of legislation and propaganda and the Evangelicals are on the attack. The target of their attacks are the Constitution and the American way of life.

Now with those conditions and under those circumstances, very few but the pure pacifists could disagree with me. A lot of you would rebel for a lot less. You being the general public, not the just those on NS.

And with that I'm off. I'm going to the museum: I'll check back for more death wishes after I return.

Who's "we"? :eek:
Druids.

Apparently I did not expalin myself clearly. Why are all of you trying to convince me that I'm wrong?

Because you are.


Why are there so many lawsuits against Christian ideas or symbols or whatever? Because people think that the Christians are wrong in one degree or another. And I think you are wrong, then you can hardly blame me for doing the same things.

Lawsuits are not oppression.

They are attempts for recompense when a christian violates anothers rights.
THATS something that happens everyday.


And I am not advocating a Christian jihad! I am saying that if persecution (yes, it's persecution. Everyone is persecuted for something to some extent. Even if you were laughed at for sucking your thumb in Kindergarten, that was a form of persecution, but that debate if for another thread.) becomes so horrible that we are experiencing an extermination attempt like the Jews, Gypsies, and people of handicaps or other races experienced, I reserve the right to rebel and to encourage others to rebel. I won't do it alone: I recognize that my thinking can be blurred and that there are others wiser and more knowledgable than I which is why the Christian body as whole must agree to it, by an overwhelming majority.

You seem to have some kind of idea that this is ever going to happen.

It isnt, and any attempt to say differently, makes you a nutjob.

Even if you meant this hypothetically, it still wouldnt happen.

Christians comprise 80% of the American populace alone....no one is oppresing them, or ever likely will.


Now with those conditions and under those circumstances, very few but the pure pacifists could disagree with me. A lot of you would rebel for a lot less. You being the general public, not the just those on NS.

WONT. EVER. HAPPEN.


And with that I'm off. I'm going to the museum: I'll check back for more death wishes after I return.

Try not to get crucified at the museum....lots of christian hating evil-doers there, ya know....

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.
Che'yeah right. No one can wear religiously-themed clothing. No one can wear a star of david or cross or crescent pendant. No one can pray in public. No one can go to church.

Right....sure. His solution certainly denies non-owners freedom of religious expression. Yessirreebob.

Cthulhu-Mythos;11600207']I think that Wilgrove and Edwardis are the same person under two seperate accounts.

You live in your own world don't you?

Apparently I did not expalin myself clearly. Why are all of you trying to convince me that I'm wrong?This is a debate forum...it exists for people to tell eachother they are wrong and why.
Why are there so many lawsuits against Christian ideas or symbols or whatever? Because people think that the Christians are wrong in one degree or another. And I think you are wrong, then you can hardly blame me for doing the same things.There are more lawsuits against Christians because they are the majority. This nation has never mandated Jewish or Buddhist or Muslim prayers in school, only Christian. Christians put their symbols up in parks and school, and therefore have lawsuits against them. Christians are still the ones heavily in power (nearly all US leaders identify as Christian, and yes, that does include those librl activist judges so many bitch about). It is impossible for a person to persecute himself.

And I am not advocating a Christian jihad! I am saying that if persecution (yes, it's persecution. Everyone is persecuted for something to some extent. Even if you were laughed at for sucking your thumb in Kindergarten, that was a form of persecution, but that debate if for another thread.) becomes so horrible that we are experiencing an extermination attempt like the Jews, Gypsies, and people of handicaps or other races experienced, I reserve the right to rebel and to encourage others to rebel. I won't do it alone: I recognize that my thinking can be blurred and that there are others wiser and more knowledgable than I which is why the Christian body as whole must agree to it, by an overwhelming majority.IF that ever happened, sure. But I state again, the vast majority of the US is Christian, including those in power. I wouldn't hold my breath for the Christian holocaust in the US. And no, what happens today (demanding you take religion out of public spaces) is not persecution. No one else has theirs up, and there is no reason you shoudl either.

This country is Christian...of course we allow other religions, but to keep taking down religious symbols seems useless and annoying. What if many Americans and what not moved to another country and started complaining about the majority religion, and pestering them to take down their things?

Christians comprise 80% of the American populace alone....no one is oppresing them, or ever likely will.


We should make a distinction between Christians and CHRISTIANS. By which I mean, a lot of the conservatives who push for anti-stem cell, anti-abortion legislation and so on don't consider a lot of other Christians truly Christian. The Catholics are right out in their outlook, at least.

We should make a distinction between Christians and CHRISTIANS. By which I mean, a lot of the conservatives who push for anti-stem cell, anti-abortion legislation and so on don't consider a lot of other Christians truly Christian. The Catholics are right out in their outlook, at least.

I can definitely support that.
I am a Liberal Christian and listening to Bush and Robertson and Wilgrove is enough for me to consider becoming an atheist merely out of disgust.

Christianity under attack?

Are you fucking kidding?

The reason you don't see Muslim or Jewish symbols being removed is because... there really aren't many of them around in the first place.

Just because people don't want one religion favored over all the others doesn't mean that it's "under attack."

Stop whining like you're some oppressed minority.

Until I see churches being torn down and Christians forced to go into hiding, I'm not going to take any of this "oh poor us! they hate Jesus cause they're taking away our favored status!" crap seriously.

I'm FIRMLY in favor of removal of favored status.
:sniper: With "extreme prejudice" as they say in the "Ops"

This country is Christian
Funny, the people who founded the fucking country seem to disagree with you.

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Fellow Cthulhu representative...

You missed a T in Treaty...
:D

This country is Christian...of course we allow other religions, but to keep taking down religious symbols seems useless and annoying. What if many Americans and what not moved to another country and started complaining about the majority religion, and pestering them to take down their things?

This country is secular with a christian majority. That does not make it Christian.

oh, but us non-christians are just so very greatful that you ALLOW us here. Thank you sir, may I have another?:rolleyes:

This country is secular with a christian majority. That does not make it Christian.

oh, but us non-christians are just so very greatful that you ALLOW us here. Thank you sir, may I have another?:rolleyes:

I do believe that the line is "Please sir, may I have some more?".

I do believe that the line is "Please sir, may I have some more?".

yes, you may:)

I do believe that the line is "Please sir, may I have some more?".

Are we talking Oliver Twist or Animal House?

Arrrrrrrgggggghhhhhhh!

I do believe that the line is "Please sir, may I have some more?".
Wrong reference.
"Thank you sir. May I have another"
is from some scene in a film ("Animal House" perhaps? Or maybe "Porky's"? Possibly "Revenge of the Nerds?") in which an applicant to a college fraternity kneels down and gets hit in the ass with a paddle.
After each swat he was required to utter that line.

I have a poor memory but I can recall that much.

It seems it WAS Animal House...
Someone posted the answer while I was typing...

Are we talking Oliver Twist or Animal House?

Animal house.

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...

Err... seeing as HH the Dalai Lama is Buddhist, and Buddhism is inherently atheistic, yes, His Holiness would be an atheist. Mahatma Gandhi was Hindu, and AFAIK was not an atheist.

That being said, I have no idea who "Ghandi" and "the Dhali Lama" are, so I couldn't comment on their belifes.

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

Damnit, for a moment there I thought you were talking about the Xists.

http://www.games-guide.de/x_bilder/pc_games/simulation/flying_saucer.jpg

They'll come for all the puny humans some day. You'll see.

http://www.subgenius.com/bigfist/eyes/stangart/CARDSET/cavin.JPG

And after the dust settles, this:

http://www.subgenius.com/bigfist/pics5/REV-X/AmericaPost-XDay.JPG

It'll be the end of the world as you know it, but I'll feel fine... high in orbit with the polymorphic sex-goddesses tending every whim.

http://www.poee.org/documents/Other_Religions/Church_of_the_SubGenius/images/goddess.jpg

PRABOB! Or burn in slacklessness trying not to.

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

I see. So it was BS. In case you couldn't tell, there's a huge difference between simply "thanking God" and what Ms. McComb was doing (.

A lot of Christians wear crosses around their necks. Do you think when Jesus comes back he ever wants to see a fuckin' cross? It's kind of like going up to Jackie Onassis with a rifle pendant on."

- Bill Hicks


I had to get that out of me chest...

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).

Hehe. That reminds me of a Christmas party I went to a few years back - at a Buddhist temple, thrown by the monks. :D

Err... seeing as HH the Dalai Lama is Buddhist, and Buddhism is inherently atheistic, yes, His Holiness would be an atheist. Mahatma Gandhi was Hindu, and AFAIK was not an atheist.

That being said, I have no idea who "Ghandi" and "the Dhali Lama" are, so I couldn't comment on their belifes.

Buddhists do not revere supernatural beings? I thought they were pantheistic?


Like I said I am not an expert....

Ghandi..being Hindu...as you quite rightly state is not an atheist...

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.


Here, I found you a reliable site for the story. However, you seem to have been misrepresenting it a bit.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has upheld the New York City Department of Education's (DOE) holiday display policy, which allows the display of the menorah to symbolize Chanukah and the star and crescent to symbolize Ramadan but does not allow display of a crèche, or nativity scene, to symbolize Christmas. The court ruled that the policy does not violate the U.S. Constitution's Establishment Clause, the Free Exercise Clause, or parents' constitutional right to control the religious upbringing and education of their children. However, the court emphasized that it was not ruling on the question of whether a public school ever could include a crèche in a display. The DOE policy, adopted in an attempt to avoid unconstitutionally appearing to endorse religion, restricts holiday displays to "secular" symbols, including Christmas trees, menorahs, and the star and crescent. The Catholic League protested the policy, arguing that religious symbols like a crèche may be displayed on public property without offending the Establishment Clause, provided they are displayed with secular symbols and disputing DOE's classification of the menorah and star and crescent as secular symbols. DOE responded that the U.S. Supreme Court precedents cited by the League are not applicable to a public school setting and that the Court has found that a menorah has both "both religious and secular dimensions," while a crèche "is solely a religious symbol."
http://www.nsba.org/site/doc_cosa.asp?TRACKID=&VID=50&CID=468&DID=37860

Here, I found you a reliable site for the story. However, you seem to have been misrepresenting it a bit.


http://www.nsba.org/site/doc_cosa.asp?TRACKID=&VID=50&CID=468&DID=37860

thats something along the lines of what I expected...

Now that we have an actual RELIABLE source, we can see that the situation is not even remotely as was described.
As per usual.

Buddhists do not revere supernatural beings? I thought they were pantheistic?

Some Buddhists accept deity (or multiples thereof), some do not. So saying that all Buddhists are atheists is misleading.

However, deity is not the most important part of the belief system, so it is possible to be a Buddhist and an atheist.

This is one of the reasons that Buddhism, similar to the Tao, CAN be compatible with any religious belief that is ecumenical.

Prosit

Interesting...
One could be a Buddhist/Presbyterian?

Buddhists do not revere supernatural beings? I thought they were pantheistic?

No. The common perception of Buddhists is of Buddhists who are also Hindus.

This is a debate forum...it exists for people to tell eachother they are wrong and why.

The question was rhetorical. I answered myself two sentences later.

Cthulhu-Mythos;11601056']Interesting...
One could be a Buddhist/Presbyterian?

No! By definition Presbyterians are Calvinist and that conflicts too much with Buddhism. Though the way many "Prebyterians" in the PCUSA talk it would be quite possible.

Here, I found you a reliable site for the story. However, you seem to have been misrepresenting it a bit.


http://www.nsba.org/site/doc_cosa.asp?TRACKID=&VID=50&CID=468&DID=37860

So the Menorah and the Crescent Moon are not Religious symbol? Give me a break. If you ask a Jewish person or Muslium person, they will tell you that both symbols are religious! I dare anyone to prove to me how this

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/israel/5878.jpg

and this

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/05/17/photos/moon.gif

are not religious.

Some Buddhists accept deity (or multiples thereof), some do not. So saying that all Buddhists are atheists is misleading.

However, deity is not the most important part of the belief system, so it is possible to be a Buddhist and an atheist.

This is one of the reasons that Buddhism, similar to the Tao, CAN be compatible with any religious belief that is ecumenical.

Prosit

OK I have to admit that I am not sure how that works...

All I know of Buddhism is that is a search for Nirvana or enlightenment(??)...however I understand that Buddhism allows for the supranatural....?

If it does then it cannot be atheistic as a supranatural enitity is one that is closer to a godhead?

I hope this makes sense..its 02:30 and a fair amount of Glenmorangie has been quaffed!

No! By definition Presbyterians are Calvinist and that conflicts too much with Buddhism. Though the way many "Prebyterians" in the PCUSA talk it would be quite possible.

I must be in the "PCUSA"... Not much Calvinism around here.

No. The common perception of Buddhists is of Buddhists who are also Hindus.

Not sure I understand...Hindus believe in wide variety of Gods...

Not sure I understand...Hindus believe in wide variety of Gods...
Some do. Some believe that all those different gods are just aspects of one.

So the Menorah and the Crescent Moon are not Religious symbol? Give me a break. If you ask a Jewish person or Muslium person, they will tell you that both symbols are religious! I dare anyone to prove to me how this

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/israel/5878.jpg

and this

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/05/17/photos/moon.gif

are not religious.

Both are as much a CULTURAL Image as they are religious.
Many people of Jewish descent -- even if christian or Atheist -- would consider the menorah a symbol of their culture AS A PEOPLE.

Similar with the Middle East, the Crescent and Star PREDATE Islam by about a thousand years or so.

An Italian could see the crucifix as a symbol of his national heritage seperate from any religious sigificance.

The CRADLE which is actually a ancient watering trough has no real CULTURAL significance, just a religious significance...

Buddhists do not revere supernatural beings? I thought they were pantheistic?


Like I said I am not an expert....

Well you happen to be asking the right person (I am Buddhist).


It's a bit complicated sorting out the whole thing (especially if you consider that Buddhist sects differe even more widly than Christian sects), but essentially, yes, Buddhism atheistic or agnostic.

Cthulhu-Mythos;11601099']Both are as much a CULTURAL Image as they are religious.
Many people of Jewish descent -- even if christian or Atheist -- would consider the menorah a symbol of their culture AS A PEOPLE.

Similar with the Middle East, the Crescent and Star PREDATE Islam by about a thousand years or so.

An Italian could see the crucifix as a symbol of his national heritage seperate from any religious sigificance.

The CRADLE which is actually a ancient watering trough has no real CULTURAL significance, just a religious significance...

Actually the Star of David would be a better cultral image for the jewish people.

Here are some links that the Menorah have to the Jewish religion, thus making it a religious symbol.

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

http://www.historychannel.com/exhibits/holidays/hanukkah/history.html

http://judaism.about.com/od/chanukah/a/hanukkahstory.htm

As we can see, the Menorah is connected to Hanukkah, which is a celebration of the Jewish faith. Not only that, Wiki pointed out that the Jews believe God gave Moses the Menorah design. I think this pretty much proves that the Menorah is a religious symbol.

Now for the Moon and Star. Now it is true that this symbol predates Islam, I mean comon it's the youngest major religion, so yea. However, given the fact that Islam have adopted it as a religious symbol, it should be considered as such. Also, when majority of the people do see this symbol, they do automatically think Islam, they don't think "Oh well that's just a symbol from an acient religion".

So the Menorah and the Crescent Moon are not Religious symbol? Give me a break. If you ask a Jewish person or Muslium person, they will tell you that both symbols are religious! I dare anyone to prove to me how this

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/israel/5878.jpg

and this

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/05/17/photos/moon.gif

are not religious.
first of all, Hanukkah is not even a holiday acording to Judaism.


Second of all, don't even try to tell me you cannot see the difference between a glorified candleholder and a depiction of the birth of your lord and savior.

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?.


So... because I'm an atheist I can not think about and love my family and I can not give without wanting to get something back? I can assure you that is completely untrue.

Since the litany of "REAL" Christians gets smaller every day, I doubt you'll win this or ANY arguement against the loss of favoritism.

Its just going to keep on happening mainly as people hate to see favoritism applied to the "majority" who certainly have no use for it.

Cthulhu-Mythos;11601081']I must be in the "PCUSA"... Not much Calvinism around here.

Read their Book of Confessions: very Calvinist. The problem is, they stopped teaching it. listen the next time an elder, deacon, or pastor is ordained. The person installing/ordaining him/her is required to ask if they believe that those confessions are the authoritative interpretation to the Bible. Also, they are required to affirm that they will remain true to the Reformed tradition, the official name for Calvinism.

By the way, I'm PCUSA, too, though not much longer if they continue on this path to apostasy.

Webster's New World Dictionary: designating or of a church of a traditionally Calvinistic Protestant denomination governed by presbyters, or elders

first of all, Hanukkah is not even a holiday acording to Judaism.

Then.. why do they celebrate it?


Second of all, don't even try to tell me you cannot see the difference between a glorified candleholder and a depiction of the birth of your lord and savior.

Eh not really. Sorry, but the Menorah is linked to the Torah, to Moses, and to the story of the Jewish people, so it is religious.

Actually the Star of David would be a better cultral image for the jewish people.

Here are some links that the Menorah have to the Jewish religion, thus making it a religious symbol.

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

http://www.historychannel.com/exhibits/holidays/hanukkah/history.html

http://judaism.about.com/od/chanukah/a/hanukkahstory.htm

As we can see, the Menorah is connected to Hanukkah, which is a celebration of the Jewish faith. Not only that, Wiki pointed out that the Jews believe God gave Moses the Menorah design. I think this pretty much proves that the Menorah is a religious symbol.
you are discussing two different Menorahs. One has seven branches, one has eight and a central shamesh.

I dare anyone to prove to me how this

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/05/17/photos/moon.gif

[is] not religious.

i had one up on top of my christmas tree last year, and i'm an atheist.

Some Buddhists accept deity (or multiples thereof), some do not. So saying that all Buddhists are atheists is misleading.

However, deity is not the most important part of the belief system, so it is possible to be a Buddhist and an atheist.

This is one of the reasons that Buddhism, similar to the Tao, CAN be compatible with any religious belief that is ecumenical.

Prosit

True, true.

you are discussing two different Menorahs. One has seven branches, one has eight and a central shamesh.

ok, well I'm not really keen on the jewish faith, so I'm sorry if I use the wrong Menorah.

i had one up on top of my christmas tree last year, and i'm an atheist.

So? If it's in the privacy of your own home I don't care really.

Then.. why do they celebrate it?festival =/= holiday in judaism.



Eh not really. Sorry, but the Menorah is linked to the Torah, to Moses, and to the story of the Jewish people, so it is religious.

You are (as I stated above) discussing two different and unrelated menorahs. Hanukkah and the Hanukkah menorah are never mentioned in the torah.

So? If it's in the privacy of your own home I don't care really.

And how is this evidence that Free Soviets display makes it strictly a religious symbol?

ok, well I'm not really keen on the jewish faith, so I'm sorry if I use the wrong Menorah.If you don't understand your own argument, I would suggest not using it.

So? If it's in the privacy of your own home I don't care really.So you DO understand the concept of displaying your personal faith in the confines of your private home...

Why can't you apply that to your own faith?

Some do. Some believe that all those different gods are just aspects of one.

Not sure about that....Some Hindu gods can be seen as different aspects of themselves but not all Hindu gods are of the same being...unless me RE teacher was pullig a fast one....mind you it was over 20 years ago so things might have changed (RE wise that is!)

RE- Religious Education btw

festival =/= holiday in judaism.





You are (as I stated above) discussing two different and unrelated menorahs. Hanukkah and the Hanukkah menorah are never mentioned in the torah.

Like I said I'm not keen on the Jewish faith, but let's be honest, people who are outside the Jewish faith are not really going to know this, and they are going to consider the Menorah (no matter which one) a symbol of the Jewish faith. Just like they would consider the Crescent moon and star a symbol of Islamic faith, or how they'll see the Cruifix as a symbol of the Christian faith. All I see now are loopholes that NYC is using, hey maybe tomorrow I'll put up a Cruifix in a public school and tell people that hey, it's not a religous symbol, it just a reminder of my Roman/Italian heritage. I wonder if I would get away with that, I doubt it.

Then.. why do they celebrate it?


"It" being Hannukah, sorry for taking the quote out of context. Here's what I want to know - how is it that certain people are so bent out of shape over this issue, while (most of) those same people seem to have no knowledge whatever as to the background of any of it?

Go forth and learn, Wilgrove Maypole et al. Get thee hence and absorb information like a sponge absorbs water. Else risk continuing to look a buffoon on these august fora.

If you don't understand your own argument, I would suggest not using it.

So you DO understand the concept of displaying your personal faith in the confines of your private home...

Why can't you apply that to your own faith?

Look, displaying personal faith at home and what NYC School is doing is two diffrent things.

Well you happen to be asking the right person (I am Buddhist).


It's a bit complicated sorting out the whole thing (especially if you consider that Buddhist sects differe even more widly than Christian sects), but essentially, yes, Buddhism atheistic or agnostic.

Sorry mate but I don't buy that...agnostics and atheists oppose each other....maybe you used a bad choice of words? (?)

I hear you re the sects though....but at the end of the day the idea of revering a 'holy person' is a part and parcel....which would be anathema to atheists...

Like I said I'm not keen on the Jewish faith, but let's be honest, people who are outside the Jewish faith are not really going to know this, and they are going to consider the Menorah (no matter which one) a symbol of the Jewish faith. Just like they would consider the Crescent moon and star a symbol of Islamic faith, or how they'll see the Cruifix as a symbol of the Christian faith. All I see now are loopholes that NYC is using, hey maybe tomorrow I'll put up a Cruifix in a public school and tell people that hey, it's not a religous symbol, it just a reminder of my Roman/Italian heritage. I wonder if I would get away with that, I doubt it....a crucifix is religious. It falls quite close to something worshipping the birth of the savior...as in, worshipping his death.

And ignorance usually does create being offended.

The birth and death of the founder of a religion are fairly religious, I would say.
Do you consider the SC flag to be islamic because of its crescent?

Do you see the difference between a christmas tree and a nativity?

If not, this discussion might as well be over now, as it will be a waste of both of our time.

...a crucifix is religious. It falls quite close to something worshipping the birth of the savior...as in, worshipping his death.

It doesn't have to be religious though, I mean lots of people died on the cross, so it can qualifies as a secular symbol since Jesus wasn't the only guy in Roman history to get nailed to the cross. Note I'm not saying that the Cruifix is not religious, but if people can twist the Menorah or the Crescent and Star to be secular symbol, then I can do the same.


And ignorance usually does create being offended.

Loopholes usually does that too.


The birth and death of the founder of a religion are fairly religious, I would say.
Do you consider the SC flag to be islamic because of its crescent?

Yes I would say that the Navitiy scene and the cruifix are religious, I'm not arguing that. What I am arguing is how NYC Schools is trying to pass off what are religious symbols as secular symbols. The whole premises of my argument is that government can't say that the menorah or the islamic symbol are not religious because of some obsurce fact. The government in this case need to abide by the seperation of church and state and remove the menorah and the symbol of islamic faith. Twisting these symbols so that they're secular will not fly with me. and no.



Do you see the difference between a christmas tree and a nativity?


Yes I do.

Although both sides are making very good points, from reading the past posts, its obvious that the majority of NS players do not call themselves Christian. So the board seems to be leaning in the defense of Christians are not under attack in the US.

Yet, even so, I think only people who can make a clear judgement without being biased, is someone from the other side of the world, at a time were this matter is only history.

So what is the answer to our question?

My opinion says "We are slightly under attack"

Other NS Players' Opinions differ.

We may never know the true answer until years from now.

Much of Buddhism is philosophy--the way to seek enlightenment about life and find balance in it.

However, Buddhism started out based in Hinduism. The Buddhists just decided that dealing with all those gods was more of a path to becoming one, instead of some Lord/Vassal relationship. Hence, the gods became Bodhisattva and it became possible for the enlightened to become Bodhisattva as well. And un-deifying a deity is a sure way--for some people, anyway--to eliminate deity altogether. (If I can be as godlike as the gods, then how is godhood different from non-godhood?--ya know.)

Yes, to a degree I'm oversimplifying. But it's this path that allows Buddhists to either say there are gods (but they are examples of what I can become) or there aren't (how is god any separate from anything else that exists), or, alternately--as some Christian religions have begun to accept--that enlightenment along the lines of Buddhist techniques can bring me closer to the God I believe in, since I see my God to be the personification of enlightenment...

It gets complicated, but people have worked it out for themselves, and it's practiced in all ways all over... ;)

Prosit

first of all, Hanukkah is not even a holiday acording to Judaism.

I don't think the game of semantics is constructive to the conversation. It may not be a 'holiday' according to the truest of definitions, but it's one of the 'holidays' most Gentiles are aware of within the Jewish tradition and telling them otherwise does nothing but confuse them.

It doesn't have to be religious though, I mean lots of people died on the cross, so it can qualifies as a secular symbol since Jesus wasn't the only guy in Roman history to get nailed to the cross. Note I'm not saying that the Cruifix is not religious, but if people can twist the Menorah or the Crescent and Star to be secular symbol, then I can do the same.The cross shows the face of the religions founder, not to mention, its Lord and Savior. That makes it, by far, more religious.


Yes I would say that the Navitiy scene and the cruifix are religious, I'm not arguing that. What I am arguing is how NYC Schools is trying to pass off what are religious symbols as secular symbols. The whole premises of my argument is that government can't say that the menorah or the islamic symbol are not religious because of some obsurce fact. The government in this case need to abide by the seperation of church and state and remove the menorah and the symbol of islamic faith. Twisting these symbols so that they're secular will not fly with me. and no. But there is a difference. It is the same difference as that between the Christmas tree and a Crucifix. A symbol directly showing the Lord is much different than a plant, or astrological body, or a candleholder. Note that the lawsuit does not ban all Christian symbols...only those that are, with out question, religious and ONLY religious. No atheist would have a nativity or crucifix. But many have a tree. Same as many have a menorah. They are symbols of the holiday, not of the religion itself.

I don't think the game of semantics is constructive to the conversation. It may not be a 'holiday' according to the truest of definitions, but it's one of the 'holidays' most Gentiles are aware of within the Jewish tradition and telling them otherwise does nothing but confuse them.

claiming that the Torah mentions the menorah when refering to the one used during Hanukkah calls for the use of semantics. It was helping to illustrate my point that there are two different "menorah"s in judaism.

And it would seem many Gentiles are ignorant (in this respect...not overall). That isn't my fault. If it leads to their confusion, they can do what I did when it came to christianity and educate themselves.

Well to end this debate whether Menorah or the Cresecent and Star are religious symbol, I've decided to contact a local Rabbi and Muslium to see what they say. I'll post my findings after I talk to them.

The Christmas Tree was not invented by Martin Luther. It descended from the Germanic Pagan tradition of the Yule Log. So, it would still be a slightly religious symbol--just not a Christian one.

If the Bible were actually taken literally, Christ's birth would be celebrated some time in April (lambing time, which is the only time the shepherds would have been watching their flocks by night).

People of ALL religious stripes have had winter celebrations for much longer than Christianity has been around. Christmas was based on many of these, depending on where the conversions were taking place, which is why Christmas symbols come from many various traditions (the Germanic tree, the Celtic holly and ivy, the Roman... well, you get the point). Same with Easter/Ostara/Oestre/Ishtar.

Prosit

Do you consider the SC flag to be islamic because of its crescent?

Yeah, you think I'm a Muslim now because I'm from SC?

*growls menacingly

[/instigator]

Much of Buddhism is philosophy--the way to seek enlightenment about life and find balance in it.

However, Buddhism started out based in Hinduism. The Buddhists just decided that dealing with all those gods was more of a path to becoming one, instead of some Lord/Vassal relationship. Hence, the gods became Bodhisattva and it became possible for the enlightened to become Bodhisattva as well. And un-deifying a deity is a sure way--for some people, anyway--to eliminate deity altogether. (If I can be as godlike as the gods, then how is godhood different from non-godhood?--ya know.)

Yes, to a degree I'm oversimplifying. But it's this path that allows Buddhists to either say there are gods (but they are examples of what I can become) or there aren't (how is god any separate from anything else that exists), or, alternately--as some Christian religions have begun to accept--that enlightenment along the lines of Buddhist techniques can bring me closer to the God I believe in, since I see my God to be the personification of enlightenment...

It gets complicated, but people have worked it out for themselves, and it's practiced in all ways all over... ;)

Prosit

Thank you!

I admit I am totally buggered at the moment...it being 3am and my bottle of Glenmorangie well and truely damaged!

Having said that I have a number f quesitons/thoughts that do crop up...

What you say is more towards Gnosis and agnostic thought (I understand the philosophy part...although theology is a more pertinant idea than atheism) rather than a 'spilt' between atheism (there is no godhead) and agnostic (errr....the booze has hit me now!...I think I mean in regards to agnostic as being the possibility of supranatural influence?).

I am gonna suffer the mother of all hangovers tomorrow! LOL

Well to end this debate whether Menorah or the Cresecent and Star are religious symbol, I've decided to contact a local Rabbi and Muslium to see what they say. I'll post my findings after I talk to them.
And as with Christians, their opinions won't represent that of all Jews or Muslims. But go ahead.
Yeah, you think I'm a Muslim now because I'm from SC?

*growls menacingly

[/instigator]
*shakes fist*

;)

I am gonna suffer the mother of all hangovers tomorrow! LOL

That's what Sundays are for... :cool:

claiming that the Torah mentions the menorah when refering to the one used during Hanukkah calls for the use of semantics.

The Torah mentions a Chanukiyah? Where? >>

That's what Sundays are for... :cool:

and bank holidays! :)

but i is gonna suffer like a bastard! LOL

*ouchie*

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.

False dichotomy... there is no 'binary' situation, here... the choices aren't just "Christians are murdering babies" or "Christians are best"... it is possible to do wrong without genocide.

For many who are not Christian, Christianity really is a problem... it can affect which job you can get (especially here in the Bible Belt), and whether or not you can get promoted... it can affect your everyday life, matters like adoption. It can affect whether or not you can easily fulfill your own religious observations.

As an example - a friend who is wiccan has ceremonies with wine, which she cannot buy on a Sunday around here. If she runs out on Sunday - 'Christian' policy means she cannot observe her religion.

Wiccans also (about 90% of all the one's I've met or heard of) firmly accept Homosexuality as "good" and have no problems with "Gay Marriage"... YET, Homophobic Bigotry disguised as Fundementalist Christian Dogma forbids "Gay Marriage" and thus infringes upon another religion.

Seems like the "State" is sponsoring a specific religion (or at least a RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE) to me...

Cthulhu-Mythos;11601556']Wiccans also (about 90% of all the one's I've met or heard of) firmly accept Homosexuality as "good" and have no problems with "Gay Marriage"... YET, Homophobic Bigotry disguised as Fundementalist Christian Dogma forbids "Gay Marriage" and thus infringes upon another religion.

Seems like the "State" is sponsoring a specific religion (or at least a RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE) to me...

Don't be silly. Wicca's not a real religion because they don't accept the Lord Jesus Christ as their Saviour. [/snark]

Don't be silly. Wicca's not a real religion because they don't accept the Lord Jesus Christ as their Saviour. [/snark]

I shoulda seen that one coming...
:headbang: :headbang:


( :) :) )

Cthulhu-Mythos;11601556']Wiccans also (about 90% of all the one's I've met or heard of) firmly accept Homosexuality as "good" and have no problems with "Gay Marriage"... YET, Homophobic Bigotry disguised as Fundementalist Christian Dogma forbids "Gay Marriage" and thus infringes upon another religion.

Seems like the "State" is sponsoring a specific religion (or at least a RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE) to me...

Eh Bush only did that as a tatic to get more fundies out to vote. It worked.

This country is Christian...


Proof?

Are christians under attack in the USA?
Are you fucking joking? I'm not even in the USA and I'm sick of their shit. You guys rule the roost over there. Not only do you have voting majority, but you practically pwn politics. Find me a polititian who isn't christian, it's political suicide. Terms like 'moral voters', 'family values', 'moral ambiguity'. Your president is a zealot in the religion. "I think god speaks through me" Come on?! Vetoing stem cell laws. Jesus Christ!

On the topic of your logic, Wilgrove, you complain that Christianity is by far the most rebuked religion in the USA over Judaism and Islam. However, you fail to acknowledge that Christianity is not only the most populous religion in the USA, but also the most aggressive. Christianity commits many more 'rebukable' transgressions than the other religions. If public complaints against Islam were as high as those against christianity I'd be confused.

heh...'Is christianity under attack?' pah!

This country is Christian...of course we allow other religions, but to keep taking down religious symbols seems useless and annoying. What if many Americans and what not moved to another country and started complaining about the majority religion, and pestering them to take down their things?

I'd like to cite the treaty of tripoli on you:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

False dichotomy... there is no 'binary' situation, here... the choices aren't just "Christians are murdering babies" or "Christians are best"... it is possible to do wrong without genocide.

For many who are not Christian, Christianity really is a problem... it can affect which job you can get (especially here in the Bible Belt), and whether or not you can get promoted... it can affect your everyday life, matters like adoption. It can affect whether or not you can easily fulfill your own religious observations.

As an example - a friend who is wiccan has ceremonies with wine, which she cannot buy on a Sunday around here. If she runs out on Sunday - 'Christian' policy means she cannot observe her religion.

Speaking as one who participates in Wiccan ceremonys wine is not a requirement. The term for that portion of events in fact is cakes and ale but neither cakes nor ale are required persay, only food and drink.

Find me a polititian who isn't christian

JFK was Catholic, if that's anywhere near close enough.

JFK was Catholic, if that's anywhere near close enough.

Considering the fact that Catholics are a KIND OF CHRISTIAN (in fact the FIRST kind of Christian unless you count the apostles) it is nothing aproaching close enough.

JFK was Catholic, if that's anywhere near close enough.

Umm... Catholic is a Christian denomination! Hell we started the Christian Church! If it wasn't for the Roman Catholic Church, there wouldn't be any other Christian denomination today.

Umm... Catholic is a Christian denomination! Hell we started the Christian Church! If it wasn't for the Roman Catholic Church, there wouldn't be any other Christian denomination today.

Except that the Roman Catholic Church exists because the Pope angered the other bishops so much that the Church split. The Eastern Orthodox Church didn't really leave. If anthing, the Pope left and took the West with him.

Except that the Roman Catholic Church exists because the Pope angered the other bishops so much that the Church split. The Eastern Orthodox Church didn't really leave. If anthing, the Pope left and took the West with him.

Actually the Pope and the Patriarch both excommunicated each other as a result of a disagrement over leadership of the church.

They certainly are in this forum, at any rate. Daily.

The Torah mentions a Chanukiyah? Where? >>

exactly my point. I refrain from saying "chanukiyah" to avoid having to define it, but it is far from being in the torah

Are Christians under attack in the USA?
-------------------------------------------------
They certainly are in this forum, at any rate. Daily.

This

*gestures*

isn't the USA, however. But you already knew that.

Considering the fact that Catholics are a KIND OF CHRISTIAN (in fact the FIRST kind of Christian unless you count the apostles) it is nothing aproaching close enough.

That's were you are wrong, Catholics, are Catholics, and Christians are those, who broke away from the Roman Catholic Church, and have developed, some different ideas from the Roman Catholic Church.

Eh Bush only did that as a tatic to get more fundies out to vote. It worked.

Actually is was the fear that homos might get married that got them out to vote.

This

*gestures*

isn't the USA, however. But you already knew that.

Looks around the room. It isn't? :confused:

Looks around the room. It isn't? :confused:

Nope. T'isn't.

Nope. T'isn't.

What did we finally break off and join Canada?

What did we finally break off and join Canada?

More like the fog lifts and you realize we're all in the UK. What I mean is, the forums are after all, hosted by http://forums.jolt.co.uk

Funny, the people who founded the fucking country seem to disagree with you.

Then why don't we take down every fucking religious symbol. Lets just be an atheist country. There, problem solved.

That's were you are wrong, Catholics, are Catholics, and Christians are those, who broke away from the Roman Catholic Church, and have developed, some different ideas from the Roman Catholic Church.


No, those are actually called Protestants.
And both are called Christians. Together with a handful of other demoninations, such as the orthodox churches...

Then why don't we take down every fucking religious symbol. Lets just be an atheist country. There, problem solved.

What we need to do is have a secular government. The nation can be whatever the hell it likes, but it shouldn't be having it's government used as an advertising medium. If you want to advertise your religion, do it on private property. It's that easy.

That is completely different from saying "Don't have a religion" or "Don't celebrate a religion", because it's a case of not abusing land that we all own (not just christians) and all should feel safe, comfortable, and supported in.

That's were you are wrong, Catholics, are Catholics, and Christians are those, who broke away from the Roman Catholic Church, and have developed, some different ideas from the Roman Catholic Church.

Errr... no. (And abusing commas like that makes baby Jesus cry.)

That's were you are wrong, Catholics, are Catholics, and Christians are those, who broke away from the Roman Catholic Church, and have developed, some different ideas from the Roman Catholic Church.
Then I take you believe there are only about 900 million christians on the planet.

If you say about 2 billion, you include the catholics.

You have to say 900 million or you're inconsistent.

Actually the Pope and the Patriarch both excommunicated each other as a result of a disagrement over leadership of the church.

Well, yeah, but a split (at least a split in ideology) had to occur before that took place. The reciprocated excommunications would be what cemented the split. And I still hold that the West left the East, simply because the Pope was rebelling against the majority of bishops.

No, those are actually called Protestants.
And both are called Christians. Together with a handful of other demoninations, such as the orthodox churches...

Protestants were originally catholic and orthodox Christians who broke away from the Roman Catholic Church, but now the word applies to any catholic and orthodox Christian person or group which is neither Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox.

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

Possibly because the Menorah has a other than being a religious symbol; being a lamp.

i'm european
but
Wat is it to be a "christian"out there?
Better than a moslim?
or better ?

Are we under attack like in Red Dawn or Invasion USA?

Are we under attack like in Red Dawn or Invasion USA?

More like Inherit the Wind....

That's were you are wrong, Catholics, are Catholics, and Christians are those, who broke away from the Roman Catholic Church, and have developed, some different ideas from the Roman Catholic Church.



Catholics are Christians. I am more than a little tired of you Fundies insulting my religion. You insult me, I insult you. How's that? And BTW, no you're not under attack in this country. You're the ones doing the attacking. You people (for lack of a more accurate word) have launched an all-out assault on civil liberties and even the Constitution. You've just developed this martyr complex so others will be afraid to oppose you. If you're all so eager to live in a theocracy, GET THE HELL OUT OF MY COUNTRY AND GO LIVE IN IRAN! They already have one.

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.

Knock it off! You can disagree without using profanity and namecalling.

Cthulhu-Mythos;11600207']I think that Wilgrove and Edwardis are the same person under two seperate accounts.

Nope.

Cthulhu-Mythos;11600236']Reminds me of the show I saw on the History Channel about Nazis in America.
At the very end, they shared this bizarre elderly minister of a heretical sect that believes that the True Jews were Aryans and Christ was the last of them and somehow this other group of completely unrelated people called Jews now are in Israel.
Christian Faith and White Supremacy are very closely linked now as back in Nazi Germany.
The only thing that is lacking is a close association between Corporate/Industrial America and the government...
Hmmm...
Suddenly, the idea of Christianity NEEDING to be under attack takes on legitimacy.

Yeah. You base this on a bunch of the most extremist whackjobs you can find and apply it to Christians as a whole?

Not particularly logical.

This country is Christian...of course we allow other religions, but to keep taking down religious symbols seems useless and annoying. What if many Americans and what not moved to another country and started complaining about the majority religion, and pestering them to take down their things?

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

It is not a Christian country. The government specifically cannot declare one religion official over all others, nor can it favor one over all others.

They certainly are in this forum, at any rate. Daily.

Hahaha! It's funny because it's true!

Like I said I'm not keen on the Jewish faith, but let's be honest, people who are outside the Jewish faith are not really going to know this, and they are going to consider the Menorah (no matter which one) a symbol of the Jewish faith. Just like they would consider the Crescent moon and star a symbol of Islamic faith, or how they'll see the Cruifix as a symbol of the Christian faith. All I see now are loopholes that NYC is using, hey maybe tomorrow I'll put up a Cruifix in a public school and tell people that hey, it's not a religous symbol, it just a reminder of my Roman/Italian heritage. I wonder if I would get away with that, I doubt it.

And it would promptly be taken down.
Are you actually arguing that because you are uninformed on this subject, everyone is?

Honestly, it's making you look sillier the more you argue about this.
Next you'll be saying the Kwanzaa candleholder is also a religious symbol?

Don't be silly. Wicca's not a real religion because they don't accept the Lord Jesus Christ as their Saviour. [/snark]

Who said that?

That's were you are wrong, Catholics, are Catholics, and Christians are those, who broke away from the Roman Catholic Church, and have developed, some different ideas from the Roman Catholic Church.
Actually, that is where YOU are wrong. Christianity is anyone and everyone who believes in Christ as the Messiah. Here is the Christian lineage.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6d/Christian-lineage.png

If you argue that Catholics are not Christian because they differ in some belifes, then it would be equally logical for Catholics to argue that Protestants are not Christian. The core idea of Christianity is that there is one God, and Jesus was his messiah. The rest is just fluff.

Then why don't we take down every fucking religious symbol. Lets just be an atheist country. There, problem solved.You're getting closer. Now just move it to "Then why don't we take down every fucking religious symbol on public land. Let's just be a secular country. There, problem solved."

Who said that?

Pat Robertson, Fred Phelps and/or James Dobson, I guess.

Catholics are Christians. I am more than a little tired of you Fundies insulting my religion.

Yeah, what's with that? I always thought it was stupid how the fundamentalists don't consider Catholicism a form of Christianity.

I highly doubt Christians are under any serious attack, though. No one, least of all the state, is bombing churches and burning Bibles on a regular basis. 85% or so Americans are Christian, a clear majority by any definition. The president himself is adamently Christian and there is a strong push for bans on abortion (and gay marriage is still illegal). Last time I checked, it was perfectly legal to go to church, own a Bible, and believe in God.

What we need to do is have a secular government. The nation can be whatever the hell it likes, but it shouldn't be having it's government used as an advertising medium. If you want to advertise your religion, do it on private property. It's that easy.

That is completely different from saying "Don't have a religion" or "Don't celebrate a religion", because it's a case of not abusing land that we all own (not just christians) and all should feel safe, comfortable, and supported in.

I could get behind that.

Nope.

Thank you for backing that up.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

It is not a Christian country. The government specifically cannot declare one religion official over all others, nor can it favor one over all others.

Exactly!

Hahaha! It's funny because it's true!

Hahaha! It's funny because it's paranoid.

Speaking as one who participates in Wiccan ceremonys wine is not a requirement. The term for that portion of events in fact is cakes and ale but neither cakes nor ale are required persay, only food and drink.

Agreed... just as a 'physical' church is not really required for a christian gathering. However - if the Wiccans in question choose to take the terminology at face value, or (as in this case) choose to embrace the special significance of the fruit of the vine in their practise... as far as I'm concerned, that is THEIR decision... and not one that should be intruded on by the religious beliefs of others.

Agreed... just as a 'physical' church is not really required for a christian gathering. However - if the Wiccans in question choose to take the terminology at face value, or (as in this case) choose to embrace the special significance of the fruit of the vine in their practise... as far as I'm concerned, that is THEIR decision... and not one that should be intruded on by the religious beliefs of others.

Oh I agree, but I reserve the right to mock fundies of all faiths including the rare and quite unintelligent Erisian Fundementalist.

the rare and quite unintelligent Erisian Fundementalist.

Wow, so what's that entail? Discord for its' own sake?

Wow, so what's that entail? Discord for its' own sake?

Someone who thinks that they actualy need to avoid eating hot dog buns and otherwise misses the point of several portions of the principia.

Pat Robertson, Fred Phelps and/or James Dobson, I guess.

Again: extremist whackjobs.

Exactly!

So, saying this is a CHRISTIAN NATION is ESTABLISHING AN OFFICIAL RELIGION.
Therefore, UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Again: extremist whackjobs.

I fall into that category and even I say that Pat Robertson needs to not talk 99% of the time.

No, the lawsuits are because Christians routinely try to violate the establishment clause of the constitution and change this country from one that was founded on a religiously neutral basis into a Christian country. If someone is trying to exterminate Christians in the USA I'll stand up with you, but lately it's been a war of legislation and propaganda and the Evangelicals are on the attack. The target of their attacks are the Constitution and the American way of life.
I know that some Christians feel their religion is "under attack" because there are so many legal battles that revolve around restricting Christianity.

What they don't seem to realize is that these legal battles occur specifically because Christianity is pushed beyond the appropriate bounds. Christianity isn't being held to a higher standard than any other religion; quite the opposite, in fact! Christianity is (FINALLY) being reined in, and we are beginning to hold it to the same set of standards as the other faiths in America.

It's kind of like how a lot of white people freaked out during the Civil Rights Era, since white people were the ones most often "under attack" for racist actions. The simple fact was that white people were (are?) enjoying unjust perks by virtue of their white skin, and our country finally got its shit together and started putting an end to that bullshit.

If things are unfair in your favor for many years, and then people finally start pushing to make things fair for everybody, you are probably going to lose some of the perks you've been enjoying. That can really suck. If you're used to everybody else having to give up their seat for you, it can seem really harsh when one day they stop doing so and you end up having to settle for a seat that's not at the very front of the bus. Maybe it can even feel like you're being punished.

But, frankly, that's just too damn bad. It's too damn bad if white people have their feelings hurt when blacks are allowed to sit in the front of the bus. It's too damn bad if men's feelings are hurt when women are allowed to make equal money for equal work. And it's too damn bad if Christians' feelings are hurt when their religion is regarded as merely equal to all other belief systems.

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.

Agreed Whole Heartedly

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.

Almost every week I hear a couple of instances where groups like christians deny science, discriminate against people like homosexuals and single mothers, as well as denounce other religions.

DO UNTO OTHERS.

Maybe when a Jewish or Islam related statue is being displayed outside a government building, or when the pledge contains "under Allah", then maybe people will complain about it even though its not christian.

Do Christians feel like they are under attack? Of course they do! Why shouldn't they, everyone else does. :p People in most other religions feel that they are being oppressed. Atheists feel that they are being oppressed. Scientists feel that they are being oppressed. The left is under attack. The right is under attack. The military is under attack. The rich are under attack. The poor are under attack. Athletics is under attack. The arts are under attack. Academic standards are under attack. Traditional (nuclear, heterosexual) families are under attack. Non-traditional families are under attack. Marriage is under attack. People who chose not to get married are under attack. Children are under attack. People who choose not to have children are under attack. Is there anyone out there who doesn't feel that something they value is threatened in some way? Hello? Anybody?

I don't know, maybe it is normal in an adversarial system for everyone to feel attacked all the time, because in a sense they are all being attacked all the time. Harmony is not valued. Groups and individuals are expected to compete and struggle for limited resources. The result may be fair, but it probably doesn't feel fair.

Help! I'm being oppressed!







I'm sure most people know this, but it bares mentioning just in case: Christians are not really a meaningful majority. They aren't a majority in the same way that women or people with brown hair aren't a majority: because they aren't a cohesive group with common goals, believes, values and identity. There are left wing Christians and right wing Christians. The are authoritarian Christians and Libertarian Christians. There are urban Christians and rural Christians. Industrialist and environmentalist Christians. Christians can be cat people or dog people. ;) Knowing that someone identifies themselves as a Christian doesn't really tell you anything about that person. Some Christians don't believe that evil exists, but rather that evil is just what you call the absence of good the same way that darkness is the absence of light, or cold is the absence of heat. Some Christians believe that evil is a tangible force and is, or is directed by, an intelligence that actively seeks to destroy all that is good in the universe (starting with the Christians themselves, if possible). Some people that consider themselves Christians think that some of the other people who consider themselves Christians are loonies. Some people that consider themselves Christians think that some of the other people who consider themselves Christians are not really Christians at all.

Plenty of Christians who attend church events more than once a week think Christians that attend less than once a week aren't really Christians, and that those who attend just once a week may not really be committed to their faith either. Plenty of Christians who attend church events less than once a week think that those who attend more than once a week are religious zealots who are out of touch with the real world. Some Catholic churches won't allow non-Catholic Christians who are visiting to take communion (apparently all those communions they've taken over the years don't count as a first Holy communion). But that's ok, because some protestants don't consider Catholics to be Christians at all, and think the Pope is nearly as evil as the anti-Christ.

The point is that the Christians who are most likely to consider Christianity oppressed and attacked (and squawk about it) don't really believe that they have a 76% majority, because they believe that a large chunk of those self-declared 76% aren't proper Christians at all. There are people who make a living finding examples of Christianity under attack and publishing them to make complacent Christians nervous. Publications make more sales if they focus on bad news than good news, and focus on sensationalism rather than balanced and unbiased reporting -- that is just as true for religious publications as mainstream ones.


The soft Christian majority is probably why nearly every Presidential candidate from both major parties claims to be a Christian. http://www.adherents.com/adh_presidents.html Sure Bush is a Christian, but so is Kerry, so the Christian majority was moot in deciding that election. Gore is also a Christian, so I'm not worried about Christianity having swung that election either. Pat Robertson wasn't able to parlay his public Christianity into a Presidential nomination, so apparently the Christian majority likes for the president to be a Christian, just not too Christian. :p

Maybe when a Jewish or Islam related statue is being displayed outside a government building, or when the pledge contains "under Allah", then maybe people will complain about it even though its not christian.

And please, dont tell me you wouldnt complain if instead the pledge had "under Allah"

And please, dont tell me you wouldnt complain if instead the pledge had "under Allah"
I think Christians would pitch a massive fit if somebody proposed that the pledge said, "One nation, under gods, ..." So, clearly, their ire has nothing to do with religious liberty or with combatting the evil secularists, since they are totally comfortable disrespecting polytheistic religions.

I think Christians would pitch a massive fit if somebody proposed that the pledge said, "One nation, under gods, ..." So, clearly, their ire has nothing to do with religious liberty or with combatting the evil secularists, since they are totally comfortable disrespecting polytheistic religions.

It's undoubtedly been mentioned above, but it bears repeating, the "under God" bit of the Pledge was added in the 50's as a reaction against godless Communism.

As for those polytheistic religions, well, they're all just going to H - E - double hockey sticks, so, you know, how can a Christian repsect them?

It's undoubtedly been mentioned above, but it bears repeating, the "under God" bit of the Pledge was added in the 50's as a reaction against godless Communism.

And "under God" didn't appear on our currency until well after America was founded. As it happens, it first showed up during another war in which the federal government felt the need to claim that God was on our side.


As for those polytheistic religions, well, they're all just going to H - E - double hockey sticks, so, you know, how can a Christian repsect them?
I just get sick of Christians who pretend like what they're doing is fighting secularists or atheists or whathaveyou. They're fighting everybody who isn't Christian, and I wish they'd stop being such wussies and just come out and say it.

Are Christians under attack in the USA?


Well if they are no wonder. I hate to indulge in the all problems originate from Bush but if the US didn#t have an overly religious president who claims crazy things such as 'I heard God speaking to me' and just admitted that it was Condi and Dick.

I just get sick of Christians who pretend like what they're doing is fighting secularists or atheists or whathaveyou. They're fighting everybody who isn't Christian, and I wish they'd stop being such wussies and just come out and say it.

Ain't that the truth? I'm not sure what gets to me more, militant proselytizing or sanctimonious sorrow that I'm not going to get to heaven, poor atheist that I am. Do you remember the original "Bedazzled"? Peter Cook as the Devil tries to explain to Dudley Moore why he revolted. He gets up on a trash can and says, "Praise me." Dudley does, stops after a couple minutes. Peter Cook says, "Boring, wasn't it? Now try to imagine doing that for all eternity." It's the exclusivity that gets me, too: my Way or the highway.

Are Christians under attack in the USA?


Well if they are no wonder. I hate to indulge in the all problems originate from Bush but if the US didn#t have an overly religious president who claims crazy things such as 'I heard God speaking to me' and just admitted that it was Condi and Dick.

I think it was more likely John ("There is no king in the US but Jesus") Ashcroft, right after he annointed himself with oil.

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.

No it doesn't. Technically what it means is that the state cannot establish an official religion and take control over it. The "wall of seperation between church and state" was coined by then president Jefferson as to why he was not establishing a national holiday. He insisted that in England where the king was head of both church and state the king could and did do such things, but as a "holiday" was the domain or religion and he was a head of a state he could and would not do such a thing. (Never mind that The General, who was the first US president did exactly such a thing.)

When the US constitution was passed, several states did in fact have state religions. They were dropped after a number of decades of guilt. Discrimination against other people's religion was commonplace. Anti-papist (ie. Anti-Catholic) retoric was common in the 18th and 19th centuries, and even the 20th century until the election of John F. Kenedy as president. What about the case of Mormon polygamy and the Federal Government?

The thing people tend to forget is that it is not religion and state, it is church and state. Church being a heirarchy and state being a heirarchy. The modern notion that it means the removal of anything religious (or even moral) from the public square is not backed by history, but there are those who advocate the seperation of history and state, and even the seperation of common sense and state. (Too many people in public office seem to be in favor of the later.)

I know that some Christians feel their religion is "under attack" because there are so many legal battles that revolve around restricting Christianity.

What they don't seem to realize is that these legal battles occur specifically because Christianity is pushed beyond the appropriate bounds. Christianity isn't being held to a higher standard than any other religion; quite the opposite, in fact! Christianity is (FINALLY) being reined in, and we are beginning to hold it to the same set of standards as the other faiths in America.

It's kind of like how a lot of white people freaked out during the Civil Rights Era, since white people were the ones most often "under attack" for racist actions. The simple fact was that white people were (are?) enjoying unjust perks by virtue of their white skin, and our country finally got its shit together and started putting an end to that bullshit.

If things are unfair in your favor for many years, and then people finally start pushing to make things fair for everybody, you are probably going to lose some of the perks you've been enjoying. That can really suck. If you're used to everybody else having to give up their seat for you, it can seem really harsh when one day they stop doing so and you end up having to settle for a seat that's not at the very front of the bus. Maybe it can even feel like you're being punished.

But, frankly, that's just too damn bad. It's too damn bad if white people have their feelings hurt when blacks are allowed to sit in the front of the bus. It's too damn bad if men's feelings are hurt when women are allowed to make equal money for equal work. And it's too damn bad if Christians' feelings are hurt when their religion is regarded as merely equal to all other belief systems.

I liked this point so much, I think it needed repeating. I don't understand how people think that the government/authority should protect their feelings.

Everyone these days is a victim, so of course the government must protect our feelings.

I liked this point so much, I think it needed repeating. I don't understand how people think that the government/authority should protect their feelings.
A lot of people need to be reminded that there is no Constitutional right to not get your feelings hurt.

Your right to freedom of speech does not mean that you have the right to say anything you want without anybody responding or criticizing you.

Your right to freedom of expression does not mean that everybody else is banned from complaining about what you choose to do.

Your right to freedom of religion does not mean that the government has to build monuments to your faith.

Maybe it makes you sad that there are people who don't love Jeebus, and that they dare to say so in public. Well, it makes other people sad that you don't love Allah. It makes some people sad that you don't love Communism. Boo freaking hoo.

Thank you!

I admit I am totally buggered at the moment...it being 3am and my bottle of Glenmorangie well and truely damaged!

Having said that I have a number f quesitons/thoughts that do crop up...

What you say is more towards Gnosis and agnostic thought (I understand the philosophy part...although theology is a more pertinant idea than atheism) rather than a 'spilt' between atheism (there is no godhead) and agnostic (errr....the booze has hit me now!...I think I mean in regards to agnostic as being the possibility of supranatural influence?).

I am gonna suffer the mother of all hangovers tomorrow! LOL

I love those kinds of hangovers.... sorry this is a delayed reaction:

If the idea referred generally to ALL Buddhists, you would be correct in assessing it as a type of Gnosticism or Agnosticism. This would probably apply to those who start out as Buddhists and determine that their beliefs go one way or the other. However, that's not the only option that exists.

Some people start out as something other than Buddhist and add the Buddhist philosophy on to their preliminary beliefs (for example, an atheist who believes that mental control and meditation are the way to finding peace internally, or an Episcopalian who believes that they connect hir with God). Each of these is definitely atheist or theist, but add Buddhist underpinnings (or, as is more likely the case, overpinnings... heh) to their preexisting belief system. In that case, they are atheist or theist with Buddhist philosophy, instead of Buddhist gnostic or agnostic.

Make sense?

Prosit

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...

And until the 1870s, there were Christians in the US who did not celebrate Christmas at all because they thought it was too pagan for them.

In New England, the Puritans rejected Christmas as nothing more than the pagan Saturnalia dressed up in Baby Jesus clothes. They stamped it "popish" and actually banned it. It was only with the massive waves of Italians (with their popish Roman pagan rites) who came into the US at the end of the 19th century that Christmas got forced back into popular culture. To this day, Christmas in Puritan Boston is a pale shadow of what it is in more cosompolitan New York.

Halloween on the other hand... Salem is the spot to be, let me tell you.

... Halloween on the other hand... Salem is the spot to be, let me tell you.

Greenwich Village in NYC is quite the spot on Hallowe'en, too.

Greenwich Village in NYC is quite the spot on Hallowe'en, too.

So is the Castro in San Francisco. But only if you like assless chaps.

Greenwich Village in NYC is quite the spot on Hallowe'en, too.

Yeah its quite fucking crazy.

No it doesn't. Technically what it means is that the state cannot establish an official religion and take control over it. The "wall of seperation between church and state" was coined by then president Jefferson as to why he was not establishing a national holiday. He insisted that in England where the king was head of both church and state the king could and did do such things, but as a "holiday" was the domain or religion and he was a head of a state he could and would not do such a thing. (Never mind that The General, who was the first US president did exactly such a thing.)

When the US constitution was passed, several states did in fact have state religions. They were dropped after a number of decades of guilt. Discrimination against other people's religion was commonplace. Anti-papist (ie. Anti-Catholic) retoric was common in the 18th and 19th centuries, and even the 20th century until the election of John F. Kenedy as president. What about the case of Mormon polygamy and the Federal Government?

The thing people tend to forget is that it is not religion and state, it is church and state. Church being a heirarchy and state being a heirarchy. The modern notion that it means the removal of anything religious (or even moral) from the public square is not backed by history, but there are those who advocate the seperation of history and state, and even the seperation of common sense and state. (Too many people in public office seem to be in favor of the later.)


OK, then show me where it says that Fundamentalist Christianity (or any religion) has the right to dictate government policy. Government can't control religion? Agreed. But please provide proof that it's ok for religion to control government. Religious websites don't count.

And until the 1870s, there were Christians in the US who did not celebrate Christmas at all because they thought it was too pagan for them.

In New England, the Puritans rejected Christmas as nothing more than the pagan Saturnalia dressed up in Baby Jesus clothes. They stamped it "popish" and actually banned it. It was only with the massive waves of Italians (with their popish Roman pagan rites) who came into the US at the end of the 19th century that Christmas got forced back into popular culture. To this day, Christmas in Puritan Boston is a pale shadow of what it is in more cosompolitan New York.

Halloween on the other hand... Salem is the spot to be, let me tell you.Even today, there are sects of christianity in the US that do not celebrate christmas...namely the Jehova's Witnesses...citing its Pagan origins.

I love those kinds of hangovers.... sorry this is a delayed reaction:

If the idea referred generally to ALL Buddhists, you would be correct in assessing it as a type of Gnosticism or Agnosticism. This would probably apply to those who start out as Buddhists and determine that their beliefs go one way or the other. However, that's not the only option that exists.

Some people start out as something other than Buddhist and add the Buddhist philosophy on to their preliminary beliefs (for example, an atheist who believes that mental control and meditation are the way to finding peace internally, or an Episcopalian who believes that they connect hir with God). Each of these is definitely atheist or theist, but add Buddhist underpinnings (or, as is more likely the case, overpinnings... heh) to their preexisting belief system. In that case, they are atheist or theist with Buddhist philosophy, instead of Buddhist gnostic or agnostic.

Make sense?

Prosit


*urk* yeah it was a bastard hangover alright LOL

What I still don't get is that there is still an understanding of the supranatural in Buddhism...but not all?

I think I need think about this as I still cannot grasp the idea of an atheistic Buddhist...its like an antheistic Unitarian...ultimately incompatible

...its like an antheistic Unitarian...ultimately incompatible

Having been raised Unitarian, I can assure you, there isn't necessarily an issue of incompatibility with being simultaneously atheistic and Unitarian. More than half my congregation considered themselves atheistic. Just thought I'd mention it...

Having been raised Unitarian, I can assure you, there isn't necessarily an issue of incompatibility with being simultaneously atheistic and Unitarian. More than half my congregation considered themselves atheistic. Just thought I'd mention it...

Is cool...

...my understanding is that the congregation consists of all sorts of faiths and atheists...how does that work?

Is cool...

...my understanding is that the congregation consists of all sorts of faiths and atheists...how does that work?

Unitarian Universalist services are very vague with regards to theological issues. Typically, the minister picks a topic of some sort and the congregation discusses it.

They're fairly free form and all UU churches are different and have their own traditional quirks.

Well today, I talked to the college leading Islam scholar, Dr. Muhammed. (#1 name in Saudi Arabia!) He explains that the Star and Crescent moon are more of a National symbol in the Islamic world than a religious one. He said that a line of cliography (forgot what it said) was more of a religious symbol of Islam than the Crescent moon and star is.

Now knowing this, this brings up two question.

1. Why did the NYC School put it up in honor of the month of Rammadan?

2. If it's more of a national symbol, then what nation is NYC School celebrating?

The more I find out about this, the more ingorant the NYC School system actually seem. I have an appointment to go talk to the local Rabbi tomorrow.

Unitarian Universalist services are very vague with regards to theological issues. Typically, the minister picks a topic of some sort and the congregation discusses it.

They're fairly free form and all UU churches are different and have their own traditional quirks.

Been to Unitarian Easter services . . . Buddha got more mentions than JC ;)

Well today, I talked to the college leading Islam scholar, Dr. Muhammed. (#1 name in Saudi Arabia!) He explains that the Star and Crescent moon are more of a National symbol in the Islamic world than a religious one. He said that a line of cliography (forgot what it said) was more of a religious symbol of Islam than the Crescent moon and star is.

Now knowing this, this brings up two question.

1. Why did the NYC School put it up in honor of the month of Rammadan?

2. If it's more of a national symbol, then what nation is NYC School celebrating?

The more I find out about this, the more ingorant the NYC School system actually seem. I have an appointment to go talk to the local Rabbi tomorrow.

So, you admit that you were wrong in classifying the star and crescent as a religious symbol, yet call the NYC school system ignorant?

That's rich.

Well today, I talked to the college leading Islam scholar, Dr. Muhammed. (#1 name in Saudi Arabia!) He explains that the Star and Crescent moon are more of a National symbol in the Islamic world than a religious one. He said that a line of cliography (forgot what it said) was more of a religious symbol of Islam than the Crescent moon and star is.

Now knowing this, this brings up two question.

1. Why did the NYC School put it up in honor of the month of Rammadan?

2. If it's more of a national symbol, then what nation is NYC School celebrating?

The more I find out about this, the more ingorant the NYC School system actually seem. I have an appointment to go talk to the local Rabbi tomorrow.

First, I echo what Kat said. Second, something can be a symbol of Islam (the nation of Islam) and not be religious. Hence its classification as a secular symbol.

Originally Posted by Farnhamia
Greenwich Village in NYC is quite the spot on Hallowe'en, too.
So is the Castro in San Francisco. But only if you like assless chaps.
I think there is something extra festive, though, about celebrating Halloween in the town where people were actually hanged as witches. You get the somber atmosphere of the memorial to the victims, just over the cemetery wall from the grave of the judge who condemned them, and just a few streets away from the brand new statue of Barbara Eden from the tv show "Bewitched," all surrounded by continuous street theater re-enactments of the trials. You get your psychic fairs, your uber-goths, and your torrential floods of Chinese and Japanese tourists dressed up in outlandish costumes. And every now and then, you spot a candle or a flower left at the memorial by a descendant of one of the victims. Yep, it makes for quite a weekend of people watching...

Even today, there are sects of christianity in the US that do not celebrate christmas...namely the Jehova's Witnesses...citing its Pagan origins.
Just so. Makes me wonder why Christmas was singled out as being a target of some kind of war. You'd think they'd have picked something people actually cared about.

and just a few streets away from the brand new statue of Barbara Eden from the tv show "Bewitched,"

Jeannie was a witch?????

Elizabeth Montgomery ;)

Christianity is under attack, and rightfully so. Hopefully, Islam will be destroyed as the next generation of wealthy moderates erodes the financial base of fundamentalism, and dead traditions like Hinduism and Shintoism will stop turning their faiths into metaphors and finally just die out like all bad ideas should.

The archaic mythologies like the copycat-Mithraen figure Jesus are dangerous and oppressive. Serial rapists like Mohammed have caused every reasonable geopolitical woe in the last 45 years, and socially, American democracy is threatened by Christian fascists who would have us telling gay people and women that they aren't citizens, women especially, having them believe that their bodies are not their own and that a fetus is a living thing as soon as sperm touches it. Abortion is good for society: statistically proven, areas with more abortions have lower crime and higher median incomes because poor people, specifically black people, have the majority of abortions in this country, and fewer live births in those demographics cause fewer criminals.

Socially mature decisions like the legalization of abortion are too much for Christians, who don't have the stomachs for a stable society, choosing instead to try to unify everyone under fairy tales like a 6,000-year old universe and an invisible man in the sky who makes right and wrong for no reason. Look at the Law of Moses- "Pigs are unclean." "Why?" "Because God said so." "Oh." And that has been the nature of thought in the Judeo-Christian tradition: to look at things like complex biology and the Big Bang and say, "well, things are the way they are because of God, not because we can prove it, but because we don't have the intelligence or the attention spans to realize that rational thought has brutally murdered the God of our fathers." Spend thirty minutes reading about Hawking's quantum cosmology and the cosmological argument ceases to be a rationale for God's existence in the mind of any, thinking human being.

Organized religion is a vile brain disease that has led to all range of murders from Matthew Shepherd to the Holocaust. Hitler's reign could not have survived without his manipulation of religion; myths about Hitler's atheism are outright lies, if you read Mein Kampf you see that Hitler had a very strong religious persuasion and he used it as all other great religious orators have: a tool to manipulate the uneducated. Stalinism would never have happened if the church structure of Russia hadn't made it a third-rate power, subserviant to the mental retardation that is Eastern Orthodoxy and East European Catholocism. The czars drew their power from Mother Church, and were so deluded and ignorant that Stalinism was the natural reaction, causing the deaths of tens of millions.

Destroy religion. Let the churches and temples be turned into apartments for the indigent, let the graveyards be made into farms and parks, let the cathedrals and mosques be made into concert halls. File the Bible and the Ko'Ran under science fiction, and put the Torah under alternative history. Let the teacher in the public school who for a moment puts it in his students' heads that evolution might be false on suspension while he takes one more damn biology class. And let us never, ever be made slaves of the sky ever again.

AIM- ChrisRay6000

<Snip due to length>

I really suspect that you are an alt of concience and truth.
The only problem was that CT wasn't quite so wordy when he trolled.

If you somehow aren't trolling:
Religion can be manipulated for bad purposes, yes.
But so can practically everything.
You don't stop the maniac by banning his excuse, y'know.

Jeannie was a witch?????

Elizabeth Montgomery ;)

Oh, right.

Getting that wrong makes me feel embarrassed and proud at the same time. :)

Destroy religion.
What an intolerant rant. Even if you don't have a faith, you must surely appreciate the "noble myth" value of religions.

So, you admit that you were wrong in classifying the star and crescent as a religious symbol, yet call the NYC school system ignorant?

That's rich.

At least he went and learned something for himself (I think - not quite sure if he really did learn something), which is more than I can say for many of the posters here.

What an intolerant rant. Even if you don't have a faith, you must surely appreciate the "noble myth" value of religions.Nothing personal, but quite often, there's not much that's noble about religion or the way it's pursued. There are exceptions, to be sure, but I'd argue that, at least in terms of human life, religion has done a bit more damage than good over the last 10,000 years or so. And that encompasses all religions.

Socially mature decisions like the legalization of abortion are too much for Christians, who don't have the stomachs for a stable society, choosing instead to try to unify everyone under fairy tales like a 6,000-year old universe and an invisible man in the sky who makes right and wrong for no reason.

Funny, I know quite a bit of Christians who are pro-choice. Generally, they also have no problem with the physical evidence that the universe is much older than 6000 years. And I haven't heard of many religions at all in which anything "makes right and wrong for no reason>"

Destroy religion.

You'd have to destroy every religious person to do so. You willing to commit all those murders?

Nothing personal, but quite often, there's not much that's noble about religion or the way it's pursued. There are exceptions, to be sure, but I'd argue that, at least in terms of human life, religion has done a bit more damage than good over the last 10,000 years or so. And that encompasses all religions.
I think that you're forgetting that many hospitals were started by various religions, pionering medical doctors and nurses were trained in medical schools and served in hosptals started by religions. Schools were, in many countries, orginally started by, well, religions (lots of European and the ellite private universities in America were started as such). Many various charoties were also religiously based (Salvation Army, St. Jude's Childrens Hospital leap instantly to mind).

Not exceptions, Nazz, norms. There HAS been a lot of good done by those who felt that they were called by God(s) to actual service and they continue to do good as well.

Please try not to paint all religion with the same brush as you would those who misuse religion.

So, you admit that you were wrong in classifying the star and crescent as a religious symbol, yet call the NYC school system ignorant?

That's rich.

No I call them ignorant because if it's not a religious symbol, then why are they using it to symbolize the month of Rammadan? But, whatever, I stopped trying to figure out government (any form of it) a long time ago.

No I call them ignorant because if it's not a religious symbol, then why are they using it to symbolize the month of Rammadan? But, whatever, I stopped trying to figure out government (any form of it) a long time ago.

Why do Christians use Santa to symbolize Christmas?

because it is a secular symbol of the holiday.

I think that you're forgetting that many hospitals were started by various religions, pionering medical doctors and nurses were trained in medical schools and served in hosptals started by religions. Schools were, in many countries, orginally started by, well, religions (lots of European and the ellite private universities in America were started as such). Many various charoties were also religiously based (Salvation Army, St. Jude's Childrens Hospital leap instantly to mind).

Not exceptions, Nazz, norms. There HAS been a lot of good done by those who felt that they were called by God(s) to actual service and they continue to do good as well.

Please try not to paint all religion with the same brush as you would those who misuse religion.

I understand ... but do you see even within your post ... thoes that have done generous works are because of religion (hospitals and what not)

But you make a clera point at the end that people that do bad things in its name instead of good are "Misusing it"

Personaly I think religion is just an excuse to justify things good or bad ... it is nothing more then a tool

I think that you're forgetting that many hospitals were started by various religions, pionering medical doctors and nurses were trained in medical schools and served in hosptals started by religions. Schools were, in many countries, orginally started by, well, religions (lots of European and the ellite private universities in America were started as such). Many various charoties were also religiously based (Salvation Army, St. Jude's Childrens Hospital leap instantly to mind).

Not exceptions, Nazz, norms. There HAS been a lot of good done by those who felt that they were called by God(s) to actual service and they continue to do good as well.

Please try not to paint all religion with the same brush as you would those who misuse religion.
Holocaust, crusades, inquisitions, Chinese religious turmoil, Muslim conquests, general degradation of the human condition.

More bad than good.

I think that you're forgetting that many hospitals were started by various religions, pionering medical doctors and nurses were trained in medical schools and served in hosptals started by religions. Schools were, in many countries, orginally started by, well, religions (lots of European and the ellite private universities in America were started as such). Many various charoties were also religiously based (Salvation Army, St. Jude's Childrens Hospital leap instantly to mind).

Not exceptions, Nazz, norms. There HAS been a lot of good done by those who felt that they were called by God(s) to actual service and they continue to do good as well.

Please try not to paint all religion with the same brush as you would those who misuse religion.

I do not deny that good has been done by religious people, significant good, in fact. I just happen to believe that if you were to balance the scales--on one side, the good done by individuals and organizations inspired by religious belief like what you cited above, on the other side, the needless death and hostility done in any god's name, the continual willingness to sacrifice scientific advancement in favor of superstition and hokum, and the blatant manipulation of the masses for the personal gain of the leadership, then the evil done by religion outweighs the good. And for me, it's not even close.

Please don't take this as being an anti-christian statement. This is my feeling about religions in general. Christianity is included in this, of course, but is not being singled out.

I do not deny that good has been done by religious people, significant good, in fact. I just happen to believe that if you were to balance the scales--on one side, the good done by individuals and organizations inspired by religious belief like what you cited above, on the other side, the needless death and hostility done in any god's name, the continual willingness to sacrifice scientific advancement in favor of superstition and hokum, and the blatant manipulation of the masses for the personal gain of the leadership, then the evil done by religion outweighs the good. And for me, it's not even close.

Please don't take this as being an anti-christian statement. This is my feeling about religions in general. Christianity is included in this, of course, but is not being singled out.

I would also throw in the organized forms of atheism...such as China's Cultural Revolution

I would also throw in the organized forms of atheism...such as China's Cultural Revolution

Was the problem atheism or was it the madman running the country? The problem with many religions is the either hidden or blatant argument that the unbeliever is the other and is dangerous and so must be destroyed.

Was the problem atheism or was it the madman running the country? The problem with many religions is the either hidden or blatant argument that the unbeliever is the other and is dangerous and so must be destroyed.
Well, how often is the issue of religion the madman running it?

I'd say the organized forms of atheism can be capable of, and sometimes are guilty of, the same crimes as their religious counterparts. Instead of the nonbeliever being the enemy, it becomes the believer. the roles are reversed, but the outcome is the same.

Mind you, this is not saying atheism is bad...that would be calling myself bad, and I try not to do that. Just when atheism becomes a hierarchy.


Religion goes from a good idea to a belief system to an institution to a machine.
Lack of religion can do the same
the ultimate result of that mechanization is the same.

Was the problem atheism or was it the madman running the country? The problem with many religions is the either hidden or blatant argument that the unbeliever is the other and is dangerous and so must be destroyed.

which the religion of atheism will sometimes participate in, the christians/jews/muslims who refused to give up their religious beliefs were the first to go to the gulags in the USSR, after old czarist regime members of course.

Well, how often is the issue of religion the madman running it?

I'd say the organized forms of atheism can be capable of, and sometimes are guilty of, the same crimes as their religious counterparts. Instead of the nonbeliever being the enemy, it becomes the believer. the roles are reversed, but the outcome is the same.

Mind you, this is not saying atheism is bad...that would be calling myself bad, and I try not to do that. Just when atheism becomes a hierarchy.


Religion goes from a good idea to a belief system to an institution to a machine.
Lack of religion can do the same
the ultimate result of that mechanization is the same.The main difference--to me--is that violence against the other is built into the tenets of many religions, including the Old Testament part of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. It provides cover to the madmen running the local version of the religion. Atheism, since it lacks a set of tenets, has no cover for madmen who want to commit mass murder.

The main difference--to me--is that violence against the other is built into the tenets of many religions, including the Old Testament part of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. It provides cover to the madmen running the local version of the religion. Atheism, since it lacks a set of tenets, has no cover for madmen who want to commit mass murder.
hmm...k...I can understand that.
My one point of issue in that is, isn't the atheism/religion conflict as much built into atheism as the inter-religion conflicts are built into the religions? Perhaps not...perhaps it is something in the religion rather than the lack of religion...but the way I see it is, if you consider yourself to be correct, then you consider all others to be wrong. If the others are wrong, then it can (note: can, not does) provide a cover for that madman.

which the religion of atheism will sometimes participate in, the christians/jews/muslims who refused to give up their religious beliefs were the first to go to the gulags in the USSR, after old czarist regime members of course.

Atheism, no matter how you try to slice it, is not a religion. It could be considered a belief system, but it is not a religion. It is the antithesis of religion, a denial of religion. And like I said in my last comment, atheism offers no cover for genocide or mass murder. Most religions do, in one form or another, in their sacred writings.

hmm...k...I can understand that.
My one point of issue in that is, isn't the atheism/religion conflict as much built into atheism as the inter-religion conflicts are built into the religions? Perhaps not...perhaps it is something in the religion rather than the lack of religion...but the way I see it is, if you consider yourself to be correct, then you consider all others to be wrong. If the others are wrong, then it can (note: can, not does) provide a cover for that madman.

There doesn't have to be conflict between atheists and theists. In fact, here in the US, they live beside each other every day and violence over the issue rarely, if ever, breaks out. And while it's certainly true that if your belief in something is strong enough, you consider the other to be incorrect, that need not escalate beyond mere disagreement.

I do not deny that good has been done by religious people, significant good, in fact. I just happen to believe that if you were to balance the scales--on one side, the good done by individuals and organizations inspired by religious belief like what you cited above, on the other side, the needless death and hostility done in any god's name, the continual willingness to sacrifice scientific advancement in favor of superstition and hokum, and the blatant manipulation of the masses for the personal gain of the leadership, then the evil done by religion outweighs the good. And for me, it's not even close.
Given the medical, educational, historical, scientific, and other contributions made over the centuries, I'd say it comes out even.

As noted, a lot of what we see today was orginally done by a religious institution or people. It's only when looked at now, when those institutions have become secular do we see more spectacular examples of bass-awkwardness.

Please don't take this as being an anti-christian statement. This is my feeling about religions in general. Christianity is included in this, of course, but is not being singled out.
Oh I didn't, but Christian examples just came quicker to mind and I figured that if I started a list of Japanese Buddhist or Shinto examples I'd just get strange(r) looks than I normally do. ;)

Atheism, no matter how you try to slice it, is not a religion. It could be considered a belief system, but it is not a religion. It is the antithesis of religion, a denial of religion. And like I said in my last comment, atheism offers no cover for genocide or mass murder. Most religions do, in one form or another, in their sacred writings.
okay, this might clear it all up.

When I'm talking about the organized form of atheism, I'm talking about a form of atheism that isn't true atheism. As you stated, atheism is the antithesis of religion. However, when wholly bastardized, and moved to an organized form, it becomes something different. I'd almost go so far as to say the form I'm talking about isn't a true atheism at all, as it somewhat replaces "god" with "the state".

Otherwise, I'd wholeheartedly agree with you.

The main difference--to me--is that violence against the other is built into the tenets of many religions, including the Old Testament part of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. It provides cover to the madmen running the local version of the religion. Atheism, since it lacks a set of tenets, has no cover for madmen who want to commit mass murder.
Well, it doesn't offer any reason not to commit mass murder, either. So your point is a bit moot.

Any cause, any organization, any social grouping can be misused by the person in charge of it. The Crusades were a result of Pope Urban II. They were not an inevitable occurence, spurred on by religion, but rather a scam by the corrupt leader of the Roman Catholic Church.

Athiesm itself is not a religion, but in sociological terms, Marxist athiesm often can be. (now I see that Sarkhaan explained this bit)

There doesn't have to be conflict between atheists and theists. In fact, here in the US, they live beside each other every day and violence over the issue rarely, if ever, breaks out. And while it's certainly true that if your belief in something is strong enough, you consider the other to be incorrect, that need not escalate beyond mere disagreement.

quite true...however, a recent survey has shown atheists to be the least trusted minority in the US...let me see if I can find it.

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

hmm...I was gonna go somewhere with this, but I actually much prefer it to support your point instead of mine. So we'll leave it here.

Well, it doesn't offer any reason not to commit mass murder, either. So your point is a bit moot.
In other words, humans would be killing each other in the streets, willy-nilly, had we not developed belief in some sky fairy who told us not to do it? See, nothing personal, but this kind of reasoning is why atheists get a bit pissy at times in discussions like these, because it suggests that humans cannot develop a moral code without interference from some divine power, and frankly, that's crap.

The main difference--to me--is that violence against the other is built into the tenets of many religions, including the Old Testament part of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. It provides cover to the madmen running the local version of the religion. Atheism, since it lacks a set of tenets, has no cover for madmen who want to commit mass murder.
Hmm, still, there have been Atheisits who seemed to have no issues with coming up with covers to commit murder.

I would say that both religion and atheism run the same gambit, where it can either inspire or destroy people depending upon who gets it and what they do with it.

On one hand you have Florence Nightengale who believed her call to nursing was a call from God and who developed modern nursing.

On the other you have Chairman Mao who's policies resulted in the deats of millions.

On one hand you have Dotors without Borders, who go anywhere to treat, irregardless of the religion invloved.

On the other you have the Spanish Inquisition who killed to save people in the name of God.

Seems to balance out to me.

quite true...however, a recent survey has shown atheists to be the least trusted minority in the US...let me see if I can find it.

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

hmm...I was gonna go somewhere with this, but I actually much prefer it to support your point instead of mine. So we'll leave it here.

That's disturbing. Thanks for the link.

In other words, humans would be killing each other in the streets, willy-nilly, had we not developed belief in some sky fairy who told us not to do it? See, nothing personal, but this kind of reasoning is why atheists get a bit pissy at times in discussions like these, because it suggests that humans cannot develop a moral code without interference from some divine power, and frankly, that's crap.
*kills The Nazz*

what? I'm just a helpless, hell-bound, moral-lacking atheist! I don't know any better!

;) :rolleyes:
That's disturbing. Thanks for the link.
made me feel a little bit sick. However, didn't surprise me in the least.

*kills The Nazz*

what? I'm just a helpless, hell-bound, moral-lacking atheist! I don't know any better!

;) :rolleyes:
Damn it, where's the trout smilie when you need it to bap people? ;)

Damn it, where's the trout smilie when you need it to bap people? ;)

sorry. I'll behave :(
haha

Here ye Here ye, this is a formal declaration: Straughn's level of pride has reached new levels and offers to share it with one and all.

What, No takers? if Straugn's pride isn't good enough for you, you can have a little of mine for sloppy seconds. And I am even willing to bet that Verdigroth will have my back on this! *wears chastity robes*

The main difference--to me--is that violence against the other is built into the tenets of many religions, including the Old Testament part of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. It provides cover to the madmen running the local version of the religion. Atheism, since it lacks a set of tenets, has no cover for madmen who want to commit mass murder.

Exactlly. The problem is that religion is an ideology... specifically one that tells one group they are 'better' than all others. And we've seen what happens when that ideology is given absolute control.

Add to which, as has already been said, most of the dominant religions scripturally demand that other people be deprived of their infidel lives.

hmm...k...I can understand that.
My one point of issue in that is, isn't the atheism/religion conflict as much built into atheism as the inter-religion conflicts are built into the religions? Perhaps not...perhaps it is something in the religion rather than the lack of religion...but the way I see it is, if you consider yourself to be correct, then you consider all others to be wrong. If the others are wrong, then it can (note: can, not does) provide a cover for that madman.

1) Most atheists are 'implicit'. They lack the ideology of religion, as opposed to replacing it.

2) Atheists don't claim the backing of a 'higher power', and don't have a 'scripture' that demands blood. Read the Old Testament as a history, and see how Joshua appears if you remove the assumption that his 'god' is real.

The main difference--to me--is that violence against the other is built into the tenets of many religions, including the Old Testament part of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. It provides cover to the madmen running the local version of the religion. Atheism, since it lacks a set of tenets, has no cover for madmen who want to commit mass murder.
Exactly. There's no Great Big Book Of Atheism containing passages where NotGod tells the people to kill heathens.

Well, it doesn't offer any reason not to commit mass murder, either. So your point is a bit moot.

Dude, if somebody needs to be given a reason to not commit mass murder, getting religion is not going to fix them. Sorry, but that human is broken.

Exactly. There's no Great Big Book Of Atheism containing passages where NotGod tells the people to kill heathens.

Hmmm... I'm seeing a potential market here.... ;)

Hmmm... I'm seeing a potential market here.... ;)
I've been thinking of starting a movement in the godless community, whereby we all hail the coming of our NotMessiah.

Her name will be Fran, and she will not be the messiah. She will be a person not born of God, who doesn't plan to lead humanity into anything in particular. She will be capable of many non-miraculous feats, such as opening the lids of jars that were really stuck on there tight. Our NotMessiah will be the Earthly incarnation of nothing really, just kind of a NotGoddish sort of vibe.

Dude, if somebody needs to be given a reason to not commit mass murder, getting religion is not going to fix them. Sorry, but that human is broken.
Same can be said in reverse, if they are so inclined to deprive someone else of their life, not having a command to do so isn't going to stop them either.

I've been thinking of starting a movement in the godless community, whereby we all hail the coming of our NotMessiah.

Her name will be Fran, and she will not be the messiah. She will be a person not born of God, who doesn't plan to lead humanity into anything in particular. She will be capable of many non-miraculous feats, such as opening the lids of jars that were really stuck on there tight. Our NotMessiah will be the Earthly incarnation of nothing really, just kind of a NotGoddish sort of vibe.


That rocks. I am so there. :)

I've been thinking of starting a movement in the godless community, whereby we all hail the coming of our NotMessiah.

Her name will be Fran, and she will not be the messiah. She will be a person not born of God, who doesn't plan to lead humanity into anything in particular. She will be capable of many non-miraculous feats, such as opening the lids of jars that were really stuck on there tight. Our NotMessiah will be the Earthly incarnation of nothing really, just kind of a NotGoddish sort of vibe.
All I can say is that if Fran can open that verdamnt jar of strawberry jam in my fridge, it WILL be a mirriacle!:mad:

1) Most atheists are 'implicit'. They lack the ideology of religion, as opposed to replacing it.

2) Atheists don't claim the backing of a 'higher power', and don't have a 'scripture' that demands blood. Read the Old Testament as a history, and see how Joshua appears if you remove the assumption that his 'god' is real.
believe me, I know and agree with those two statements.

What I'm talking about are the forms of atheism that aren't. Communist China and Russia for examples...they were "atheist", but not really...ergo, the structured forms of atheism that I first mentioned.

Re all y'all's rather fascinating discussion about the relative bloodthirstiness of religion, my 2 cents:

My opinion is that ANY group or organization that implies in any way that membership is fundamentally better than non-membership is automatically suspect, because from membership, it is an almost automatic step to saying members are better than non-members and, boom, there ya go -- dehumanization of the other begins. And from that point, anything, even the most horrific crimes become possible.

This is why you can take almost anything that fosters a sense of "belonging" in a group by defining "us" as not being "them" and easily -- with the right demagogue -- turn it into a bloodthirsty cult, whether it started out having anything to do with religion or not.

That said, I do think that religion is especially susceptible to this kind of corruption because it deals with unrealistic things for which there is no reality check. That makes it harder to steer it away from the precipice.

This is why I will not only never join any church or temple, but also why I do not join any groups or clubs of any kind at all, except the most superficial, undemanding professional guilds, and then only if the payoff to me is very good.

which the religion of atheism will sometimes participate in, the christians/jews/muslims who refused to give up their religious beliefs were the first to go to the gulags in the USSR, after old czarist regime members of course.
*still waits for exactly how atheism is a religion*

believe me, I know and agree with those two statements.

What I'm talking about are the forms of atheism that aren't. Communist China and Russia for examples...they were "atheist", but not really...ergo, the structured forms of atheism that I first mentioned.

There it is, though. Those governments don't impose atheism as a religion... they impose it as a rebellion AGAINST religion. It isn't the code that unites, it is the removal of codes that unite.

And, when Stalin carries out a genocide among his 'own' people... he does it because he is Stalin... because he is obsessed with power and refuses to allow any threat to it, because those people are a problem, or even just an inconvenience. He doesn't claim a 'higher power'. He doesn't claim any 'backing' for his actions except for 'might is right'.

History has shown us that 'good' people will carry out the most horrible acts because they feel that their 'gods' want them, because they believe they are killing 'witches' as a route to heaven, or just because it is their solemn duty to their 'god'.

And, that's the difference. Hitler killed people because he was a psycho asshole. Religions have the capacity to make the GOOD people murderers.

Re all y'all's rather fascinating discussion about the relative bloodthirstiness of religion, my 2 cents:

My opinion is that ANY group or organization that implies in any way that membership is fundamentally better than non-membership is automatically suspect, because from membership, it is an almost automatic step to saying members are better than non-members and, boom, there ya go -- dehumanization of the other begins. And from that point, anything, even the most horrific crimes become possible.

This is why you can take almost anything that fosters a sense of "belonging" in a group by defining "us" as not being "them" and easily -- with the right demagogue -- turn it into a bloodthirsty cult, whether it started out having anything to do with religion or not.

That said, I do think that religion is especially susceptible to this kind of corruption because it deals with unrealistic things for which there is no reality check. That makes it harder to steer it away from the precipice.

This is why I will not only never join any church or temple, but also why I do not join any groups or clubs of any kind at all, except the most superficial, undemanding professional guilds, and then only if the payoff to me is very good.

Exactly - it is that ability to claim superiority... 'God's Chosen People'... that is the ticket. Once you are 'killing in the name', you are no longer responsible for the blood on your hands.

There it is, though. Those governments don't impose atheism as a religion... they impose it as a rebellion AGAINST religion. It isn't the code that unites, it is the removal of codes that unite.

Or, rather, the codification of non-religion. They impose atheism in much the same way that theocracies impose religion - which ranges anywhere from simply making life hell if you believe something different to actually outright killing someone for it.

History has shown us that 'good' people will carry out the most horrible acts because they feel that their 'gods' want them, because they believe they are killing 'witches' as a route to heaven, or just because it is their solemn duty to their 'god'.

But would those same people have refrained from doing so if they were not religious? If so, why don't most religious people still engage in such acts? And is "God wants us to," really the cause, or simply the justification?

Or, rather, the codification of non-religion. They impose atheism in much the same way that theocracies impose religion - which ranges anywhere from simply making life hell if you believe something different to actually outright killing someone for it.



But would those same people have refrained from doing so if they were not religious? If so, why don't most religious people still engage in such acts? And is "God wants us to," really the cause, or simply the justification?

While it is sometimes justification it was a justification that at the time relieved the social pressures … at least SOME of these people would have probably refrained if they were being held responsible for actions by society

But with their get out of jail free card religion enabled them (some of them) to do what they had the impulse for without reprisal or condemnation by society as a whole.


Kind of like “Aiding” a criminal … you are not fully responsible for what they do but some of the guilt is on you too

*still waits for exactly how atheism is a religion*

Mostly a "semantics" issue.

If Atheism is derived from a logical and rational viewpoint and one can refute Faith and religion and Spirituality in an official debate situation, it quite possibly is NOT a "religion".

BUT -- if one takes the ABSENCE of god on Faith and avoids church/Spirituality in a sense of tradition because one's parents avoided church/Spirituality then it is as much a religion as the religions it abhors.
Essentially, if one refuses to go to church and one refuses to believe there is a(ny) god, etc. as their own personal belief system and convictions, then it might as well be a religion.

Find "The Boomer Bible" -- a somewhat farcial account of Atheism/YUPpyism as a non-religion.
Complete with hymns in the back.

Cthulhu-Mythos;11626196']Essentially, if one refuses to go to church and one refuses to believe there is a(ny) god, etc. as their own personal belief system and convictions, then it might as well be a religion.

The only thing Atheists have in common is that they do not believe in a deity. Saying that being atheistic is being in a 'religion' would be like saying everyone who does not believe in unicorns are a part of that religion. Ridiculous.

Or, rather, the codification of non-religion. They impose atheism in much the same way that theocracies impose religion - which ranges anywhere from simply making life hell if you believe something different to actually outright killing someone for it.


No - I don't think they 'impose' atheism... I think they impose 'not religion'... which leaves the obvious default of 'atheism'.


But would those same people have refrained from doing so if they were not religious? If so, why don't most religious people still engage in such acts? And is "God wants us to," really the cause, or simply the justification?

I don't know... how can one tell for sure what people would have done in different environments.

But, if one looks at the history of witch trials, one is going to EXPECT to find certain things:

One will expect to find someone with a grudge... power, sex refused, gynophobia... something that has turned one person against some other persons... and one is going to expect to find a lot of people that were 'drawn in' to the events.

Our initiator may have acted in a destructive way no matter what... their religion is just a scapegoat. But - those others that get caught up in the movement... one has to assume most of them were relatively normal, and that their 'bad' actions are 'justified' to them by what they are told to believe.

As to "why don't most religious people still engage in such acts".... the operative term there MIGHT be 'still'. If one reads the Old Testament, one sees that, within the earlier incarnation of the Judeo-Christian trend, 'most' DID engage in such acts. The story of Joshua is a collection of rape, robbery and violence stories with the claimed 'sanction' of god.

Similarly, one can look at the history of European/Christian expansion... from Crusades to Colonies to Cortes in the New World, and find a continued thread of abominations carried out in the name of 'gods'

So - the question is - what has changed? I think, just maybe, Samuel Colt might be responsible... "God created men equal, Col. Colt made them equal..." No longer was being the lone heathen surrounded by a gang of witch-burners an automatic death-sentence. A sudden realisation of your own mortality can be a powerful motivator NOT to get caught up in the moment.

No - I don't think they 'impose' atheism... I think they impose 'not religion'... which leaves the obvious default of 'atheism'.

If believing in a God gets you killed, the only alternative is atheism...

I don't know... how can one tell for sure what people would have done in different environments.

I don't know. But we can look to overall trends - which seem to have occurred regardless of religion.

But, if one looks at the history of witch trials, one is going to EXPECT to find certain things:

One will expect to find someone with a grudge... power, sex refused, gynophobia... something that has turned one person against some other persons... and one is going to expect to find a lot of people that were 'drawn in' to the events.

Most of which probably had some sort of reason to dislike the accused as well. And, back then, lynch mob mentality was the norm, rather than the exception - regardless of religion.

As to "why don't most religious people still engage in such acts".... the operative term there MIGHT be 'still'. If one reads the Old Testament, one sees that, within the earlier incarnation of the Judeo-Christian trend, 'most' DID engage in such acts. The story of Joshua is a collection of rape, robbery and violence stories with the claimed 'sanction' of god.

Indeed, but the ancient Hebrews were hardly the only people who engaged in such acts. As far as human existence of the time goes, such treatment of "other" people was pretty much par for the course - religion was just one more reason of determining "other."

And we still have people get caught up in the "mob mentality" today, about all sorts of things - and religion or "God says so," doesn't even have to be invoked. I don't think being religious makes people more likely to "go along with" atrocities. I think that people, although decreasingly so over the course of human existence, are all too often perfectly willing to go along with what society is doing. As long as some explanation for an atrocity is given, most people will go along with it so long as it is commonly understood to be ok.

Luckily, over the course of history, it has seemed that humanity as a whole has been rejecting atrocities more and more. Acts that would have been seen as perfectly normal in ancient tribal societies are now seen as absolutely out of the question. Acts that would have been perfectly acceptable (so long as carried out against a non-citizen or barbarian) in the days of the Roman Empire are now seen as wrong. Acts that would have been perfectly acceptable, as long as they weren't perpetrated against the nobility, in Medieval times are now rejected. Acts that would have been perfectly acceptable, as long as the person in question had a different skin color, in the early 20th century, are now seen as being wrong. And so on....

Humanity is progressing, and it has little, if anything, to do with how religious the people are or are not. It seems to me that religion, when seen as the "cause" for horrible acts, has more often than not simply been the justification for actions that needed little justification to the peoples of the time.

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?

I think that getting away with this kind of shit is made easier by the fact that, as far as I'm aware, the majority of Christians won't start beating people up or publicly calling for terrorist attacks in response to anything that offends them.

However, just because Christianity is generally a peaceful religion, that doesn't mean Christians should not stand up for what they believe in. Write letters of complaint, and take part in massive protests (during the "Jerry Springer - The Opera" outrage, perhaps there could have been a massive protest that peacefully blocked BBC staff from entering the car park by simply standing in the way.

Indeed, but the ancient Hebrews were hardly the only people who engaged in such acts. As far as human existence of the time goes, such treatment of "other" people was pretty much par for the course - religion was just one more reason of determining "other."

And we still have people get caught up in the "mob mentality" today, about all sorts of things - and religion or "God says so," doesn't even have to be invoked. I don't think being religious makes people more likely to "go along with" atrocities. I think that people, although decreasingly so over the course of human existence, are all too often perfectly willing to go along with what society is doing. As long as some explanation for an atrocity is given, most people will go along with it so long as it is commonly understood to be ok.

Luckily, over the course of history, it has seemed that humanity as a whole has been rejecting atrocities more and more. Acts that would have been seen as perfectly normal in ancient tribal societies are now seen as absolutely out of the question. Acts that would have been perfectly acceptable (so long as carried out against a non-citizen or barbarian) in the days of the Roman Empire are now seen as wrong. Acts that would have been perfectly acceptable, as long as they weren't perpetrated against the nobility, in Medieval times are now rejected. Acts that would have been perfectly acceptable, as long as the person in question had a different skin color, in the early 20th century, are now seen as being wrong. And so on....

Humanity is progressing, and it has little, if anything, to do with how religious the people are or are not. It seems to me that religion, when seen as the "cause" for horrible acts, has more often than not simply been the justification for actions that needed little justification to the peoples of the time.

Well, obviously, as an Atheist, I have to view religion as 'excuse' rather than reason... even if it is 'in' the scripture, I can't personally attach any greater significance to 'thou shalt not suffer a witch to live'... than that some psycho wanted to kill people - I certainly do not consider it any kind of 'rule' from a higher power.

But, inbuilt in these religions is that 'we are better than... them' mentality, which is probably half the appeal... and that is the enabler of such acts. Not that it is LIMITED to religion... this last century has seen a number of other ideologies followed to the same extreme. But - as I said - only religion claims a 'higher' power.

So - are humans getting more 'civilised'? Or is it as simple as the fact that a single citizen can use technology to hurt or kill a number of attackers. I'd imagine God and immortal reward seem pretty distant when the business end of a Colt .45 is between your eyes.

But, inbuilt in these religions is that 'we are better than... them' mentality, which is probably half the appeal... and that is the enabler of such acts.

Not necessarily. Christianity generally teaches that we are *all* fallible, that we *all* make mistakes, simply by virtue of being human beings. The idea that "we are better than them," in the end, is the antithesis of Christianity.

Of course, that hasn't stopped people from using it as such.

Not that it is LIMITED to religion... this last century has seen a number of other ideologies followed to the same extreme. But - as I said - only religion claims a 'higher' power.

But that claim, in the end, doesn't seem to matter. If people are convinced that they are somehow "better" than another group, they will act accordingly. And it doesn't seem that they act out more if that "betterness" is supposedly backed by a higher power. In fact, quite a few horrible actions seem to be an attempt to prove that "betterness", rather than even an idea that God or gods have ordered such actions. After all, if we win, God *must* be on our side, right? And that must mean that God agrees with all the shitty things we do?

And the same goes for non-religious "betterness". After all, if our philosophy is right, then anything we do to spread it *must* be good, right? And if we do win, obviously we were really right?

So - are humans getting more 'civilised'? Or is it as simple as the fact that a single citizen can use technology to hurt or kill a number of attackers. I'd imagine God and immortal reward seem pretty distant when the business end of a Colt .45 is between your eyes.

I honestly think that humans are getting more "civilised", as it were - that humanity itself is, in a way, maturing.

Maybe this is just the eternal optimist shining through, but I do generally tend to be fairly cynical, and this is still my viewpoint on it.

Not necessarily. Christianity generally teaches that we are *all* fallible, that we *all* make mistakes, simply by virtue of being human beings. The idea that "we are better than them," in the end, is the antithesis of Christianity.


No - I think this is false modesty... a cover for an assurance of superiority. One only needs to start a debate about the soul (which, in the Hebrew, is neither immortal, nor unique to humans) to see that there are certain assumed superiorities.

And the glee with which some embrace their 'equality in sin' makes it obvious that it is something they would LIKE to be true... something they take as a badge of pride. It becomes a hollowmouthed platitude... a lipservice mantra... a way of claiming superiority by pretending to be humble.

I don't even believe it really matches scripture... I think Jesus was pretty clear that there are two different classes of people, one intrinsically 'better' than the other, and that the division was largely one of theology.

I honestly think that humans are getting more "civilised", as it were - that humanity itself is, in a way, maturing.

Maybe this is just the eternal optimist shining through, but I do generally tend to be fairly cynical, and this is still my viewpoint on it.

I would like to believe this, I really would. Maybe I'm a greater cynic.

One thing people need to understand is that the ACLU is everybody's bitch. They are at the beckon call of anyone who could conceivably considered to be oppressed/discriminated. I find claims that Christians are under attack in America to be absurd when they are the majority of people in the country.